Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximo  You are assuming that ebola exists in a vacuum and has remained consistent throughout its existence. The point some experts (medical scientists) are trying to make is that ebola has and is evolving. That is one of the biggest points of interest in studying the current outbreak in Africa that is much, much larger than any recorded to date. 21 Days - The Atlantic |
Scientists and medical experts always have disagreements about almost any subject or pathogen's behavior, from typhoid in the 20's when they found carriers existed, to polio, to AIDS, as you know, but the overwhelming majority who are observing the behavior of the Ebola disease the last 8 months or so in the field, during the current epidemic, don't agree that the disease is any easier spread and that's based on empirical evidence from real cases and not theory or mathematical computer modeling.
If some people don't run fever(and what reading constitutes "fever", who takes it and records it, with what instrument), they mostly do get other symptoms and know they are sick and go into one of the isolation/treatment programs to try to save their lives. If all of the data is correct - and we don't know that yet - some 13% of patients are said not to get fever or have any symptoms at all, or spew vast quantities of bodily fluids, so how are they going to spread the disease to others? And are their titers even truly high enough to be contagious should they somehow get bodily fluid into us?
The only way the totally asymptomatic could spread Ebola is by a single droplet of sneezed/coughed mucus or blood during a cut landing in our orifices or on our body which we then wipe into our mouth, nose, eyes or that slips through an opening in the skin? Will there be enough viral load in that droplet to actually sicken us if the one who spread it to us isn't even sick, spewing vast quantities of bodily fluids or running fever, titering high levels of virus? Theoretically, some say it's possible, but also say their chances of contagion of their asymptomatic Ebola case would be infinitesimally small as they aren't spewing virus everywhere.
Studies being quoted by those making dire predictions depend on accurate history and accurate record keeping in West Africa, are often taken from scared/grieving family, friend, neighbor of a very sick or dead patient and don't even know the circumstances surrounding how a patient got the disease as they weren't observing their lives 24/7 for the past 21 days or even know what symptoms they had. Others lie to protect the family from stigma.
The medical investigators taking Ebola histories, keeping records are often whomever the agency running the clinic can get to work there for a few hours or days, ask the questions and record the data and those respected, credible doctors and nurses working in the field today understand that the history of the disease given about any patient under those conditions may be specious, incomplete. The data-keepers over there also know that more reported cases will bring more help and funding. I far more trust the histories/records/data kept in the Western/European countries right now while good record keeping personnel are hard to come by in West Africa.