Ebola

Originally posted by DeepThought
See the bottom post on page 1. Aerosol transmission is less concerning than it being fully airborne, the water droplets just aren't as mobile.

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 ...[text shortened]... l case they won't make the wrong mistake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29673678

I can read. My point is that it is becoming more contagious than before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798086/mutant-ebola-warning-leading-u-s-scientist-warns-deadly-virus-changing-contagious.html

I think the claim that travel restrictions will prevent medical supplies from reaching infected areas of Africa is stupid. The military is already involved and they can transport medical supplies. There is no need for private airliners to transport passengers when the military is involved, but if a mandatory quarantine is implemented it would not matter to me. People simply have to know there is no fast trip to the USA with free movement.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I can read. My point is that it is becoming more contagious than before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798086/mutant-ebola-warning-leading-u-s-scientist-warns-deadly-virus-changing-contagious.html

I think the claim that travel restrictions will prevent medical supplies from reaching infected areas of Africa is stupid. The military is alr ...[text shortened]... ot matter to me. People simply have to know there is no fast trip to the USA with free movement.

The military is already involved and they can transport medical supplies.

And obviously, any military will take the aid supplies given to them by non-military organizations without question and transport them to where they are needed a.s.a.p.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Many virus' that people get are not native to humans. Ebola is not special in that way.

so? It still answers your question:
"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. ..."

actually, there are at least 8 that infect humans and at least 130 altogether because I just looked this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpesviridae
" In total, there are 8 herpesvirus types that infect humans
...There are more than 130 herpesviruses"

I assume the 8 herpesvirus types that infect humans most probably have been evolving to infect humans over thousands or even possibly millions of years and so can be said to be 'native' to humans.

Originally posted by humy
so? It still answers your question:
"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. ..."

actually, there are at least 8 that infect humans and at least 130 altogether because I just looked this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org ...[text shortened]... s over thousands or even possibly millions of years and so can be said to be 'native' to humans.

Thanks. I didn't know there were 8 that infect humans. I thought chickenpox virus was different because it is called varicella zoster. I noticed that wikipedia says this:
"VZV is closely related to the herpes simplex viruses (HSV), sharing much genome homology."

Chicken pox is not called herpes simplex or (HSV). I'm not sure why. Are they distant relatives? Chicken pox infects only humans according to wikipedia. Most herpes type virus infect other species.

"I assume the 8 herpesvirus types that infect humans most probably have been evolving to infect humans over thousands or even possibly millions of years and so can be said to be 'native' to humans."

After 8 herpes related virus' infecting humans for millions of years it seems like ebola having 4 after less than 50 years of infecting humans is a lot. Were there 4 before humans became infected? It doesn't seem likely 3 more could evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b] The military is already involved and they can transport medical supplies.

And obviously, any military will take the aid supplies given to them by non-military organizations without question and transport them to where they are needed a.s.a.p.[/b]

Are you implying they will not?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
After 8 herpes related virus' infecting humans for millions of years it seems like ebola having 4 after less than 50 years of infecting humans is a lot. Were there 4 before humans became infected? It doesn't seem likely 3 more could evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

Ebola does not generally remain in humans for very long. It has not been in humans for less than 50 years as you suggest, but rather it was first identified in humans less than 50 years ago, and the individual outbreaks are much more recent, with each outbreak being originating in bats.
It has probably been in bats for millions of years, and probably been infecting monkeys and humans and our ancestors for just as long.
We have no idea whether or not there are only four strains in bats.
As far as I know the most recent outbreak is from a single source and is therefore a single strain.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Are you implying they will not?

It's not necessarily what they are there for. Clearly logistics is one of those problems that armies are good at solving. Britain has sent RFA Argus which has a fully operational hospital, it's armed so not classed as a hospital ship, but that is the only reason why not. Of the crew of 350 there are 83 medics. Being military I think it is quite plausible they'll have facilities for coping with biological warfare victims, so Ebola won't be a problem for them. As I understand it their job is to treat medics who have been infected with the bug. They don't want Sierra Leone running out of Doctors and they represent 10% of cases.

It was converted from an aviation training role to being a hospital ship for Operation Granby (Gulf war in 1991) and the aviation role is now secondary. This does mean though that patients can be brought in by helicopter. She has her own Wikipedia page so you can read the publicly available information there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ebola does not generally remain in humans for very long. It has not been in humans for less than 50 years as you suggest, but rather it was first identified in humans less than 50 years ago, and the individual outbreaks are much more recent, with each outbreak being originating in bats.
It has probably been in bats for millions of years, and probably bee ...[text shortened]... far as I know the most recent outbreak is from a single source and is therefore a single strain.

From what I've read it's more recent than that, the genus diverged from Marburg disease a couple of millennia ago. One theory is that the plague of Athens was due to hemorrhagic fever, Thucydides talks about care-givers being particularly affected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Athens#Viral_hemorrhagic_fever

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Thanks. I didn't know there were 8 that infect humans. I thought chickenpox virus was different because it is called varicella zoster. I noticed that wikipedia says this:
"VZV is closely related to the herpes simplex viruses (HSV), sharing much genome homology."

Chicken pox is not called herpes simplex or (HSV). I'm not sure why. Are they distant re ...[text shortened]... d evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

After 8 herpes related virus' infecting humans for millions of years it seems like ebola having 4 after less than 50 years of infecting humans is a lot. Were there 4 before humans became infected? It doesn't seem likely 3 more could evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

No, no no, those 4 strains evolved over millions of years in fruit bats, NOT humans. Those 4 strains didn't suddenly evolve in the last few years! That's because they were there all along; just not in the human population but rather in the bat population. Those 4 strains are then sometimes accidentally passed onto humans which they are poorly adapted to use as hosts because they usually quickly kill the human hosts thus limiting their own spread. Remember, it isn't generally in the viruses interest to kill its own host esp quickly! No host means no means for the virus to reproduce.

Originally posted by humy

After 8 herpes related virus' infecting humans for millions of years it seems like ebola having 4 after less than 50 years of infecting humans is a lot. Were there 4 before humans became infected? It doesn't seem likely 3 more could evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

No, no no, those ...[text shortened]... in the viruses interest to kill its own host! No host means no means for the virus to reproduce.

Up to a point, with a ready supply of hosts there's no evolutionary pressure for the bug to become less virulent. This is no reason for alarmism however. One worry is that a less virulent strain, that say only kills 10% of its hosts, appears during this epidemic and becomes endemic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Unless it mutates and starts to spread more easily, it will not be much of a problem. It does not spread rapidly like the flu or measles, but rather requires fairly close contact.
Yes it is quite dangerous, but so are rabies, anthrax and any number of other diseases - none of which you typically worry too much about. My room mate at Universit ...[text shortened]... ortality rates higher than ebola, and both can probably be transmitted in similar ways to ebola.

Tell that to those in Liberia.

Originally posted by whodey
Tell that to those in Liberia.

I believe he meant it isn't a real big rational worry for those in Livingstone, USA etc. So far the worst of it seems to be confined to just a few African countries that lack adequate basic preparation to contain it.
Certainly I don't think it would be likely to become a big problem in the UK where I live.

Originally posted by humy

After 8 herpes related virus' infecting humans for millions of years it seems like ebola having 4 after less than 50 years of infecting humans is a lot. Were there 4 before humans became infected? It doesn't seem likely 3 more could evolve in humans in such a short period of time, especially when most human hosts die from it.

No, no no, those ...[text shortened]... es interest to kill its own host esp quickly! No host means no means for the virus to reproduce.

Perhaps fruit bats have more ebola virus' that man has not been infected with yet. What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Perhaps fruit bats have more ebola virus' that man has not been infected with yet. What is your source of information?

It's quite likely there'll be a novel disease found in the next twenty years or so. It's less likely to be an ebolavirus species as they have been a focus of investigation for the last few years.

Originally posted by whodey
Tell that to those in Liberia.

https://www.facebook.com/captpaulwatson/photos/a.443115070931.234296.155430570931/10152715015025932/?type=1