Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? All they would have to do is introduce their bodily fluids at salad bars or buffet places. Maybe it wouldn't spread as far and wide as in Africa but it would be effective in spreading fear.
All this "ebola in the cities" nonsense is more wishful thinking by survivalists who really, really want to justify all the money they spent on ammo and MREs. Ebola isn't all that easy to transmit, it generally isn't as simple as touching the same piece of metal in the subway. Same with the "low-tech bioweapon" approach, it's more fantasy than reality.
We have modern sanitation, plumbing, medicine etc. largely in response to the effects of disease on 19th century cities. We have learned a whole lot about disease since then. There are far greater risks than ebola in terms of actual consequences--such as, for example, people who don't vaccinate their kids because of fears about what the vaccine shot will do, without thinking about what the diseases those vaccinations prevent will do to their kids--such as killing them, in numbers a lot greater than the ebola outbreak.
I still think the NYC subways are a major potential vector for Ebola. It can be transmitted by bodily fluids, so all you have to do is touch the same subway pole that an Ebola-shedding person did, then touch your face, and you can be infected. Whether it will actually happen depends on how much virus people shed before they get too sick to go out and about; it could have started already.
There are thousands of cities with city buses. If someone who has the first symptoms of ebola travels on a city bus, how many of the other passengers will get infected? How many days before all the passengers of all the buses get infected? Assuming people who ride one bus are likely to ride others.
All this "ebola in the cities" nonsense is more wishful thinking by survivalists who really, really want to justify all the money they spent on ammo and MREs. Ebola isn't all that easy to transmit, it generally isn't as simple as touching the same piece of metal in the subway. Same with the "low-tech bioweapon" approach, it's more fantasy than reality.
We have modern sanitation, plumbing, medicine etc. largely in response to the effects of disease on 19th century cities. We have learned a whole lot about disease since then. There are far greater risks than ebola in terms of actual consequences--such as, for example, people who don't vaccinate their kids because of fears about what the vaccine shot will do, without thinking about what the diseases those vaccinations prevent will do to their kids--such as killing them, in numbers a lot greater than the ebola outbreak.
If there is an intentional effort to spread ebola you don't think it possible? Bless your heart.
Can Ebola spread by coughing? By sneezing?
Unlike respiratory illnesses like measles or chickenpox, which can be transmitted by virus particles that remain suspended in the air after an infected person coughs or sneezes, Ebola is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids of a person who has symptoms of Ebola disease. Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease.
What does “direct contact” mean?
Direct contact means that body fluids (blood, saliva, mucus, vomit, urine, or feces) from an infected person (alive or dead) have touched someone’s eyes, nose, or mouth or an open cut, wound, or abrasion.
How long does Ebola live outside the body?
Ebola is killed with hospital-grade disinfectants (such as household bleach). Ebola on dry surfaces, such as doorknobs and countertops, can survive for several hours; however, virus in body fluids (such as blood) can survive up to several days at room temperature.
All someone would need is an infected person or the dead body of an Ebola victim. Think of all the places where the public gathers that could be intentionally infected.
All this "ebola in the cities" nonsense is more wishful thinking by survivalists who really, really want to justify all the money they spent on ammo and MREs. Ebola isn't all that easy to transmit, it generally isn't as simple as touching the same piece of metal in the subway. Same with the "low-tech bioweapon" approach, it's more fantasy than reality.
We have modern sanitation, plumbing, medicine etc. largely in response to the effects of disease on 19th century cities. We have learned a whole lot about disease since then. There are far greater risks than ebola in terms of actual consequences--such as, for example, people who don't vaccinate their kids because of fears about what the vaccine shot will do, without thinking about what the diseases those vaccinations prevent will do to their kids--such as killing them, in numbers a lot greater than the ebola outbreak.
I'm certainly with you on the immunization issue, something that lots of younger hipsters do not agree with, BTW. But you've worked in social services so you know. However, I don't think Ebola is something to be blown off.
If that first Ebola patient had come to the office where I work, or the ER next to our office (more likely since we're pediatrics), I don't think his case would have been handled any better. It might have been handled differently, but "mistakes would have been made". I know we certainly wouldn't have cleared out our waiting room and jumped into our PPE gear, which we don't even have. All we have is gloves and masks. The guy's symptoms were similar to what we, and probably most ERs, see every day, and we're not seeing Ebola every day. I do agree with you that Ebola probably won't be used as a bio-weapon, b/c it really is harder to transmit than say, measles.
I still think the NYC subways are a major potential vector for Ebola. It can be transmitted by bodily fluids, so all you have to do is touch the same subway pole that an Ebola-shedding person did, then touch your face, and you can be infected. Whether it will actually happen depends on how much virus people shed before they get too sick to go out and about; it could have started already.
From what I've read an ebola victim gets more contagious as they get sicker. By the time they're high risk, they're too sick to go out and about.
Low risk does not mean at no risk (to others). Things happen.
Sure - and on average 20,000 Americans die from the flu every year. A number that could be cut dramatically with a small increase in funding for vaccinations. About 5,000 Americans die from food poisoning every year. A number that could be nearly eliminated by increased spending on food inspections.
And people are freaked out by Ebola...Seriously?!?!? You could be living in the worst hit parts of Africa and your risks of dying from Ebola would still be many times lower than your risks of dying from the flu in the US.
Lagos - freaking LAGOS - got it under control and Nigeria is now Ebola free. While the CDC certainly needs to move on it aggressively (which I believe they are) it poses an almost miniscule threat to anyone living in the US.
10 or 15 willing Isis fighters catch the virus and go out of their way to infect people is my concern. Low tech bioweapon.
Ain't gonna happen.
Ebola is a terrible bioweapon, it simply doesn't spread quickly or easily enough. There are many more transmittable viruses that live for much longer outside the human body that they could use. For example: any flu virus, smallpox, measles, SARS....
Bio-attacks have generally not been used by terrorists. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the biggest one is that it is hard to take credit for an outbreak of any disease. Terrorists want something they can clearly claim, i.e. a single big event (think 9/11). That's impossible to get with an outbreak, even if it was possible to cause one.
Sure - and on average 20,000 Americans die from the flu every year. A number that could be cut dramatically with a small increase in funding for vaccinations. About 5,000 Americans die from food poisoning every year. A number that could be nearly eliminated by increased spending on food inspections.
And people are freaked out by Ebola...Seriously?!?!? You could be living in the worst hit parts of Africa and your risks of dying from Ebola would still be many times lower than your risks of dying from the flu in the US.
Lagos - freaking LAGOS - got it under control and Nigeria is now Ebola free. While the CDC certainly needs to move on it aggressively (which I believe they are) it poses an almost miniscule threat to anyone living in the US.
The big problem with flu immunization is getting people to get the vaccine. There is no funding problem. Virtually all insurance including Medicare pays for flu vaccine, and there are public programs for the uninsured, particularly uninsured children. Many non-profits also offer free shots. You can get flu shots for as low as $15 at Costco if you're a member. Where to Get Free or the Cheapest Flu Shots (updated for 2014)
I'd be interested in seeing some links about the food poisoning issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could be living in the worst hit parts of Africa and your risks of dying from Ebola would still be many times lower than your risks of dying from the flu in the US.
