8 ms·

I thought it was well known that ebola can be spread through any bodily fluids and that this includes droplets from coughing and sneezing. What they don't yet k

I thought it was well known that ebola can be spread through any bodily fluids and that this includes droplets from coughing and sneezing. What they don't yet know is whether ebola is 'airborne' - i.e. dried droplets that can float in air as is the case with measles for example.

rustyconover 12y ago
If you asked 10 average people what they think "airborne" means in this context, I doubt they'd say there is a difference between wet and dry transmission. I'd say for the purposes of argument, if a guy coughs violently on you because he's sick there is risk you could get Ebola. If a guy vomits in the subway car, apparently there is a risk of Ebola transmission. I've been on the subway cars and in taxi cabs it happens more than you think. Do you think they bleach all of those things adequately? No way, the financial incentives don't align to properly do it. The government is using semantics and spin to their advantage by saying it isn't airborne via dried viral transmission. The WHO agrees[1] that it also isn't airborne, but also admits surfaces can transmit the virus. Most officials omit this detailed explanation since they have no adequate explanation of how to decontaminate the urban environment en masse if an outbreak does occur. In the end we all have to assess our own risk profiles. Will I stand or sit next to somebody coughing? I doubt it. Or will I take mass transit if I can easily walk to where I need to be by leaving a bit earlier? Nope. [1] - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en...
hackuser 12y ago
> I thought it was well known that ebola can be spread through any bodily fluids and that this includes droplets from coughing and sneezing. What they don't yet know is whether ebola is 'airborne' - i.e. dried droplets that can float in air as is the case with measles for example. I would suggest to everyone: Don't comment on questions like this one (how Ebola spreads) unless you know for certain what you are saying and can back it up. We have complete saturation of rumors and bad information; adding to it won't improve the situation. I don't mean to criticize the commenter above; they just happened to have the top-most comment of this kind. EDIT: What a strong signal of over-reaction when a post that says you should know what you are talking about, on HN, is modded down. (I don't care how it's modded, it's just depressing to see this response here.) EDIT: The same applies to my other post, which asks serious, legitimate questions in a non-offensive way. How sad.
- 001sky 12y ago
  This (above) comment has no citations and the one you are responding to (GP) is substantially correct. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113787/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113787/ Ebola and Marburg viruses are the sole members of the genus Filovirus in the family Filoviridae. There has been considerable media attention and fear generated by outbreaks of filoviruses because they can cause a severe viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) syndrome that has a rapid onset and high mortality. Although they are not naturally transmitted by aerosol, they are highly infectious as respirable particles under laboratory conditions. For these and other reasons, filoviruses are classified as category A biological weapons. However, there is very little data from animal studies with aerosolized filoviruses. Animal models of filovirus exposure are not well characterized, and there are discrepancies between these models and what has been observed in human outbreaks. Building on published results from aerosol studies, as well as a review of the history, epidemiology, and disease course of naturally occurring outbreaks, we offer an aerobiologist's perspective on the threat posed by aerosolized filoviruses." or Our study has shown that Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV) and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) can survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks. The decay rates of ZEBOV and Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) plus MARV within a dynamic aerosol were calculated. ZEBOV and MARV had similar decay rates, whilst REBOV showed significantly better survival within an aerosol." Reston is not Ebola, but a close relative.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    What you posted is from good sources and is interesting, but I'm not sure it's conclusive or helps. They are two studies/reports of possibly many and I don't know their credibility or if they represent consensus or fringe, good science or bad. Also, they require expertise to interpret and draw conclusions from. We're not qualified to perform our own analysis; what we need are conclusive analyses from experts about the scientific consensus and range of possibilities.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
adventured 12y ago
These credible professionals certainly seem to think ebola can infect via aerosol, and perhaps remain in the air for up to an hour: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentar... I have to believe the US Government already knows that ebola is capable of this, they've been studying it for decades. If it can spread by aerosol, they're lying to prevent substantially more panic. Downvoters should start by refuting the linked article - it's a pretty important article. The authors are guaranteed to know a lot more about ebola than anyone here.

rustyconover 12y ago

If you asked 10 average people what they think "airborne" means in this context, I doubt they'd say there is a difference between wet and dry transmission. I'd say for the purposes of argument, if a guy coughs violently on you because he's sick there is risk you could get Ebola. If a guy vomits in the subway car, apparently there is a risk of Ebola transmission. I've been on the subway cars and in taxi cabs it happens more than you think. Do you think they bleach all of those things adequately? No way, the financial incentives don't align to properly do it. The government is using semantics and spin to their advantage by saying it isn't airborne via dried viral transmission. The WHO agrees[1] that it also isn't airborne, but also admits surfaces can transmit the virus. Most officials omit this detailed explanation since they have no adequate explanation of how to decontaminate the urban environment en masse if an outbreak does occur. In the end we all have to assess our own risk profiles. Will I stand or sit next to somebody coughing? I doubt it. Or will I take mass transit if I can easily walk to where I need to be by leaving a bit earlier? Nope. [1] - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en...

hackuser 12y ago

> I thought it was well known that ebola can be spread through any bodily fluids and that this includes droplets from coughing and sneezing. What they don't yet know is whether ebola is 'airborne' - i.e. dried droplets that can float in air as is the case with measles for example. I would suggest to everyone: Don't comment on questions like this one (how Ebola spreads) unless you know for certain what you are saying and can back it up. We have complete saturation of rumors and bad information; adding to it won't improve the situation. I don't mean to criticize the commenter above; they just happened to have the top-most comment of this kind. EDIT: What a strong signal of over-reaction when a post that says you should know what you are talking about, on HN, is modded down. (I don't care how it's modded, it's just depressing to see this response here.) EDIT: The same applies to my other post, which asks serious, legitimate questions in a non-offensive way. How sad.

001sky 12y ago
This (above) comment has no citations and the one you are responding to (GP) is substantially correct. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113787/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113787/ Ebola and Marburg viruses are the sole members of the genus Filovirus in the family Filoviridae. There has been considerable media attention and fear generated by outbreaks of filoviruses because they can cause a severe viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) syndrome that has a rapid onset and high mortality. Although they are not naturally transmitted by aerosol, they are highly infectious as respirable particles under laboratory conditions. For these and other reasons, filoviruses are classified as category A biological weapons. However, there is very little data from animal studies with aerosolized filoviruses. Animal models of filovirus exposure are not well characterized, and there are discrepancies between these models and what has been observed in human outbreaks. Building on published results from aerosol studies, as well as a review of the history, epidemiology, and disease course of naturally occurring outbreaks, we offer an aerobiologist's perspective on the threat posed by aerosolized filoviruses." or Our study has shown that Lake Victoria marburgvirus (MARV) and Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) can survive for long periods in different liquid media and can also be recovered from plastic and glass surfaces at low temperatures for over 3 weeks. The decay rates of ZEBOV and Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) plus MARV within a dynamic aerosol were calculated. ZEBOV and MARV had similar decay rates, whilst REBOV showed significantly better survival within an aerosol." Reston is not Ebola, but a close relative.
- hackuser 12y ago
  What you posted is from good sources and is interesting, but I'm not sure it's conclusive or helps. They are two studies/reports of possibly many and I don't know their credibility or if they represent consensus or fringe, good science or bad. Also, they require expertise to interpret and draw conclusions from. We're not qualified to perform our own analysis; what we need are conclusive analyses from experts about the scientific consensus and range of possibilities.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

adventured 12y ago

These credible professionals certainly seem to think ebola can infect via aerosol, and perhaps remain in the air for up to an hour: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentar... I have to believe the US Government already knows that ebola is capable of this, they've been studying it for decades. If it can spread by aerosol, they're lying to prevent substantially more panic. Downvoters should start by refuting the linked article - it's a pretty important article. The authors are guaranteed to know a lot more about ebola than anyone here.