Pete Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/04/08...gola/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Lets hope that it spreads into Iran. That will make the pending invasion a little easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 Lets hope that it spreads into Iran. That will make the pending invasion a little easier. 301697[/snapback] To hell with that! It is highly contagious and has killed 193 out of 218 people infected. I cant beleive this doesnt get more press. Ebola has an incubation period of 2-21 days All it takes is one infected person to go to Cairo and chances are someone boarding a plane contracts it. Some ebola strains have a 90% fatality rate. One person boards a plane- goodbye 90% of 7 billion people. This is Marburg- which is even more lethal then Ebola. They are biologically similar and both cause hemorrhagic fevers. They are brutally agonizing deaths where your insides are liquified and blood pours out of every orifice in your body. Truly frightening stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 What I want to know is how the virus "resurfaces." What I mean is this is a new outbreak... How did it get "fired" up. Can't they isolate Angola until the virus is surpressed? Sorry... Didn't read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 To hell with that! It is highly contagious and has killed 193 out of 218 people infected. I cant beleive this doesnt get more press. Ebola has an incubation period of 2-21 days All it takes is one infected person to go to Cairo and chances are someone boarding a plane contracts it. Some ebola strains have a 90% fatality rate. One person boards a plane- goodbye 90% of 7 billion people. This is Marburg- which is even more lethal then Ebola. They are biologically similar and both cause hemorrhagic fevers. They are brutally agonizing deaths where your insides are liquified and blood pours out of every orifice in your body. Truly frightening stuff Marburg is less virulent than Ebola. Ebola's mortality rate is around 88%, versus 23% for Marburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Just read the article. It spreads via bodily fluids. Sanitary conditions have to be extremely bad in parts of Africa? Doesn't the chance of increased infection and spread of the disease go down as it makes it way towards the "first world." Not that is can't be a factor either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 Marburg is less virulent than Ebola. Ebola's mortality rate is around 88%, versus 23% for Marburg. 302174[/snapback] 193 dead out of 218 infected. How do you figure Marburg is less virulent? Edit- according to the WHO- The outbreak has killed 194 of the 214 known cases, according to the WHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 Just read the article. It spreads via bodily fluids. Sanitary conditions have to be extremely bad in parts of Africa? Doesn't the chance of increased infection and spread of the disease go down as it makes it way towards the "first world." Not that is can't be a factor either? 302179[/snapback] There is some debate whether these virus' can become airborne or not. Most conclude that they are not airborne. As for bodily fluids any bead of sweat is highly contagious. 9 people infected in this strain are doctors. Just touching someones skin will spread it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 193 dead out of 218 infected. How do you figure Marburg is less virulent? Edit- according to the WHO- The outbreak has killed 194 of the 214 known cases, according to the WHO. 302190[/snapback] Most previously identified Marburg cases have been in places where Western medical treatment has been available...thus, the roughly 30% mortality rate. In the middle of nowhere, Angola, where the per capita health budget is maybe $10 per person...sure, it's going to be close to 90%. Neither one of you is wrong. And for all anyone knows, this is a new strain of Marburg...there are at least four strains of Ebola with widely differing mortality rates, so it's not unprecedented. At least on that particular topic. On others...you're whacked. Known strains of Marburg and Ebola do not spread so easily that one person can take one plane and wipe out the world (the effective spread of either requires close contact with infected bodily fluids, which is why previous outbreaks and epidemics have been stopped cold by ending the practices of sharing needles and African funeral rites.) Marburg is not more deadly than Ebola, at least for being more treatable (anti-coagulants are very successful in treating Marburg, actually). Beads of sweat aren't highly contagious...but patients start to hemmorage through their skin, and their blood is highly contagious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 Most previously identified Marburg cases have been in places where Western medical treatment has been available...thus, the roughly 30% mortality rate. In the middle of nowhere, Angola, where the per capita health budget is maybe $10 per person...sure, it's going to be close to 90%. Neither one of you is wrong. And for all anyone knows, this is a new strain of Marburg...there are at least four strains of Ebola with widely differing mortality rates, so it's not unprecedented. At least on that particular topic. On others...you're whacked. Known strains of Marburg and Ebola do not spread so easily that one person can take one plane and wipe out the world (the effective spread of either requires close contact with infected bodily fluids, which is why previous outbreaks and epidemics have been stopped cold by ending the practices of sharing needles and African funeral rites.) Marburg is not more deadly than Ebola, at least for being more treatable (anti-coagulants are very successful in treating Marburg, actually). Beads of sweat aren't highly contagious...but patients start to hemmorage through their skin, and their blood is highly contagious. 302219[/snapback] From the WHO- Fatality rates for outbreaks of Marburg VHF have ranged from approximately 25% to 80%; mortality has been higher in outbreaks in which effective case management was lacking. No vaccine or curative treatment is available, and supportive treatment should be used. The virus can be spread to humans through direct contact with body fluids (e.g., blood, saliva, and urine) of an infected person or animal. Thus, the best protection for persons in or traveling to the outbreak area is to avoid direct contact with body fluids from potentially infected persons. Virus transmission also might be possible through contact with objects (e.g., medical equipment) that have been contaminated with infectious material. The virus has been reported to survive for as long as several days on contaminated surfaces (2). Hospital infection-control practices for infected patients should include contact and droplet precautions, in addition to wearing eye protection or a face shield. U.S. clinicians caring for patients with suspected Marburg virus infection should contact CDC or local public health officials for additional information about VHF infection control. Check out The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. The book proposes the notion that Marburg or Ebola could be spread via plane travel and touch all over the globe. The book also puts forth the theory that these virus can become airborne. They cite one study where infected monkeys in a research lab were on one side and healthy monkeys were in cages on the other side. All monkeys contracted ebola even though they had no contact with one another. Anyways there is no vaccine or curative treatment available so I am not sure what difference good healthcare could provide. Marburg and Ebola are nasty sh--! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 What I want to know is how the virus "resurfaces." What I mean is this is a new outbreak... How did it get "fired" up. Can't they isolate Angola until the virus is surpressed? Sorry... Didn't read the article. 302171[/snapback] There is another animal that harbors the virus between outbreaks. Scientists have yet to identify what animal it is. Every so often, it passses from that animal to humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 From the WHO-Fatality rates for outbreaks of Marburg VHF have ranged from approximately 25% to 80%; mortality has been higher in outbreaks in which effective case management was lacking. No vaccine or curative treatment is available, and supportive treatment should be used. The virus can be spread to humans through direct contact with body fluids (e.g., blood, saliva, and urine) of an infected person or animal. Thus, the best protection for persons in or traveling to the outbreak area is to avoid direct contact with body fluids from potentially infected persons. Virus transmission also might be possible through contact with objects (e.g., medical equipment) that have been contaminated with infectious material. The virus has been reported to survive for as long as several days on contaminated surfaces (2). Hospital infection-control practices for infected patients should include contact and droplet precautions, in addition to wearing eye protection or a face shield. U.S. clinicians caring for patients with suspected Marburg virus infection should contact CDC or local public health officials for additional information about VHF infection control. That's almost precisely what I said - transmission requires close contact with infected bodily fluids. Check out The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. The book proposes the notion that Marburg or Ebola could be spread via plane travel and touch all over the globe. The book also puts forth the theory that these virus can become airborne. They cite one study where infected monkeys in a research lab were on one side and healthy monkeys were in cages on the other side. All monkeys contracted ebola even though they had no contact with one another. Anyways there is no vaccine or curative treatment available so I am not sure what difference good healthcare could provide. Marburg and Ebola are nasty sh--! 302234[/snapback] I've read The Hot Zone. Anyone who considers it a primary or even acceptable secondary source is a fool. Anyone who considers it any kind of source at all on Marburg is an idiot, considering the book concerns Ebola. And it doesn't "propose the notion" of spreading by plane travel...it has a chapter, in graphic Preston style, discussing one individual on one plane who infects precisely no one else. And anyway...use some common sense, if you have any. Viruses that are actually optimized for aerosol spread don't even spread as effectively as you're postulating filovirii might. The 1917 influenza pandemic - one of the most infectious airborne viruses known - still had only about a 60% morbidity rate. Pneumonic plague is as infectious as influenza and more deadly than Ebola, and managed to kill 60 people out of a population of 2.1 million in Surat, India in 1994...and despite a mass exodus of people (about a half-million) from Surat via train and international flights didn't spread beyond Surat. The last major Ebola outbreak (of Ebola Zaire - the really deadly strain with 90% mortality) in Kikwit, Zaire killed 350 people in a city of 600k. Extraordinarily high morbidity (ten virus particles can cause a virulent infection), 90% mortality...and it killed one person in every thousand, in a city so poor that it had virtually no health care infrastructure whatsoever (one hospital bed for every three thousand people and one autoclave for the entire city). And you, in your infinite wisdom, think if one person with Marburg gets on one plane, 6.3 billion people are going to die. Right. Maybe you should read something other than Richard Preston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Lets hope that it spreads into Iran. That will make the pending invasion a little easier. 301697[/snapback] Er, Iran is actually some distance from Angola - to make it to Iran it would have to travel virtually the length of Africa and then through the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 That's almost precisely what I said - transmission requires close contact with infected bodily fluids. I've read The Hot Zone. Anyone who considers it a primary or even acceptable secondary source is a fool. Anyone who considers it any kind of source at all on Marburg is an idiot, considering the book concerns Ebola. And it doesn't "propose the notion" of spreading by plane travel...it has a chapter, in graphic Preston style, discussing one individual on one plane who infects precisely no one else. And anyway...use some common sense, if you have any. Viruses that are actually optimized for aerosol spread don't even spread as effectively as you're postulating filovirii might. The 1917 influenza pandemic - one of the most infectious airborne viruses known - still had only about a 60% morbidity rate. Pneumonic plague is as infectious as influenza and more deadly than Ebola, and managed to kill 60 people out of a population of 2.1 million in Surat, India in 1994...and despite a mass exodus of people (about a half-million) from Surat via train and international flights didn't spread beyond Surat. The last major Ebola outbreak (of Ebola Zaire - the really deadly strain with 90% mortality) in Kikwit, Zaire killed 350 people in a city of 600k. Extraordinarily high morbidity (ten virus particles can cause a virulent infection), 90% mortality...and it killed one person in every thousand, in a city so poor that it had virtually no health care infrastructure whatsoever (one hospital bed for every three thousand people and one autoclave for the entire city). And you, in your infinite wisdom, think if one person with Marburg gets on one plane, 6.3 billion people are going to die. Right. Maybe you should read something other than Richard Preston. 302288[/snapback] CTM=DCTom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 What I want to know is how the virus "resurfaces." What I mean is this is a new outbreak... How did it get "fired" up. Can't they isolate Angola until the virus is surpressed? Sorry... Didn't read the article. 302171[/snapback] Its because people in those contries keep having sex with monkeys. Thats what I have heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Its because people in those contries keep having sex with monkeys. Thats what I have heard. 302485[/snapback] I heard they were having sex with squirrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 CTM=DCTom. 302321[/snapback] No sh--, Sherlock. It's not like I'm trying to keep it a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 12, 2005 Author Share Posted April 12, 2005 CTM=DCTom. 302321[/snapback] I figured that one out a long time ago. Such condescending arrogance in a delusional megalomaniac rant could only be one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 I heard they were having sex with squirrels. 302492[/snapback] Ouch, suddenly my nuts are feeling very vunerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 I figured that one out a long time ago. Such condescending arrogance in a delusional megalomaniac rant could only be one..... 302515[/snapback] Can you address the information I presented, or is your only response "Oh, it's just DC Tom"? Never mind...stupid question. Of COURSE you can't address the information...you've already demonstrated that in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts