Science
16 Oct 14
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHow do you explain 4 different types of ebola when the human host dies so quickly in 3 out of 4 of them? Herpes does not kill it's host and there are only 2 types of that. Give me a lesson in evolution please. Teach me.
For pities sake. To be a usable biological weapon it needs to be more or less spherical, the particle size needs to be in the right range, larger and its not airborne, smaller and it just gets breathed out again. At that size the particles pick up electrostatic charge and tend to clump, so part of weaponization is defending against that aspect. Filovi ...[text shortened]... f the world are due to evil, but they are not - nature takes some of us early from time to time.
18 Oct 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal Braintwhitehead is correct. It is native mainly to fruit bats and certainly not humans:
How do you explain 4 different types of ebola when the human host dies so quickly in 3 out of 4 of them? Herpes does not kill it's host and there are only 2 types of that. Give me a lesson in evolution please. Teach me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease
"...Fruit bats are believed to be the normal carrier in nature, able to spread the virus without being affected. Humans become infected by contact with the bats or a living or dead animal that has been infected by bats. ..."
So the Ebola virus has actually evolved to survive in fruit bats and evolved to not kill them because a dead bat is less likely to successfully spread the virus than a live one so it isn't in the reproductive interest of the virus to kill its host. Although many types of viruses often kill their hosts, that is just mainly because evolution is a sloppy blind unintelligent process that therefore, just as expected, often does a very far from perfect job of optimize the lifeform (or virus ) for maximum survival and reproductive success. If, hypothetically, all viruses were perfectly and intelligently optimized for reproductive success, we should expect that very few if any would harm let alone kill their hosts! A sick host would presumably generally not able to travel so far or so often to spread it.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyThat is not entirely true. Many virus' cause sickness specifically because it results in increasing the likelihood of spreading. Coughing, opens sores, or as in the case of rabies, biting, all help to spread a virus.
A sick host would presumably generally not able to travel so far or so often to spread it.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadEbola is native to fruit bats then Monkeys who eat fruit get bit by the bats or possibly contaminated fruit then people eat the infected monkeys and they also eat the bats ......bush meat ......apparently Ebola is of the same family as Marburg virus
Ebola is not native to humans. Simple.
Manny
18 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said " A sick host would presumably generally not able to travel so far or so often to spread it."
That is not entirely true. Many virus' cause sickness specifically because it results in increasing the likelihood of spreading. Coughing, opens sores, or as in the case of rabies, biting, all help to spread a virus.
I also think that the virus may often be able to spread to more other hosts in the long run if it is able to stay hidden in the host for a very long time without producing symptoms as opposed to staying in the host for only a relatively shorter time but showing symptoms (although it is possible to show symptoms long term if the immune system doesn't fight it off, this increases the risk of natural selection eliminates the host making it less long term) -it may be less infectious if it showed no symptoms but, in compensation, it would have more time to spread from that host before the host ceases to be infectious (either because it becomes immune or because it dies )
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by humyI am not sure why you have emphasized 'host'. My point is that many diseases cause sickness in their host as part of their strategy to ensure transmission. Although killing or restricting movement in the host may be a detriment to spreading, other effects may outweigh that.
No, I said " A sick [b]HOST would presumably generally not able to travel so far or so often to spread it."[/b]
I could probably easily list ten or twenty diseases that cause a specific behavior that benefits its spread ie they do not remain benign.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadpoint taken.
I am not sure why you have emphasized 'host'. My point is that many diseases cause sickness in their host as part of their strategy to ensure transmission. Although killing or restricting movement in the host may be a detriment to spreading, other effects may outweigh that.
I could probably easily list ten or twenty diseases that cause a specific behavior that benefits its spread ie they do not remain benign.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by menace71Bats that eat fruit do not bite other animals. Disease is passed on to other primates by the bats partially eating fruit and then dropping it. Saliva left on the fruit passes the bug on to gorillas, chimps and other primates who find the fruit and eat it. In the case of humans it comes from the preparation of the fruit bat. Once the bat is cooked it is safe as a temperature of 60 Celcius is sufficient to kill filoviruses.
Ebola is native to fruit bats then Monkeys who eat fruit get bit by the bats or possibly contaminated fruit then people eat the infected monkeys and they also eat the bats ......bush meat ......apparently Ebola is of the same family as Marburg virus
Manny
If you take a look at the Wikipedia page I'll reference below it gives the family tree. The species name is Zaire Ebolavirus or just Ebola virus (note the space), the genus is Ebolavirus and the family is filoviridae. They are in the order mononegavirales which also includes such nasties as measles, mumps and rabies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus
19 Oct 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainSee the bottom post on page 1. Aerosol transmission is less concerning than it being fully airborne, the water droplets just aren't as mobile.
Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola
In the meantime a 50 year old man has been placed in isolation in Colchester General Hospital. He was in East Africa, so not in the affected areas, but has a fever and possibly with the American experience in mind they decided to isolate him anyway. The think that it is highly unlikely that he has Ebola, so they are being unnecessarily paranoid. But on the other hand it's the right mistake to make as it means that if they do get a real case they won't make the wrong mistake.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29673678