TexasCHLforum.com

It is interesting how they keep telling us it cannot be spread by air or contact and that it can only be transmitted through bodily fluids. However, they are looking for anyone that may have come in contact with him. How about just looking for everyone that may have come in contact with his bodily fluids? That should narrow down the number of people significantly. I am pretty confident I know with whom's bodily fluids I've been in contact.

This is just an observation and not trying to kick the ant pile in any way.

mojo84 wrote:It is interesting how they keep telling us it cannot be spread by air or contact and that it can only be transmitted through bodily fluids. However, they are looking for anyone that may have come in contact with him. How about just looking for everyone that may have come in contact with his bodily fluids? That should narrow down the number of people significantly. I am pretty confident I know with whom's bodily fluids I've been in contact.

This is just an observation and not trying to kick the ant pile in any way.

I do not trust anything any of these groups tell me because all of the groups are part of governments.

Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

anygunanywhere wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It is interesting how they keep telling us it cannot be spread by air or contact and that it can only be transmitted through bodily fluids. However, they are looking for anyone that may have come in contact with him. How about just looking for everyone that may have come in contact with his bodily fluids? That should narrow down the number of people significantly. I am pretty confident I know with whom's bodily fluids I've been in contact.

This is just an observation and not trying to kick the ant pile in any way.

I do not trust anything any of these groups tell me because all of the groups are part of governments.

Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

I'll get back with you on this when I come up with something.

Keith B wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Keith B wrote:It is not easy to catch and you must have direct contact with the individual. The area this comes from has a very poor sanitation standards. Easily passed between people when they have no modern healthcare readily available. I am more worried about the storms coming Thursday and possibly getting struck by lightning.

Not quite accurate. Contact with body fluids is the method of transmission. The infected person doesn't have to be there, just the fluids.

Not something I am normally in contact with from those I don't know. No matter, you must have had some form of contact, it's not an airborn virus. You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

No, but a person who is sick, and coughing or sneezing, is transmitting body fluids into the air. It is a virus, just like the cold or flu virus. I find it hard to believe that it cannot be transmitted the same way.

Not according to the studies http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... hrough-air" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It depends on your definition of airborne. True airborne transmission, the virus itself airborne -no. Transmission via sneeze, the virus attached to a sneeze droplet, near another person, yes, possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottli ... -airborne/

Kind of the same argument as a .380 for self defense. Lots of folks say it is underpowered. But nobody volunteers to take a shot. Ebola, not transmitted by air in the true definition of airborne with respect to viruses. But I wouldn't want to be sneezed on!!!!

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

They successfully screw things up and then cover them up very well. Does that count?

Keith B wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

They successfully screw things up and then cover them up very well. Does that count?

Actually, if they covered them up well, you'd never know about them.

Keith B wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

They successfully screw things up and then cover them up very well. Does that count?

They don't cover the results up well either. They just keep lying.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Keith B wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

They successfully screw things up and then cover them up very well. Does that count?

They don't cover the results up well either. They just keep lying.

You only know about the ones they didn't cover up well.

Keith B wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Keith B wrote:You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

It seems entirely plausible to me that the combination of an unclean toilet (diarrhea from an infected individual CAN contain the virus) and your bare bottom could (not "will" but "could" ) lead to transmission.

If you practice proper hygiene you are not going to sit in something like that. This IS the reason the 3rd world countries have epidemics though, as they live in very unsanitary conditions. I have seen some of these remote villages in South Africa and while they do the best they can, the conditions are deplorable. No clean water, no way to bathe or even properly wash hands, etc.

Agreed.

However, how many of us are always diligent about cleaning a public restroom toilet seat before sitting down?
I thought your quoted post above was a bit overly dismissive about the possibility of transmission in this way.
It CAN happen. The remoteness of that possibility is directly related to the number of infected individuals walking among us. Today, VERY remote.
But I would not be so quick to write off the possibility, especially if the number of cases here rises.

http://www.dw.de/how-does-ebola-spread/a-17870013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In order to become infected with the disease, people need to come into direct contact with bodily fluids - such as blood, urine, feces and sweat - that contain the virus, or touch a contaminated object. The virus is very resilient and can survive on various surfaces for a long time. It can be transferred via traces of bodily fluids on surfaces like toilet seats and tabletops.

It is my understanding that ebloa is easily killed with alcohol wipes and alcohol-based (>60%) hand sanitizer.
Consider keeping a few wipes with you in case you need to use a public restroom. Easier to avoid for the men than the ladies.

NBC 5 Dallas reported at the 11:00AM news that DCHHS Director Zachary Thompson said "don't be surprised if we do not hear of a second case of Ebola by the end of the day."

RoyGBiv wrote:I thought your quoted post above was a bit overly dismissive about the possibility of transmission in this way.
It CAN happen. The remoteness of that possibility is directly related to the number of infected individuals walking among us. Today, VERY remote.
But I would not be so quick to write off the possibility, especially if the number of cases here rises.

It was really more of a joke for those in the military who would go to sickbay and claim they must have gotten their venereal disease from a toilet seat. Still a VERY VERY remote chance unless you are not worried about hygiene

Keith B wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Keith B wrote:It is not easy to catch and you must have direct contact with the individual. The area this comes from has a very poor sanitation standards. Easily passed between people when they have no modern healthcare readily available. I am more worried about the storms coming Thursday and possibly getting struck by lightning.

Not quite accurate. Contact with body fluids is the method of transmission. The infected person doesn't have to be there, just the fluids.

Not something I am normally in contact with from those I don't know. No matter, you must have had some form of contact, it's not an airborn virus. You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

Not true, according to this medical paper:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The paper goes into much greater detail than just the two quotes above.

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Keith B wrote:It is not easy to catch and you must have direct contact with the individual. The area this comes from has a very poor sanitation standards. Easily passed between people when they have no modern healthcare readily available. I am more worried about the storms coming Thursday and possibly getting struck by lightning.

Not quite accurate. Contact with body fluids is the method of transmission. The infected person doesn't have to be there, just the fluids.

Not something I am normally in contact with from those I don't know. No matter, you must have had some form of contact, it's not an airborn virus. You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

Not true, according to this medical paper:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The paper goes into much greater detail than just the two quotes above.

And this one disputes it, so who is correct? http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me ... hrough-air" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which belief is the safest -- that is, which belief will cause the most harm if it's wrong?

And this one disputes it, so who is correct?
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-me" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... hrough-air

That is the $50B question. The answer is no one knows.