Why the Ebola outbreak in Africa should concern us all:

[hedgehog]

In the past, it was possible to swoop down and end Ebola outbreaks by breaking the chain of infection. Since the disease apparently spreads only with intimate contact with bodily fluids, this involved isolating anyone who was exposed and taking special precautions to protect anyone in contact with patients. Each time the virus has jumped species, it has been stamped out among humans.

This time around, families have concealed illness among their loved ones in order to nurse the sick and properly bury the dead. People have been exposed to the virus and then traveled to their home in another location. This means that more and more people across scattered locations are becoming infected.

Viruses mutate. Ebola now kills most of its victims. However, the more humans it infects, the higher the possibility that a mutant version that doesn't kill quickly and/or spreads more easily appears. The form of the virus that does the best job of spreading among humans is the one that will survive and dominate. The more people with Ebola today, the higher the risk that this will happen.

Measles is a disease that jumped species; the original virus causes rinderpest in cattle and other even-toed ungulates. There is concern that small pox began as a pox disease in another species before it jumped to humans, and that that mutation could reoccur. Ebola could add itself to the list at any time.

[laundry_queen]

1. I agree.

However, if it mutates we should be so lucky if it has the death rate of measles or even small pox. If Ebola mutates to become airborne or more easily transmitted but maintains even half of it's death rate, we're still looking at a 45% death rate. That's scary. They should've done much more to get this under control way before now, imo. They've become complacent thinking the outbreak will run its course because that's what it has done in the past.

[hedgehog]

3. As an example of what can happen when an airborne disease hits a new population -

"In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide.[83] During the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people.[84] In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population.[85] In the 19th century, the disease decimated the Andamanese population."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles

Epidemics of small pox and/or measles wiped out most Native Americans and were a significant factor in the conquests of the Aztecs and Incas.

We've spent billions on national defense. We need to get people fighting this disease now.

[Marrah_G]

17. A lower deathrate would actually spread it faster

If it became airborne I agree it would be a bit more scary. But even with the recent outbreak, Influenza is a far more deadly virus.

Ebola scared the heck out of me until I started reading everything I could get my hands on about Viruses. The more I read, the more I realized that Ebola is far less scary then some other things out there.

http://decipherthescience.blogspot.com/2012/08/ebola-pandemic-virus-fail.html

Here is a link to a good explanation as to why Ebola is not a successful virus.

Also- people need to stop eating bats!

[msongs]

2. sorry, our government has a rebellion to quell in Iraq, not head off a world wide epidemic nt

[Quantess]

4. Maybe we just have too many humans on this planet.

What about that?

[hedgehog]

7. OK - and the way to solve that is a world wide epidemic that results in

civil strife, murder of anyone perceived as "the other", collapse of food systems leading to famine, collapse of fuel supplies leading to people freezing in the dark, major disasters as various chemical plants, refineries, nuclear power plants etc go untended.

[Quantess]

8. I'm not saying I like Ebola. I am very cynical and also realistic.

But if disease epidemics aren't the way to reduce the population, what else is a likely solution? Emphasis on the word likely, since we can't even get the Vatican to approve family planning programs in developing countries?

[SoCalDem]

26. A large part of the Enlightenment/Rennaissance period came about because of the plague

When large populations suddenly disappear, resources once slim-pickens, become more available to the ones who are left..

It may seem crass, but supply & demand sometimes applies to the human "product/consumer".

While it really sucks if you are one of the unlucky ones, it's a blessing to the hardier ones who survive and suddenly have access to things they never had before..

http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC71

snip

The results of the Black Death

Along with an obsession with death that worked its way into European culture for generations to come, one can see the long term effects of the Black Death following three lines of development: a higher standard of living for those who survived, problems for nobles and clergy who were land owners, and revolts by peasants and urban workers. First of all, the Black Death had raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague's victims. One sign of this was that peasant families, who, before the plague, were so poor that they sat at the dinner table on a common bench and ate from a common plate, now had individual stools and plates. This higher standard of living would lead to a more even wealth distribution and the recovery of the economy after 1450.

Popular uprisings

Peasant and urban worker revolts were a sign of the times in the 1300's and 1400's for two main reasons. First of all the plague created a labor shortage, especially in the cities where up to 70% of the inhabitants had died. As a result, workers and peasants demanded higher wages for their labor, something nobles and guild masters strongly opposed. A second problem was that the Black Death had severely depleted the tax base of the medieval state. This caused kings to raise taxes drastically to meet expenses coming from the chronic warfare of the age, in particular the Hundred Years War raging between France and England. Frustration from these thwarted demands and the heavier tax burden triggered a series of urban and peasant revolts across Europe.

Typically, war, plague, high taxes, or a combination of these would spark a sudden uprising. At first it would take the authorities by surprise, and they would either be killed or flee to the safety of the local towns or castles. In the case of peasant revolts, the unexpected success of an uprising would encourage other peasants to join and vent their frustrations on their own lords with incredible ferocity and cruelty. The rebellion would sweep through the countryside like wildfire, destroying any opposition in its path. However, the sudden nature of such outbursts also carried the seeds of their destruction, because they had very little, if any, organization or planning. Eventually, the authorities would gather their forces and crush the rebellion, since the rebels were poorly armed and trained compared to the professional warriors facing them. The aftermath would often see massacres and executions as retribution against the rebels and to discourage any further uprisings.

snip

[Quantess]

10. Oh, and also...

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:46 PM - Edit history (3)

We in the wealthier parts of the world have worked toward our very own deadly epidemic: antibiotic resistant bacterial illnesses.

[Jenoch]

19. I think you meant to write anti-biotic resistant viruses.

[Marrah_G]

20. Anti-biotics do not work on Viruses

They work on bacterial infections.

[Jenoch]

23. You are right of course.

I was focusing on the word anti=-bacterial. That was not the correct use of the term.

It should be anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

[Quantess]

32. Thanks to both of you for correcting me.

I knew that it wasn't quite right at the time I wrote it, but I was in a hurry and just blurted out my post.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Which is worse than the probable alternative...

of increasing competition for resources including drinking water, drought and famine due to climate change, severe social disruption because of eventually declining fuel supplies? The outcome for modern industrial civilisation over the course of the next century or so looks pretty bleak, whether or not an epidemic is the proximate cause of breakdown.

[lapislzi]

21. Dr. Malthus, I'm not sure if I agree

Mass die-off from hemorrhagic fever might be the better way to cull the species. At least it would be quick. Survivors would confer immunity to their offspring as the virus co-evolves with humans to become a chronic nuisance.

Of course, your scenario of mass social and civil upheaval would still hold. Oh, so I guess I do agree.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road was an amazing book.

[ECHOFIELDS]

13. which day?

Would you happen to know on which day the Ebola virus was created
6000 years ago by the Creator?
thanx

[KamaAina]

15. R u serious?

[lapislzi]

22. Eh, don't feed it. n/t

[cbdo2007]

24. LOL, I agree with you but good luck with the backlash here

for posting a realistic viewpoint.

[littlemissmartypants]

5. Kicking. nt

[AverageJoe90]

6. Well, all I can say is.....

In the event in which the absolute worst case actually does occur, the one hope we might have might be to cancel all future flights to the infected area and close our borders to refugees from those areas.....yeah, I realize it sounds kinda harsh, but what else could be done without putting ourselves at risk?

Of course, there isn't much of a chance of *any* epidemic exceeding the horrible extremes of the Spanish Flu of 1917-19, which killed almost 100 million people worldwide.....even in literal numerical terms, as well as porportional. But it's honestly better to be safe than sorry.

[KamaAina]

16. Like when New Orleans used to have yellow fever epidemics

if you tried to get off a train leaving there, people in the town would be waiting with shotguns. Sort of a Second Amendment solution to epidemics.

[lapislzi]

29. The mortality rate of Spanish Influenza was between 10 - 20%

Mortality of Ebola hovers above 60%. Some strains have an almost 90% fatality rate. Its high lethality is, ironically, one of the factors that prevents its spread. People die before they can infect too many others.

But all it takes is one sick person on an aircraft.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Ebola is scary shit, no question. However, AFAIUI it belongs to a unique family of viruses which

May not be as well-equipped to rapidly mutate in humans, as other families of viruses can. For instance, the flu virus is inherently programmed to not just regularly mutate or change its protein shell, but also to exchange genetic material with other flu family viruses- this contributes to the rapidly changing nature of flu strains, of which a number are in the wild, circulating between birds, pigs, humans and other animals, and often with multiple different strains infecting the same host at the same time and having the opportunity to swap genes.

Ebola, otoh, is in a pretty linear situation with regards to human hosts... There is little likelihood of it getting funky and interacting with other strains of something to create some hybrid.

That said, it's scary shit and it deserves global attention to stop it ASAP, and hopefully develop a vaccine in the near future.

[hedgehog]

12. Thanks for that info - good to know.

[snagglepuss]

14. Thanks for posting. I hadnt heard that when I listened awhile ago to a

doctor who had been treating the Ebola patients. He mentioned that a real problem was the insistence of family to wash and bury the dead.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Measles and Pox jumped species, Ebola is already in our species.

You seem to be conflating a disease jumping species to a disease becoming communicable via air instead of close contact. Perhaps there is an example of actual change of transmission paths?

[hedgehog]

33. What I was thinking of is that currently, humans are not a good fit for Ebola.

It has a nice reservoir out there somewhere where it co-exists with some other mammal(s). I think the accepted method of transmission to human is a result of catching and eating an infected animal, getting exposed to the blood in the process. Ebola also tends to kill quickly, which limits its ability to spread from person to person. Again, even to spread among humans now, there has to be intimate contact with bodily fluids. In past outbreaks, local medical personnel had the highest rate of exposure and death.

Right now, if a particular virus has a mutation that makes it easier for it to co-exist with humans, the odds are it doesn't matter because the odds are it never encounters a human. As long as it stays in the reservoir, "Ebola II" has no advantage over "Ebola I". But, if more people carry Ebola viruses, the odds change. Now if "Ebola II" takes longer to kill people or spreads via coughing, it has a real advantage over "Ebola I". It would have more opportunities to infect new humans and may find a new home in the human population.

[dembotoz]

27. anything that can kill like ebola has to be stopped--period--surprised there is discussion

folks who die from it in africa are just as dead as someone who could die from it the next suburb over

[lapislzi]

28. No one's suggesting that Ebola be permitted to spread unchecked.

Stopping it from spreading is no simple matter. There is simply not enough labor on the ground (in terms of Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian groups) to contain each hot spot. The infrastructure is nonexistent. There are gigantic cultural hurdles to be scaled. Outsiders come in and tell people they can't bury their dead, nurse their sick, or consume one of their major protein sources. Try that and see how well it goes over. I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm just saying it's not going to be easy, or fast. Likely hundreds more will die before things calm down.

Earlier outbreaks were somewhat more isolated and tended to burn themselves out in a fairly predictable trajectory.

The goal should be securing the perimeter, like burning a firebreak. So far and no further.

[Marrah_G]

31. Of course it can't be ignored

It's just not a massive worldwide threat that people fear it to be. There are alot of other viruses that do a thousand times more damage especially in tropical and third world conditions.

Health care workers and citizens in Africa need to be educated and clinics need to be supplied with the protective clothing, equipment and supplies they need to be able to stop these outbreaks.