muff528

Members
  • Content

    4,127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by muff528


  1. RoadRash

    Are they still around!? WOW! Pure sugar and bad habits.

    ~R+R



    Yep. Convenience stores around here have them. I bought "a pack" a while back. I needed a sugar fix and I think they are made of pure confectioners sugar. I did notice that they no longer have the red simulated ember at the end.

  2. Andy9o8

    ******Ebola has killed some thousands of people...and unlike the 1919 pneumonia pandemic that killed nearly 20 million people...we have much better tools now to fight such a thing.

    On the other side, there is Cambridge's Really Smart Guy Dr. Martin Rees saying that a massive global pandemic is a definite possibility in his book Our Final Century.

    He means THIS century and gives very good reasons on why he believes the human race will not make it to the year 2100 without a major extinction event.



    He's an astronomer/cosmologist.

    So I could get my palm read and a makeover. Cool!

    Yeah, but you better hurry.

  3. Here's an interesting little snippet from the pdf file above:

    "We also demonstrated aerosol transmission of
    Ebola virus at lower temperature and humidity than that
    normally present in sub-Saharan Africa. Ebola virus
    sensitivity to the high temperatures and humidity in
    the thatched, mud, and wattel huts shared by infected
    family members in southern Sudan and northern Zaire
    may have been a factor limiting aerosol transmission of
    Ebola virus in the African epidemics. Both elevated
    temperature and relative humidity (RH) have been
    shown to reduce the aerosol stability of viruses
    (Songer 1967). Our experiments were conducted at
    24°C and < 40% RH, conditions which are known to
    favour the aerosol stability of at least two other African
    haemorrhagic fever viruses, Rift Valley fever and Lassa
    (Stephenson et a/. 1984; Anderson et a/. 1991). If the
    same holds true for filoviruses, aerosol transmission is
    a greater threat in modern hospital or laboratory
    settings than it is in the natural climatic ranges of
    viruses."

  4. Hmmm. ...that looks like a different experiment by the same guys - maybe this one?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7547435

    Here's a link to the pdf you referred to (I think): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/pdf/ijexpath00004-0007.pdf

    But, I think this one describes the experiment I was referring to (re: rhesus to rhesus) The abstract seems to suggest that the monkeys (infected and non-infected) were simply placed together in the same room together: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8551825 Yes, it does also suggest that poop particles could have been the culprit rather than oral particles or droplets. I suppose either could be found on a NYC subway or bus.

  5. Good deal!

    This agrees with that conclusion.

    But this does not completely agree. "...the only two routes of exposure that have been experimentally validated are parenteral inoculation and aerosol inhalation." Although it goes on to say that the "Epidemiologic evidence suggests that aerosol exposure is not an important means of virus transmission in natural outbreaks of human Ebola fever." (is an infection artificially introduced into a fresh population halfway around the world from the source considered to be a "natural outbreak"?)

    And this one does not necessarily agree. "Although they are not naturally transmitted by aerosol, they are highly infectious as respirable particles under laboratory conditions."

    So, experimental evidence for/against aerosol transmission under both natural and laboratory conditions:

    From Kobinger's 2012 study as reported by Science News ---

    * pig ---> macaque: YES
    * rhesus macaque ---> cynomulgus macaque: NO

    From the europepmc.org link above ---

    * rhesus ---> rhesus : YES

    So ---

    * human ---> human: JURY IS STILL OUT.

  6. jakee

    Quote

    That's my point. A century ago, when the Spanish Flu pandemic was out of "control" (no vaccines, education or prevention), it only produced a <20% death rate. But the Ebola outbreak is supposedly "under control" and the CFR is 70%.



    Why are you fixated on CFR as the measure of control? According to that measure the flu pandemic which spread across the entire globe and killed 5% of the world's population was under better control than the current ebola epidemic which is contained in 3 or 4 west african countries and has killed maybe 15,000 people. You're not making sense.

    Quote

    But it has pretty much been demonstrated that a person has a better chance of living through the flu than living through an Ebola infection.



    Sure. But you are still far, far more likely to die of the flu than ebola.



    Was "contained in 3 - 4 West African countries". We seem to be trying our best to change that. If you were actually reading my post you'll see that I'm not using CFR as a "measure of control". I'm using it to point out the risk of death if a person gets an infection ...not the risk of getting infected. I only used the Spanish Flu pandemic to compare the risk of death if infected 100 years ago with today and to compare those with the risk of death if infected with Ebola and to illustrate the insanity of intentionally failing to decrease the chances of an Ebola outbreak here. Period. Yes, a person here is now more likely to die from the flu than Ebola ...right now. But that is my whole point. We understand the flu. We have proven vaccines, treatments, etc. and we know how to mitigate risk with it. That's why the CFR for influenza is now in the <<1% range.

    Mishandling and incompetence in dealing with an Ebola outbreak will change that risk over time. Right now our protocols seem to disregard the possibility that an infected, non-symptomatic person can arrive in this country undetected, mingle with a large population and then become symptomatic and contagious, infecting others before he is taken off the streets. The doctor who is right now being treated in NY and who presumedly "understands" Ebola and and its risks did just that. He waited until after he became symptomatic before deciding to get help, even days after he began getting fatigued (which, BTW, is also a symptom). Did he have no clue that he was infected? Was he in denial? Since he's a medical professional, I'm sure he didn't simply disregard any risk to folks he might have exposed to infection. After all, he was following accepted protocol and the virus has been studied for 40 years and its transmission is "understood". No need to impose a quarantine on a doctor who followed protocol, who was directly working with multiple symptomatic Ebola patients, and who just arrived from the "hot zone". Now the people of NYC will have to wait up to 21 days hoping no one he has encountered turns up infected ...maybe someone who thinks they just have the flu with its minimal risk. Right now we seem to be depending more on luck than competent management.

    And now we've decided to import more Ebola patients into the country.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/state-department-plans-to-bring-foreign-ebola-pati/

    I can't for the life of me understand why an Ebola patient would want to entrust his life to what has been portrayed as one of the worst health care systems in the Western World. You'd think that he would much rather be taken to Canada or the UK ...maybe even Cuba.

  7. billvon

    >Also, to answer billvon-- I "get" that the advertised contagious state is only when
    >the patient is symptomatic. But a symptomatic person is not likely to be on a bus.
    >However, an infected person who is not yet symptomatic still carries the virus at
    >some stage of that infection. If he happens to sneeze for any reason, firing off a
    >booger or two, there is a chance, however small, that said booger may have a >virion or two riding along (that's all it takes) ...maybe more.

    Yes there is a small chance that that will happen. But since asymptomatic people are not infectious (and have never been observed to be infectious) the odds of that are very low. You are much, much more likely to be killed by catching the flu on a bus than to have such a chain of unlikely events occur.

    >I'll take that chance riding on a bus with someone who has the flu. If he's got
    >Ebola and I have a choice, I'm not getting on that bus.

    That is irrational, akin to refusing to drive in vehicles with seat belts and air bags, since without seat belts or air bags you will be "thrown clear of the crash." You are perfectly free to do it, though.



    Yeah, the booger-to-yawning-mouth scenario is a long shot, so I'll go with breathing in a few aerosol sneeze droplets carrying a couple hundred ebolites each from a non-symptomatic carrier. Common sense says that if only 1-10 virions are required to cause an infection, then there is some point between exposure and symptomatic where there are sufficient virions (as few as 1) to infect another person contained in sneeze droplets or hacked-up phlegm particles during a cough. So, I'm not buying the mantra that Ebola can be transmitted ONLY after symptoms appear. Common sense tells me that enough virus is present in a host's body to infect another person before the host gets sick. You can take my seat on that bus.

    I'd be good with being wrong about that if it can convincingly be shown that that can't happen and why. Not just some parrot saying "take my word for it". Just because it has not been observed to happen does not necessarily mean it can't. There just hasn't been enough real world experience with studying behavior of this virus outside of the hot spots.

  8. kallend

    ******....

    You need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and other fearmongers, and learn something about RISK.



    Don't have time to listen to the radio and I'm not fearful of Ebola.

    That's some irony score there.

    Pretty sure I don't get what you mean there. Certainly no useful information. Any opinion I've written here in this thread is based on "facts" supported by sources I've provided (right or wrong, I got no problem with hearing or deferring to convincing, opposing, supported "facts"), and were responses to specific comments. None of those sources were from Limbaugh or any other "fearmonger" and none of my comments or opinions were intended to , uh, "monger" fear. I'm just stating my opinion that it takes a special kind of arrogance to risk exposing a major, high population density region to a lethal, poorly-understood, level 4 pathogen for which there is no known or readily available vaccine or cure (maybe a very low level risk but carrying high level consequences if there is miscalculation.)

    Doctors and caregivers who come from the affected regions should be the first to recognize how unwise it is to take such a cavalier attitude when returning to these population centers. "I got no fever so I think I'll just take the A-train down to the bowling alley and do up the town afterwards." These attitudes do not monger confidence in the "authorities" and they give the impression that the issue is not being taken seriously ....maybe even being politicized.

  9. kallend

    ....

    You need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and other fearmongers, and learn something about RISK.



    Don't have time to listen to the radio and I'm not fearful of Ebola. Just comparing numbers ...like you do with the gun thing.

    But, If I know an Ebola carrier is on a particular bus at a particular time (higher risk), I'm not getting on that bus. That doesn't mean I'm scared of riding buses in general (lower risk) even if it means there might, somewhere in the country, occasionally be an Ebola carrier on a bus somewhere. But, that also does not mean that some poor sucker somewhere is not going to be the one to pay for it.

  10. jakee

    Quote

    This is looking at least a little doubtful since there are seemingly conflicting statements concerning things like "no airborne transmission" yet the virus can be present in aerosol droplets from coughs or sneezes; "you can't catch it on a bus" yet "infected persons should stay off the bus"; a person can become infected with the introduction of as few as 1 - 10 virions ; survivability of the virus outside the body on various objects at various temps; etc.



    If you read conflicting news reports on the same skydiving fatality you'd probably come to the conclusion that no-one knows how parachutes work, but it's not the case.

    Quote

    The CFR for the current Zaire Ebola outbreak is more like 70% for victims with "confirmed outcomes". We can only hope we can get to the level of control we now have with the flu.



    The second sentence of that Flu article begins with the words "It infected 500 million people". What in god's name do you mean by 'control'?

    Ebola is incredibly easy to control compared to the flu. According to the fear mongers here everyone in the US from the local hospitals, PD, FD, CDC and border control has made a complete pigs ear of dealing with ebola... and nothing's happened. Everybody's fine.


    That's my point. A century ago, when the Spanish Flu pandemic was out of "control" (no vaccines, education or prevention), it only produced a
    Also, to answer billvon-- I "get" that the advertised contagious state is only when the patient is symptomatic. But a symptomatic person is not likely to be on a bus. However, an infected person who is not yet symptomatic still carries the virus at some stage of that infection. If he happens to sneeze for any reason, firing off a booger or two, there is a chance, however small, that said booger may have a virion or two riding along (that's all it takes) ...maybe more. If the booger enters the mouth of a fellow traveler and he somehow manages to not immediately puke it up he could be infected. Small chance but not zero. I'll take that chance riding on a bus with someone who has the flu. If he's got Ebola and I have a choice, I'm not getting on that bus.

    Dammit, I just realized I missed the ISS flyover.>:( Perfect night for it, too!

  11. ***...
    And

    muff528

    That's just plain old common sense. The virus has never before been known or studied in the wild beyond small, isolated communities. I think only the recent outbreak in larger population centers like Monrovia, etc., has provided the "opportunity" for a clearer look at how it might spread or mutate ...or how to treat it. Proliferation through a larger population pool may allow it to mutate enough to do more (or less) damage before all of its victims are killed. Doesn't hurt to use a little more caution until it is better understood. It may ultimately turn out to be no more problem to control than the flu or tb. Then "protocols" can be relaxed. ...maybe not.



    The health care community (WHO & CDC in particular) have seen and studied Ebola Zaire for almost 40 years.

    But not its behavior as an infection spreads from host to host through several "generations" in larger population centers.

    Quote

    There is a lot about it (particularly the host) that isn't understood, but how and how easily it's transmitted is.



    This is looking at least a little doubtful since there are seemingly conflicting statements concerning things like "no airborne transmission" yet the virus can be present in aerosol droplets from coughs or sneezes; "you can't catch it on a bus" yet "infected persons should stay off the bus"; a person can become infected with the introduction of as few as 1 - 10 virions ; survivability of the virus outside the body on various objects at various temps; etc.

    Quote

    And I hope like all hell that it's easier to control than the flu (influenza). Despite vaccines, education and prevention, there are still thousands to tens of thousands of deaths each year in the US.
    But we don't really worry about that. It's "just the flu." :S



    The Spanish flu pandemic, (almost 100 years ago ...even before "vaccines, education and prevention") had a Case Fatality Rate of "only" 10-20% ....way more than today's CFR for the flu, and now fewer folks are becoming infected because of the vaccines, education, & prevention. The CFR for the current Zaire Ebola outbreak is more like 70% for victims with "confirmed outcomes". We can only hope we can get to the level of control we now have with the flu. I think containment is the answer for the near future.

  12. That's just plain old common sense. The virus has never before been known or studied in the wild beyond small, isolated communities. I think only the recent outbreak in larger population centers like Monrovia, etc., has provided the "opportunity" for a clearer look at how it might spread or mutate ...or how to treat it. Proliferation through a larger population pool may allow it to mutate enough to do more (or less) damage before all of its victims are killed. Doesn't hurt to use a little more caution until it is better understood. It may ultimately turn out to be no more problem to control than the flu or tb. Then "protocols" can be relaxed. ...maybe not.

  13. billvon

    ....
    "You know that a quarter inch wrench will always fit a quarter inch bolt. People aren't like that."

    So none of them have ever used a _wrench?_ And you wouldn't even have to get a "science consultant" to point out that problem - just ask any of the guys who are setting up to film the next episode.



    She must have been using Whitworth bolts and wrenches (spanners).

  14. He is opposed for "political" reasons because he takes political positions on issues ...not just gun control issues. (BTW- he is supposed to do that.) That certainly doesn't mean he isn't "qualified" to be SG. I'm sure that there are many conservative-leaning physicians who are just as qualified to be SG as far as public health issues are concerned, but you don't see Pres. Obama nominating them for the position ....because it is a "political" office that promotes the President's political "public health" agenda. And, I wouldn't expect the opposition party to be too excited about confirming someone who co-founded "Doctors for Obama".

    However:

    113th Congress (2013-2015)
    Majority Party: Democrat (53 seats)
    Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
    Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)

    Reid is running the show up there. If they want him, just confirm him.

    But I don't think we need a Surgeon General barking orders in response to the Ebola threat (real or perceived). Hospitals and doctors should just do the common, walking-around sense things that they should be doing with any dangerous virus. Try to keep it contained while pursuing a vaccine or cure, etc.

  15. Here are a couple of interesting links for anyone who has an interest in the virus itself. Kinda fascinating (to me, at least.)

    http://www.msdsonline.com/resources/msds-resources/free-safety-data-sheet-index/ebola-virus.aspx

    This article has been out since 2010 so some info may be outdated. Also, it talks about several variations of the virus so maybe not all info relates to all types.

    Standouts:

    "INFECTIOUS DOSE: 1 – 10 aerosolized organisms are sufficient to cause infection in humans." :o

    "SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days. Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable at -70°C. Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation (freeze-drying)."

    "PRIMARY HAZARDS: Accidental parenteral inoculation, respiratory exposure to infectious aerosols and droplets, and/or direct contact with broken skin or mucous membranes."

    http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/06/11494.html

    Looks like it's been around a while. ..maybe even since the advent of mammals, and may have played some role in mammalian evolution.