|
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 30, 2014 20:53:27 GMT -5
I took Doug to be saying that ebola, as it stands today, is relatively easy to avoid by avoiding behaviors that put one at risk for viral contact. Basically, live the way your great grandmother would have advised, and you're fine.
But I also took him to say that, as a virus, it reproduces like a zillion times per day and there is always the remote chance (ie, meteor strike type probability) that it could evolve into something that is as transmissible as the common flu, all but untreatable, and as deadly as it already is. THAT would be a true doomsday scenario: 90% population death world wide in a matter of months, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Sept 30, 2014 21:00:39 GMT -5
Well, the good news is that science has come a long way from when Ebola by William T. Close (Glen Close's father) wrote his book in the mid-nineties about an outbreak in central Africa in the mid-70s. If there is any good news at all.
We know how it's spread, and we in the US have the ability to contain it, and to get people through it. What's scary is considering the incubation period, the criterion we've been using in letting people back into our country after visiting the stricken area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 23:19:33 GMT -5
Color me more than a bit skeptical about the ebola scare that we are being drummed into. (Bill, please do not parse that sentence.) I'll go out on a limb in favour of using prepositions at the end of sentences when it's fussy not to do so. Edit - I am of course out of my grammatical depth.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Sept 30, 2014 23:51:44 GMT -5
Unsurprisingly some commenters are pointing out that it is part of Obama's biological warfare on America plan. ... What? You mean it's not Bush's fault?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 7:04:51 GMT -5
And in other news, Chikungunya now in the United States. Could that possibly be Doug's meteor strike? The mosquitos that carry this disease bite an ebola victim and then bite a non-infected person? How much mutation would have to occur before that could become possible?
|
|
|
Post by mnhermit on Oct 1, 2014 7:26:02 GMT -5
never mind - faux said it better
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2014 10:18:54 GMT -5
A virus is a life form (of some sort) and it operates by the same rules all life does; it wants to be successful... to spread, procreate, survive, drink beer, and watch football (or the virus equivalents). And a virus that kills its host before said host has a chance to spread the viral offspring hither and yon will not be as successful as its competitor that allows the host to live longer and spread more of itself here, there, and everywhere.
The most successful virus on the planet? The common cold. Whether there is one cold virus with a hundred variants or a hundred different viruses that have all stumbled upon the same successful program, what they are all doing works and works really well. The host lives and the virus gets to spread its genetic pattern all over the darn country every day every where all year long. If a particular cold virus were to mutate and render its victim immobile/dead, it wouldn't be nearly as successful as its cousin cold virus who keeps its host on its feet running about to bowling league, pub, and shopping mall spreading viral happiness everywhere it goes. One cold virus will be fruitful and multiply, the other will wither on the vine.
There is a reason Ebola is a minor player in the virus world. It lacks discretion and good sense. It keeps killing its host too quickly. Or if not dead, it renders its host immobile so it can't get out and party. Ebola is a foolish virus. Intemperate. In a world of teeming birds, gazelles, and houseflies, it is a three-toed Sloth, hanging in solitude on a lonely tree.
Now, the oft-stated fear is that Ebola will mutate into something more deadly. Newsflash! It has probably already mutated. Several times. But, until it figures out that knocking off the host too quickly is a bad idea, it won't get anywhere. If a successful mutation of Ebola is to take off, it will be because it is more successful than the fellow Ebolites it is competing against, and the rule of success for a virus is to leave the host on its feet and running about as long as possible. Who wants a car that blows up after fifty miles and leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere? Far better to have a car that can spin the odometer and crisscross the country.
The Great Flu virus of 1918 figured this "what it takes to be a success" stuff out quickly. It came out roaring like an eager young lion, but, it learned its lesson. A virus that survives is the one that learns to pace itself and keep its host alive and on its feet. The Great Flu virus mutated, several times, and it was the more benign mutations that were successful and are still with us in one form or another today.
Animals and viruses have learned to live with each other during their joint time on this earth. And both have prospered. Every so often, an unruly virus shows up, but, it either learns the lesson of success or it remains a small-time player stuck in a limited little corner.
Viruses are mankind's partner, not its final reaper.
/
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 1, 2014 10:53:20 GMT -5
That's almost poetic, Paul. "Ode to a Virus."
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 1, 2014 11:39:03 GMT -5
I'm surprised that this hasn't rallied the border militia. I'd say with some justification as who is more likely to be carrying a poor sanitation virus a guy who is paying $500+ for a ticket to fly in or a guy sneaking across the border.
I'm not sure that it's not a case of barn door and stolen horse.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 1, 2014 11:51:53 GMT -5
A virus is a life form (of some sort) and it operates by the same rules all life does; it wants to be successful... to spread, procreate, survive, drink beer, and watch football (or the virus equivalents). And a virus that kills its host before said host has a chance to really spread its virus offspring hither and yon will not be as successful as its competitor that allows the host to live longer and spread more of itself here, there, and everywhere. The most successful virus on the planet? The common cold. Whether there is one cold virus with a hundred variants or a hundred different viruses that have all stumbled upon the same successful program, what they are doing works and works well. The host lives and the virus gets to spread its genetic pattern all over the darn country every day all year long. If a particular cold virus were to mutate and render its victim immobile/dead, it wouldn't be nearly as successful as its cousin cold virus who keeps its host on its feet, running about to bowling league, pub, and shopping mall, spreading viral happiness everywhere it goes. The one cold virus will be fruitful and multiply, the other will wither on the vine. There is a reason Ebola is a minor player in the virus world. It lacks discretion and good sense. It keeps killing its host too quickly. Or if not dead, it renders its host immobile so it can't get out and party. It is a foolish virus. Intemperate. In a world of teeming birds, gazelles, and houseflies, it is a three-toed Sloth, hanging in solitude on a lonely tree. Now, the oft-stated fear is that Ebola will mutate into something more deadly. Newsflash, it has probably already mutated several times, but, until it figures out that knocking off the host too quickly is a bad idea, it won't get anywhere. If a successful mutation of Ebola is to take off, it will be because it is more successful than the fellow Ebolites it is competing against, and the rule of success for a virus is to leave the host on its feet and running about as long as possible. Who wants a car that blows up after fifty miles and leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere? Far better to have a car that can spin the odometer and crisscross the country. The Great Flu virus of 1918 figured this "what it takes to be a success" stuff out quickly. It came out roaring like an eager young lion, but, it learned its lesson. A virus that survives is the one that learns to pace itself and keep its host alive and on its feet. The Great Flu virus mutated, several times, and it was the more benign mutations that were successful and are still with us is one form or another today. Animals and viruses have learned to live with each other during their joint time on this earth. Every so often, an unruly one shows up, but, it either learns the lesson of success or it remains a small-time player stuck in its limited little corner. Viruses are mankind's partner, not its final reaper. / Way to let the cat out of the bag, Paul! What if Ebola reads this? What are we gonna do then, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 1, 2014 11:53:19 GMT -5
Virus don't read they watch FOX news.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 1, 2014 12:08:19 GMT -5
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of viruses making out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 12:14:17 GMT -5
A virus is a life form (of some sort) and it operates by the same rules all life does; it wants to be successful... to spread, procreate, survive, drink beer, and watch football (or the virus equivalents). And a virus that kills its host before said host has a chance to really spread its virus offspring hither and yon will not be as successful as its competitor that allows the host to live longer and spread more of itself here, there, and everywhere. The most successful virus on the planet? The common cold. Whether there is one cold virus with a hundred variants or a hundred different viruses that have all stumbled upon the same successful program, what they are doing works and works well. The host lives and the virus gets to spread its genetic pattern all over the darn country every day all year long. If a particular cold virus were to mutate and render its victim immobile/dead, it wouldn't be nearly as successful as its cousin cold virus who keeps its host on its feet, running about to bowling league, pub, and shopping mall, spreading viral happiness everywhere it goes. The one cold virus will be fruitful and multiply, the other will wither on the vine. There is a reason Ebola is a minor player in the virus world. It lacks discretion and good sense. It keeps killing its host too quickly. Or if not dead, it renders its host immobile so it can't get out and party. It is a foolish virus. Intemperate. In a world of teeming birds, gazelles, and houseflies, it is a three-toed Sloth, hanging in solitude on a lonely tree. Now, the oft-stated fear is that Ebola will mutate into something more deadly. Newsflash, it has probably already mutated several times, but, until it figures out that knocking off the host too quickly is a bad idea, it won't get anywhere. If a successful mutation of Ebola is to take off, it will be because it is more successful than the fellow Ebolites it is competing against, and the rule of success for a virus is to leave the host on its feet and running about as long as possible. Who wants a car that blows up after fifty miles and leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere? Far better to have a car that can spin the odometer and crisscross the country. The Great Flu virus of 1918 figured this "what it takes to be a success" stuff out quickly. It came out roaring like an eager young lion, but, it learned its lesson. A virus that survives is the one that learns to pace itself and keep its host alive and on its feet. The Great Flu virus mutated, several times, and it was the more benign mutations that were successful and are still with us is one form or another today. Animals and viruses have learned to live with each other during their joint time on this earth. Every so often, an unruly one shows up, but, it either learns the lesson of success or it remains a small-time player stuck in its limited little corner. Viruses are mankind's partner, not its final reaper./ The Black Plague spread through Europe like wildfire, killing 1/3 of the population, why, because conditions were perfect for it. In this case that condition was allowing hoards of rats to live along side men. Cats were considered evil and we had not yet bred many varieties of Rat Terriers so rats had the run of the place. Couple that with extremely poor hygienic conditions and you have the perfect vehicle for that virus. Here we do not have the proper conditions for Ebola to spread easily. The Africans are not unhygienic, quite the opposite, but they do treat their dead differently. We tend to physically distance ourselves from our dead but in Africa it is common to keep the dead close to the family until the burial. Close proximity to the infected body is Ebola's vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 1, 2014 13:41:56 GMT -5
"Now, the oft-stated fear is that Ebola will mutate into something more deadly. Newsflash! It has probably already mutated. Several times. But, until it figures out that knocking off the host too quickly is a bad idea, it won't get anywhere. If a successful mutation of Ebola is to take off, it will be because it is more successful than the fellow Ebolites it is competing against, and the rule of success for a virus is to leave the host on its feet and running about as long as possible."
I'm not disagreeing--I don't know enough to do so--but I wonder about that. For a mutation to succeed, its advantage doesn't have to last forever. It just has to last long enough for the critter to reproduce a lot. It seems to me that we could see a mutation that killed us all and then became extinct itself in a few years.
PS: One daughter works on related issues--I think, we're not allowed to know exactly what she works on--and she told me that she thinks Ebola is manageable.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 1, 2014 13:49:52 GMT -5
"Now, the oft-stated fear is that Ebola will mutate into something more deadly. Newsflash! It has probably already mutated. Several times. But, until it figures out that knocking off the host too quickly is a bad idea, it won't get anywhere. If a successful mutation of Ebola is to take off, it will be because it is more successful than the fellow Ebolites it is competing against, and the rule of success for a virus is to leave the host on its feet and running about as long as possible." I'm not disagreeing--I don't know enough to do so--but I wonder about that. For a mutation to succeed, its advantage doesn't have to last forever. It just has to last long enough for the critter to reproduce a lot. It seems to me that we could see a mutation that killed us all and then became extinct itself in a few years. Yeah, virsues don't spend a lot of energy on long term thinking, if a mutation works for now, it will succeed until it doesn't, i.e., when it can't find any more hosts. More differences in the US vs Africa: a well trained and funded health system, including a bunch of federal jack-booted thugs ;)who are providing guidance and monitoring and resources to local health providers as needed. There are fairly rapid tests for Ebola available, including PCR and ELISA, so if it becomes necessary rapid diagnosis of patients early on before any symptoms appear is possible. And we can isolate symptomatic patients and provide monitored isolation for those thought to have been exposed.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Oct 1, 2014 17:45:17 GMT -5
The idea that in order to be successful it can't quickly kill its host is valid. The great flu extinguished rapidly. A couple of years. But it killed more folks than guns and bombs in WWI. Its all relative. We have gone on from both the plague and the great flu, but it wasn't without great cost.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Oct 1, 2014 17:47:25 GMT -5
PS. Any folks here want to assist with the monitoring of the exposed?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 1, 2014 17:56:33 GMT -5
Just a guess but I'd say 100s to thousands of cases in the US before it's done. It's not something you can slam the door on. And while it's not anything he can do anything about directly, Obama gets the blame. But that's the job, every president gets the blame for what ever, right or wrong it's the job.
Edit: that's a few hundred to a few thousand not 100s of thousands.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 1, 2014 18:22:50 GMT -5
The kill rates of the Black Plague (a bacteria) and the Great Flu of 1918 benefited from a condition that Ebola can't take advantage of, a vast ignorance of what the problem was.
The folks in Bubonicized Europe had no clue about what the problem was or how to alleviated it (not that their church and religion didn't have a ready supply of dead ass wrong answers).
And while germ theory was slowly gaining some traction in the early 1900s, it took a quite a while to figure out what was going on when the Great Flu struck. Meanwhile, just about everything people were doing was facilitating its spread. Young people from all over the country were gathering into jam packed crowds. Some were piling into various armies, elbow to elbow, nose to jowl, packed like sardines in barracks and trenches, sniffing and coughing and wheezing. And those that weren't in the army were leaving the largely rural countryside and packing themselves ten deep into crowded, dirty cities to work in the factories cranking out war supplies, packing themselves into crowded workplaces and apartments (with bedrooms that operated in shifts, day and night)... all the while sneezing, wheezing, and coughing in crowded ignorance of what was behind it all.
And then there were a few unfortunate isolated remote populations that had never seen anything remotely connected to the flu in their genetic history but had the bug brought to them courtesy of airplane and ship traffic (much of it war related).
Vigilance is good, and continued research in vaccines is double good, but I don't think the necessary condition [complete ignorance] that created the widespread deadliness of the Black Plague and the Great Flu exists anymore. Well, not here. Africa is steeped in ignorance, and it is their bane (and, seemingly, their choice).
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 1, 2014 18:43:24 GMT -5
"Obama gets the blame. But that's the job, every president gets the blame for what ever, right or wrong it's the job."
HEAVEN (UPI)- At a press conference today, God's press secretary said that the Creator accepts full responsibility for the outbreak of Ebola. When pressed for an explanation of why God had caused the spread of the fatal disease, the press secretary declined to answer. "As you know, He works in mysterious ways. Answering that question might jeopardize celestial interests."
|
|