Ebolavirus 2014: the r0 from shitposting is 6.9

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ebolavirus 2014: the r0 from shitposting is 6.9

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Ebola Roulette posted:

Yes I am an idiot but what I said is not less intelligent than comparing cancer to a contagious disease.

No, it really is. The point is people are freaking out over the US collapsing because one guy died of ebola, while people in the US die of various other causes in the hundreds and even thousands every day but this somehow doesn't read as "going to collapse the US" to the same people. Hell if you restrict it to just communicable disease deaths daily there's somewhere between 500 and 700 of those in the US on an average day.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:17

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Nintendo Kid posted:

No, it really is. The point is people are freaking out over the US collapsing because one guy died of ebola, while people in the US die of various other causes in the hundreds and even thousands every day but this somehow doesn't read as "going to collapse the US" to the same people. Hell if you restrict it to just communicable disease deaths daily there's somewhere between 500 and 700 of those in the US on an average day.

They are freaking out because they understand the words exponential growth and you apparently do not.

With 1.4 million cases in W. Africa by the end of January, it will have spread to many more cities around the world.

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:26

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

Ebola Roulette posted:

Yes I am an idiot but what I said is not less intelligent than comparing cancer to a contagious disease.

viruses are a significant vector for cancer, though.

Having this poo poo splashed all over the news isn't exactly helpful I don't think. In the time since that one dude died in Texas, 1000 people have died in the US from car accidents. If you had to look at pictures of all of them before you got into a car, you might decide to walk instead.

Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:27

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Texas hospital: Okay, maybe we \lied\misrepresented\ a wee bit

quote:

The man, Thomas Eric Duncan, 42, had a high fever � his temperature was 103 degrees � during his four-hour visit to the emergency room of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Sept. 25, according to 1,400 pages of medical records that Mr. Duncan�s family provided to The Associated Press. Mr. Duncan reported severe pain, rating it an eight on a scale of one to 10. His fever was marked with an exclamation point in the hospital�s record-keeping system, The A.P. reported.
...
The reported details about his condition contradicted the hospital�s previous description of Mr. Duncan�s first visit. Hospital officials had said that Mr. Duncan had a temperature of 100.1 degrees and that his symptoms �were not severe at the time he first visited the hospital emergency department.�

On Friday, Wendell Watson, a spokesman for Texas Health Resources, the organization that oversees the hospital, said in a statement that it continued to �closely review and evaluate the chain of events related to the first Ebola virus diagnosis in the United States.� But the statement did not directly address Mr. Duncan�s 103-degree fever or the hospital�s initial claims that he had had a lower temperature of 100.1.
...
Included in the records, according to The Associated Press, was an emergency room physician�s note dated Sept. 26 that said Mr. Duncan was �negative for fever and chills.� The note read: �I have given patient instructions regarding their diagnosis, expectations for the next couple of days, and specific return precautions. The condition of the patient at this time is stable.�
The hospital has made contradictory and inaccurate statements in recent days. It apparently provided the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its own administrators with the wrong date of Mr. Duncan�s first appearance at the hospital, originally saying it was Sept. 26, but later saying it was Sept. 25. One of the hospital�s news releases included the wrong date of Mr. Duncan�s diagnosis, which was confirmed on Sept. 30 but was noted as Sept. 29 in the statement. And the hospital placed some of the blame about why Mr. Duncan was sent home after his first visit on a problem with its electronic records system, but it later said the system had operated correctly.

These conflicting communications, as well as the medical records, have intensified the uncertainty over why the hospital did not view Mr. Duncan as a potential Ebola case during his first visit to its emergency room.

Mr. Duncan first went to Texas Health Presbyterian after 10 p.m. on Sept. 25. In a statement it issued on Oct. 2, the hospital said he had a temperature of 100.1 degrees and had reported having abdominal pain, a headache and decreased urination. �These symptoms could be associated with many communicable diseases, as well as many other types of illness,� the hospital said.

Mr. Duncan was asked by nurses if he had been around anyone who had been ill, and told them he had not, the hospital said. But he also told nurses, when asked if he had traveled outside the United States in the last four weeks, that he had been in Africa.

The hospital had said there had been a flaw in its electronic records system and suggested that while the nurses may have had access to the information about his travel history, the doctor who treated Mr. Duncan had not. But the hospital later retracted that claim, explaining that there was no flaw in the system and the physician could indeed view information about Mr. Duncan�s travels from Africa.

Initially, Dr. Mark Lester, executive vice president of Texas Health Resources, told reporters that information about Mr. Duncan�s travel history was not �fully communicated� to the full medical team. Mr. Duncan was sent home because the diagnostic team believed he simply had a low-grade fever from a viral infection, Dr. Lester had said.

But the newly released medical records and the hospital�s statement acknowledging there was no flaw in the records system makes it unclear why the doctor sent him home.

This all could just be bad record reading or bad EPIC configuration, of course.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:33

Pillowpants: Aug 5, 2006

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1011663-new-math-shows-true-scale-of-ebola-outbreak/

quote:

Newer sequences are currently not publicly available, says team leader Tanja Stadler, professor of computational evolution at ETH Zurich.

From the data, the researchers calculated a viral reproductive number of 2.18. This value is in the range of the previous estimated values based on the incidence and prevalence of the disease, which are between 1.2 and 8.2.

�A major benefit of our method is that we can use it to calculate unreported cases and therefore the true scale of the epidemic,� says Stadler.

Official patient figures only take into account those cases reported to the health authorities. The actual number of infected persons is generally significantly higher. Using the data made available to them, the ETH researchers were able to calculate an unreported case rate of 30 percent.

�However, this applies only to the situation analyzed in Sierra Leone in May and June. We do not have any blood samples since June at all,� notes Stadler.

The researchers were also able to calculate the incubation period for Ebola�five days, although this value is subject to significant uncertainty�and the infectious time. Patients can pass on the virus from 1.2 to 7 days after becoming infected.

To obtain these values, the researchers created a phylogenetic tree based on the gene sequences of the virus samples.

�The Ebola virus changes in the body of the patient from day to day, meaning that the virus sequence varies slightly from patient to patient,� explains Stadler.

With the knowledge of the different sequences, the researchers were able to determine at what point in the past infection events happened between patients. From this, they were able to calculate the epidemiological parameters.

Wait, 1.2 to 7 days after being infected? I thought they didn't start showing symptoms and being infectious until much later? It also says in this article that this is only for data from May and June, so the 30% number could/probably is significantly higher at this point.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:33

D-Pad: Jun 28, 2006

What happened with the unrelated outbreak in the congo? I assume it is under control as I haven't seen anybody mention it in quite a whilewhile

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:34

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

D-Pad posted:

What happened with the unrelated outbreak in the congo? I assume it is under control as I haven't seen anybody mention it in quite a whilewhile

70 cases as of 10/5 per CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/drc/2014-august.html

If you've been living in Congo this is probably like thing #20 on the list to be worried about :-/

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:37

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

This seems like a smart idea. Yesterday the U.K. ran readiness tests, sending actors to various hospitals and urgent care centers to feign Ebola and watch how the hospital refunds.

Unfortunately, the UK has substantially underfunded hospitals for the last few years

so this is adding stress to a system that is already on the verge of breaking.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:43

Ebola Roulette: Sep 13, 2010; No matter what you ~~win~~ ~~lose~~ ragepiss.

Nintendo Kid posted:

No, it really is. The point is people are freaking out over the US collapsing because one guy died of ebola, while people in the US die of various other causes in the hundreds and even thousands every day but this somehow doesn't read as "going to collapse the US" to the same people. Hell if you restrict it to just communicable disease deaths daily there's somewhere between 500 and 700 of those in the US on an average day.

I agree that no one should be worried about Ebola collapsing the US. But to think that Ebola is no longer a threat now that Duncan is dead is on the opposite extreme.

As Ebola spreads in West Africa, the risk to other countries increases.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:44

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

NihilismNow posted:

100k is only 2000 per state or one in 3000 people. I would be extremely suprised if a developed country can not isolate 1/3000th of the population. Project it onto a small town of 50k which means the local hospital would have to isolate ~15 people.
To me as a layman this seems very manageable.

It would be a serious burden. The head of the highly trained infectious disease ward in Nebraska that's been handling some of the ebola patients said they wouldn't feel comfortable managing more than 10 patients.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:48

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Charlz Guybon posted:

They are freaking out because they understand the words exponential growth and you apparently do not.

With 1.4 million cases in W. Africa by the end of January, it will have spread to many more cities around the world.

They don't understand exponential growth, actually. And you don't either.

You don't seem to be comprehending that a) exponential growth never continues forever and b) merely spreading to other places doesn't mean they're going to get overwhelmed the way countries that were already barely functioning day-to-day before the outbreak do. Even Nigeria's been able to keep poo poo under control and they're both relatively close by and dealing with an ongoing low-burn civil war with Boko Haram and other groups.

Ebola Roulette posted:

I agree that no one should be worried about Ebola collapsing the US. But to think that Ebola is no longer a threat now that Duncan is dead is on the opposite extreme.

As Ebola spreads in West Africa, the risk to other countries increases.

There is still 0 risk of the US et al collapsing if ebola shows up. No one's saying there's no threat of people dying, just that there's no threat of society collapsing and hoo doggy better get to my unabomber shack before the Mad Max mutants overrun Shady Pines.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:53

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Arsenic Lupin posted:

This seems like a smart idea. Yesterday the U.K. ran readiness tests, sending actors to various hospitals and urgent care centers to feign Ebola and watch how the hospital refunds.

Unfortunately, the UK has substantially underfunded hospitals for the last few years so this is adding stress to a system that is already on the verge of breaking.

UK government money is all spent on researching new ways the rich don't have to pay taxes. Money don't grow on trees oik.

Anyone else wondering just what dead British guy in Macedonia did die of now we know it wasn't Ebola? I wonder if it was a combination of untreated ulcer and a lot of booze.

Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 17:58

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

CoolCab posted:

please god do not make yourselves homemade ebola suits and if you do please do not rely on your hillbilly biotech to protect you from disease

Please, God can we worry about what's happening in Africa and how to loving deal with it instead of making up nightmare scenarios and then warning people not to use their made up costumes to protect themselves.

This advice, at this point, sounds a bit like advising people to please not rely on pistols to keep the zombies at bay.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:07

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Nintendo Kid posted:

They don't understand exponential growth, actually. And you don't either.

You don't seem to be comprehending that a) exponential growth never continues forever and b) merely spreading to other places doesn't mean they're going to get overwhelmed the way countries that were already barely functioning day-to-day before the outbreak do. Even Nigeria's been able to keep poo poo under control and they're both relatively close by and dealing with an ongoing low-burn civil war with Boko Haram and other groups.

There is still 0 risk of the US et al collapsing if ebola shows up. No one's saying there's no threat of people dying, just that there's no threat of society collapsing and hoo doggy better get to my unabomber shack before the Mad Max mutants overrun Shady Pines.

But fishmech, 1.4 million cases in West Africa won't be confined... (That must be the headline of an article somewhere, I think.)

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Anyway it does seem like this poo poo can't literally have exponential growth forever. Nigeria has been able to lock this down, and it seems like even in Texas that guy managed to infect exactly 0 people. (Even if he did get one or two, this was despite massive constant fuckups, right?) I am going to guess that the funereal customs of the affected countries, plus the breakdowns we see now, are going to be a lot more responsible for the spread and chaos of the disease than the disease's own virulence.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:14

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

Nessus posted:

I am going to guess that the funereal customs of the affected countries, plus the breakdowns we see now, are going to be a lot more responsible for the spread and chaos of the disease than the disease's own virulence.

so you're guessing the thing that the CDC and everyone else has been saying for the past 9 months?

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:15

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Nessus posted:

But fishmech, 1.4 million cases in West Africa won't be confined... (That must be the headline of an article somewhere, I think.)

Why contain it... :unsmigghh:

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:15

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Tim Raines IRL posted:

so you're guessing the thing that the CDC and everyone else has been saying for the past 9 months?

Ah, but if I present it as the theorizing of some random goon people appear to be more likely to believe it!

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:18

ukle: Nov 28, 2005

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Unfortunately, the UK has substantially underfunded hospitals for the last few years so this is adding stress to a system that is already on the verge of breaking.

I hate the Tories as much as anyone, but they haven't. NHS spending (health spending) has gone up year on year above inflation, its about the only pledge the Tories have actually kept.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:28

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

They got to fatten the pig for when they privatize it.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:41

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

ukle posted:

I hate the Tories as much as anyone, but they haven't. NHS spending (health spending) has gone up year on year above inflation, its about the only pledge the Tories have actually kept.

I was imprecise. The Tories (A) haven't raised funding at the rate demand is increasing and (B) have shuffled NHS money away from care and into reorganization. See, for instance, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/06/nhs-better-care-fund-policy-halted-whitehall-review

# ? Oct 11, 2014 18:44

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Helicity posted:

If you're riding mass transit and work downtown and Ebola is rampant in your city, wear sunglasses and gloves. If other people start freaking out and you don't mind looking stupid, wear a mask. Have a little tub outside your door with bleach/water in it, dunk your shoes, and take them off outside. Don't touch your face with your hands (you shouldn't do this anyways, especially during flu season), and wash your hands after interacting with objects in public places and before eating. That's literally the extent of what will really help you if there is an outbreak in your city - and half of that is just good general hygiene that should be practiced anyways.

Thank you, this is what I wanted to know. Actually I was semi jokingly asking because I'll be going to west africa soon, though to a country that has not had any cases yet. I'll be staying for a month though so who knows how bad it might get in two months and when I read the other guy describing crazy ghetto kits I got curious, didn't intend it as a :derp:

# ? Oct 11, 2014 19:35

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Pillowpants posted:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1011663-new-math-shows-true-scale-of-ebola-outbreak/

Wait, 1.2 to 7 days after being infected? I thought they didn't start showing symptoms and being infectious until much later? It also says in this article that this is only for data from May and June, so the 30% number could/probably is significantly higher at this point.

Frankly the idea that you can't pass the virus on until you're symptomatic has always struck me as "probably bullshit". During the incubation period your viral loads are significantly lower than the symptomatic period - but they're there. So are the biological mechanisms that cause shedding from oral/nasal/rectal orifaces during the symptomatic period.

I was looking for some data on relative viral shedding throughout the course of the infection, and came up with this article which backs me up on that. Pigs developed fevers on day 4 after inoculation (text of article), but in a second-followup experiment despite a lower overall intensity of infection ("delayed/transient fever", no specific day given) they're clearly displaying viral shedding by day 3 post-inoculation (Fig 5B/C). And given that in that experiment a second group of pigs was infected by transmission from the inoculated group, and showing a viral load by 3 DPI it's pretty clear that there's shedding (and transmission) going on before the symptoms commence in earnest. Again probably by 1-2 DPI.

There's probably 1-3 orders of magnitude less shedding going on during the asymptomatic period, but I think it's unlikely that there's no shedding going on during that period. That also holds true with the flu by the way.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 19:39

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

But if there are orders of magnitude difference, you're still presenting those levels into a non-vacuum of bacteria and viruses, among other things. Orders of magnitude make all the difference. I don't know enough about the bottom line levels necessary for infections or the viral/host cycles, so it would be nice to see someone discuss those.

A guess towards the notion of infection only when symptomatic is that the likelihood of infection from viral loads is not a linear function, so orders of magnitude are further magnified when considering probability of infection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

edit: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/1014 may shed a little light onto the topic, but it's a review paper of existing literature.

esto es malo fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 19:48

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

joeburz posted:

edit: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/1014 may shed a little light onto the topic, but it's a review paper of existing literature.

quote:

With this low number of events of Ebola haemorrhagic fever on flights, other studies describing transmission risk of Ebola haemorrhagic fever were examined to describe the likelihood of transmission. The reviewed studies show a low risk of transmission in the early phase of symptomatic patients, even if high risk exposure occurred. However, risk of transmission may increase in later stages of the disease with increasing viral titres [19] and increased viral shedding. In a household study, secondary transmission only took place if direct physical contact occurred [20]; In an outbreak in 2000 in Uganda, the most important risk factor was direct and repeated contact with a sick person�s body fluids, as occurs during the provision of care. The risk was higher when the exposure took place during the late stage of the disease. However, one case was probably infected by contact with heavily contaminated fomites, and many persons who had had a simple physical contact with a sick person did not become infected. Therefore transmission through heavily contaminated fomites is apparently possible [21]. In summary, physical contact with body fluids seems necessary for transmission, especially in the early stages of disease (as is likely in passengers still able to travel on a plane), while in the later stages contact with heavily contaminated fomites might also be a risk for transmission.

So that actually agrees with me - there is a low (not zero) risk of transmission during the early phase of the disease, with transmission becoming greater as the viral load increases.

Also note that the suspicion is now that it might also be transmissible by coughing, etc. Which (personal speculation here) might be caused by co-morbidity with the flu, or by an insufficient sample size during previous outbreaks to fully identify a weaker transmission vector. Probably mostly a vector in advanced cases with high viral load.

Physical contact with a late-stage case or their contaminated fomites are definitely the strongest transmission vector though.

vvv Yup, I think the technical term is "droplet transmission". vvv

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:12

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Paul MaudDib posted:

Also note that the suspicion is now that it might also be transmissible by coughing, etc. Which (personal speculation here) might be caused by co-morbidity with the flu, or just by an insufficient sample size during previous outbreaks to fully identify a weaker transmission vector.

Physical contact with a symptomatic person or their contaminated fomites are definitely the strongest transmission vector though.

Airborne and spittle are very different things. Yeah, you can cough on someone else and get them sick, hypothetically, but you can't just breathe and infect them. The difference is huge.

Pohl fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:17

Ebola Roulette: Sep 13, 2010; No matter what you ~~win~~ ~~lose~~ ragepiss.

Pillowpants posted:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1011663-new-math-shows-true-scale-of-ebola-outbreak/

Wait, 1.2 to 7 days after being infected? I thought they didn't start showing symptoms and being infectious until much later? It also says in this article that this is only for data from May and June, so the 30% number could/probably is significantly higher at this point.

The original article states that an incubation period can be as little as 1 day.

In some good news the article also states that the infectious period of people with Ebola can be as low as 1 day. It appears that the average infectious period ranges from 2-3 days.

http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/insights-into-the-early-epidemic-spread-of-ebola-in-sierra-leone-provided-by-viral-sequence-data/

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:19

CoolCab: Apr 17, 2005; glem

Also you maybe misunderstand the role symptoms play here; unless you're making out with them a healthy individual doesn't tend to expose their bodily fluids to others. The symptoms of the disease eg coughing. sweating, sneezing, vomiting, diarrhea and bleeding are dangerous because they're all vectors for fluid transfer. Even if healthy individuals are shedding viruses (not supported by literature, but for sake of argument) they're no where near as dangerous as someone who's sick.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:21

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Paul MaudDib posted:

So that actually agrees with me - there is a low (not zero) risk of transmission during the early phase of the disease, with transmission becoming greater as the viral load increases.

Right, but how low is low? We probably don't have a perfect understanding of every possible way it could spread, but it's pretty clear how most people are getting infected:

quote:

In an outbreak in 2000 in Uganda, the most important risk factor was direct and repeated contact with a sick person�s body fluids, as occurs during the provision of care. The risk was higher when the exposure took place during the late stage of the disease.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:21

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Paul MaudDib posted:

So that actually agrees with me - there is a low (not zero) risk of transmission during the early phase of the disease, with transmission becoming greater as the viral load increases.

Also note that the suspicion is now that it might also be transmissible by coughing, etc. Which (personal speculation here) might be caused by co-morbidity with the flu, or just by an insufficient sample size during previous outbreaks to fully identify a weaker transmission vector.

Physical contact with a late-stage case or their contaminated fomites are definitely the strongest transmission vector though.

vvv Yup, I think the technical term is "droplet transmission". vvv

Nothing I've read in the lit or what virologists have discussed disagrees with this, however, the probability of non-blood transmission during incubation appears to be extremely low, enough so that the risk calculus appears to be that messaging the accuracy of the information will cause more harm than good at this time.

I don't suppose you'd know what the viral load required for human infection is most likely to be, would you? Or at least, the viral load compared to other infections spread through bodily fluids only with a lag between incubation and symptomatic appearance?

E:

Ebola Roulette posted:

The original article states that an incubation period can be as little as 1 day.

In some good news the article also states that the infectious period of people with Ebola can be as low as 1 day. It appears that the average infectious period ranges from 2-3 days.

http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/insights-into-the-early-epidemic-spread-of-ebola-in-sierra-leone-provided-by-viral-sequence-data/

From that article:

" our preliminary analyses suggest that half the population is spreading the virus with an R0 well above 2, while the other half of the population is spreading with an R0 below 1."

Reminds me of something similar I read in historical epidemiologies of HIV.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 11, 2014

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:24

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

My Imaginary GF posted:

I don't suppose you'd know what the viral load required for human infection is most likely to be, would you? Or at least, the viral load compared to other infections spread through bodily fluids only with a lag between incubation and symptomatic appearance?

1-10 particles for droplet transmission.

quote:

INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates Footnote 41.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:27

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Paul MaudDib posted:

1-10 particles for droplet transmission.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

So I've read. I'm wondering, how many particles are required for influenza, or HIV?

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:29

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

I have a question, probably stupid, for goon doctors. If the primary cause of death is the hemorrhagic symptoms of the illness, why aren't those effected treated with clotting factor?

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:35

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

My Imaginary GF posted:

So I've read. I'm wondering, how many particles are required for influenza, or HIV?

Infectious dose for flu is way higher.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:36

Cantorsdust: Aug 10, 2008; Infinitely many points, but zero length.

ZombieLenin posted:

I have a question, probably stupid, for goon doctors. If the primary cause of death is the hemorrhagic symptoms of the illness, why aren't those effected treated with clotting factor?

I would imagine the process going on is likely DIC. In DIC, the body is first sent into an aggressive clotting crisis with widespread clot formation in all your small blood vessels. In Ebola, this would be kicked off by all the inflammatory signals put out during the infection. Eventually, all your blood clotting factors are depleted, and you start bleeding now that you've lost any further ability to clot. The clots cause blockages in your small vessel vasculature and the bleeding further decreases your blood pressure, both of which contribute to under-perfusing your organs. Poor perfusion leads to multiple organ failure, which is extraordinarily difficult to come back from.

You can treat DIC with plasma or cryoprecipitate, but remember that the process going on (Ebola in this case) is still there and will continue to deplete those factors as you give them.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 20:42

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Paul MaudDib posted:

So that actually agrees with me - there is a low (not zero) risk of transmission during the early phase of the disease, with transmission becoming greater as the viral load increases.

Also note that the suspicion is now that it might also be transmissible by coughing, etc. Which (personal speculation here) might be caused by co-morbidity with the flu, or by an insufficient sample size during previous outbreaks to fully identify a weaker transmission vector. Probably mostly a vector in advanced cases with high viral load.

Physical contact with a late-stage case or their contaminated fomites are definitely the strongest transmission vector though.

vvv Yup, I think the technical term is "droplet transmission". vvv

I wasn't disagreeing you entirely, even by posting that publication. There is a functional difference however between a non-zero possibility of infection even at early asymptomatic stages and spread of contagion due to initial stages of infection being ignored. It might appear pedantic to argue over this but the probability of those two situations are most likely vastly different for the reasons discussed on the page of this thread.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 21:09

ZombieLenin: Sep 6, 2009; "Democracy for the insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society." VI Lenin

[/quote]

Cantorsdust posted:

I would imagine the process going on is likely DIC. In DIC, the body is first sent into an aggressive clotting crisis with widespread clot formation in all your small blood vessels. In Ebola, this would be kicked off by all the inflammatory signals put out during the infection. Eventually, all your blood clotting factors are depleted, and you start bleeding now that you've lost any further ability to clot. The clots cause blockages in your small vessel vasculature and the bleeding further decreases your blood pressure, both of which contribute to under-perfusing your organs. Poor perfusion leads to multiple organ failure, which is extraordinarily difficult to come back from.

You can treat DIC with plasma or cryoprecipitate, but remember that the process going on (Ebola in this case) is still there and will continue to deplete those factors as you give them.

So I guess my question is more: why isn't clotting factor replacement therapy part of Ebola treatment.

In other words, why not give semi-continuous cfrt and antivirals to those in the hemorrhagic phase of the disease? Is this a logistical issue (aka not nearly enough factor to do this adequately) or is there some reason cfrt would not work/make the illness worse?

# ? Oct 11, 2014 21:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

My Imaginary GF posted:

So I've read. I'm wondering, how many particles are required for influenza, or HIV?

This was posted a few pages back- I'll try to find it.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 21:40

Edmund Lava: Sep 8, 2004; Hey, I'm from Brooklyn. I'm going to call myself Mr. Friendly.

ZombieLenin posted:

I have a question, probably stupid, for goon doctors. If the primary cause of death is the hemorrhagic symptoms of the illness, why aren't those effected treated with clotting factor?

To my understanding you die of septic shock and subsequent organ failure. Some patients never develop the bleeding symptoms. It's a scary symptom but not dangerous even with patients who do develop it.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 22:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:17

Meatwave: Feb 21, 2014; Truest Detective - Work Crew Division.

Edmund Lava posted:

To my understanding you die of septic shock and subsequent organ failure. Some patients never develop the bleeding symptoms. It's a scary symptom but not dangerous even with patients who do develop it.

I think it's fewer than 1/5 who develop bleeding.

# ? Oct 11, 2014 22:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Ebolavirus 2014: the r0 from shitposting is 6.9

«‹›202 »