It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ebola death toll doubles to 31 in Congo: WHO

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:33 PM
The Ebola virus is not an airborne pathogen.

However, the outbreak in Reston, Va. was an airborne situation, if I am not mistaken

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by crazyguy2012

These tings are good points that you bring to the table. The advantage that while it could go in the direction you describe (any infectious disease could, really), it also helps when it comes to containment measures. (Specifically because it's not airborne)
because you know how to handle it. Like I said, we can only hope that the MSF and other agencies clam down on this as soon as possible. I have a feeling they will, personally. They have teams that are for specifically dealing with Ebola.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:18 PM
Alright in reference to the "cell phone" case that seems to have bits of rumor flying around attached to it, I present to you folks this:

I consider ProMed-Mail to be a very reliable resource, and here they report on the cell phone case, as it were, and we find out that the fellow didn't have ebola and was eventually discharged from the hospital.

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by Firefly_

The original death toll was 14 I believe it did double within a week and has now surpassed that.

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by BBobb
This is a truly terrible disease. I remember reading a book about it from Robin Cook that I believe was called Hot Zone...and I found it truly terrifying. It ravages the body and the final death result is essentially a liquifying of the organs, and as the person dies blood and matter evacuates itself from every opening in the body. Terrible. Fortunately, as someone above mentioned, it works so quickly that it burns itself out. This is the problem with diseases like AIDS, the damned incubation period and asymptomatic lulls are so lengthy that it allows for years of transferrence. Diseases that hit like a sledgehammer, such as Ebola, are actually "better" (I hope you all understand what I mean when I say that), in as much as they produce symptoms and death very quickly, thereby limiting the pathogens ability to spread amongst the populace.

May God bless and care for those who suffer this terrible demise. It is survivable, but has something in the order of 90% mortality, maybe more. I could wiki it, but hey, I'm drinking coffee in the morning watching my soap opera (Supernatural...yes, I'm a huge nerd, I am after all on ATS) I'll leave it to another. Peace all...

Thanks for the info, It is just what I was wondering.
edit on 15-9-2012 by okyouwin because: clarity

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

What I know about Ebola mainly boils down to a couple of research papers I did in college about 10 years ago, so it's a bit dated, but here's the basics I recall:

There are two strains of Ebola. One is more deadly - like a 90% fatality rate, but typically doesn't spread far. The reason it doesn't spread far is because onset of symptoms is so fast and so furious that before one gets a chance to travel far (if "one" is a non-mobile native in Africa, that is), the person is bedridden, amd quickly on his or her way out.

The other strain is about 50% fatal, and a bit slower-acting. As a result, it spreads more readily. "Patient Zero" can interact with more individuals, possibly even going to the next town before feeling ill. Lower fatality rate, longer incubation and opportunity to spread.

What I know about treatment is this: first off, Ebola outbreaks have mostly occured in areas of Africa without the best medical care, and without necessarily having proper biohazard facilities. It is thought that if an outbreak were to occur in a more medically-modernized and equipped area, the fatality rate could be sigbificantly lower. Unfortunately, it would likely also affect thousands, or tens/hundreds of thousands, potentially grossly overwhelming sufficiently equipped facilities.

As to what treatment consists of...the best treatment regimen for Ebola is fluids and cooling. That's right, ice baths and IVs. The human body simply needs to be given the time it needs to fight off the virus. There's no anti-Ebola pill, you can't filter it out of the blood through dialysis. You simply need aid in giving the body time for an adequate immune response. Cooling the body temp and keeping hydrated is how you do this. Even then, a robust immune system is one's only hope, even with the medical assist.

Some day, Ebola is going to arrive on an intercontinental flight. Letbus hope when it does, itt is caught while it can still be contained. I hope precautions are taken, but even precautions are only going to reduce, bit eliminate that one chance "whoopsie."

My last thought...we always think about how terrible a world-wide outbreak would be. I'd like for anyone whose interest this topic catches, including myself, to think of the people in an effected area, and the terror they must be facing. Hope/pray/whatever for them to be safe, and remain strong in the face of terrifying adversity.

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:09 AM
(double post, stupid phone)
edit on 9/15/2012 by dogstar23 because: double post

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by dogstar23

I believe they have now found about four different strains. You know what they say "Where there is four there is probably more"..... I don't know if they say that but it rhymes.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in