Ebola and extinction.

[Blue_Dino2014]

With the media falling all over the Ebola virus coverage. I ask if the Ebola virus really is as bad as they make it seem and if so could it bring human extinction or a survival of the fittest or a genetically superior scenario? Apologies if this is in the wrong section.

[Robittybob1]

With the media falling all over the Ebola virus coverage. I ask if the Ebola virus really is as bad as they make it seem and if so could it bring human extinction or a survival of the fittest or a genetically superior scenario? Apologies if this is in the wrong section.

Can anyone survive Ebola without some degree of nursing? It is the caring that allows further infection. If everyone said "I'm not going near anyone with Ebola the virus would nearly die out within a few weeks. Trouble is you don't know who is going down with Ebola or a thousand other reasons a person could have a fever. Would anyone survive the myriad of diseases if there was no nursing care from parents or friends or nurses etc.

Would a mother just let her baby die in case the fever was ebola? It would be survival of the few, but human society would have reverted to being uncivilized basic animals.

[Strange]

With the media falling all over the Ebola virus coverage. I ask if the Ebola virus really is as bad as they make it seem and if so could it bring human extinction or a survival of the fittest or a genetically superior scenario? Apologies if this is in the wrong section.

 

There have been (are) diseases which have spread more widely and killed a similar proportion of people (e.g. the black death, bubonic plague). These caused major problems and changes in society but nothing close to extinction.

Can anyone survive Ebola without some degree of nursing?

 

Probably, depending on their initial health and level of resistance.

 

It is the caring that allows further infection.

 

Not at all. The number of infections from those being cared for is minute compared to the spread in the general population. It is ignorance of the symptoms and risks that causes the spread of the disease.

 

Would a mother just let her baby die in case the fever was ebola? It would be survival of the few, but human society would have reverted to being uncivilized basic animals.

 

I don't think it would be effective and, as you say, it is never going to happen that way.

[Robittybob1]

 

There have been (are) diseases which have spread more widely and killed a similar proportion of people (e.g. the black death, bubonic plague). These caused major problems and changes in society but nothing close to extinction.

But even in the face of these diseases people have always cared for the sick. In my negative post I was thinking how would humans survive if there was no nursing care, for sometimes even a glass of water might be the difference between life or death. It would be a very heartless society then wouldn't it?

[Strange]

I seem to remember that there were places during the plague where that was the reaction. Anyone who fell ill was basically shut in their house and abandoned (with the whole family). Of course, in that case, the disease was carried by fleas so it made no difference at all.

[Robittybob1]

I seem to remember that there were places during the plague where that was the reaction. Anyone who fell ill was basically shut in their house and abandoned (with the whole family). Of course, in that case, the disease was carried by fleas so it made no difference at all.

I've just been reading up about the Black Death plague. It seems to be still prevalent in animals in many parts of the world, and there doesn't seem to be any vaccine, so could it flare up again? As long as antibiotics work and treated early people can survive it today.

[CharonY]

Two things: the causative agent for bubonic plague is a bacterium (this is why antibiotics work) and there actually is a vaccine. However, the incidence level is so low that it is generally not used, unless there is some kind of indication. For example, if you are a researcher of health care worker that is likely to get into contact.

 

As to OP, media like ebola, as it is so gory and lethal. However, precisely due to this reason it is less likely to spread on a global scale. The big killer in Africa is HIV with over 20 million infected and over a million deaths per year. The situation is improving, but it is still orders of magnitude worse than the current ebola outbreak.

[Robittybob1]

Two things: the causative agent for bubonic plague is a bacterium (this is why antibiotics work) and there actually is a vaccine. However, the incidence level is so low that it is generally not used, unless there is some kind of indication. For example, if you are a researcher of health care worker that is likely to get into contact.

 

As to OP, media like ebola, as it is so gory and lethal. However, precisely due to this reason it is less likely to spread on a global scale. The big killer in Africa is HIV with over 20 million infected and over a million deaths per year. The situation is improving, but it is still orders of magnitude worse than the current ebola outbreak.

Ebola was doubling every 3 weeks recently, but I don't think HIV ever spread at that rate, so Ebola seems to have the potential to snowball much faster than HIV.

I looked up the Bubonic Plague vaccine again and yes there is a vaccine but they don't say how effective it is.

 

In my opinion it was those that have recovered from Ebola that need to become the next generation of caregivers for they are now immune.

This is mentioned implied in the clip.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/american-ebola-patient-speaks-out-as-another-is-identified/54087c3778c90aec290001fc?cn=tbla

Edited October 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

Ebola was doubling every 3 weeks recently, but I don't think HIV ever spread at that rate, so Ebola seems to have the potential to snowball much faster than HIV.

I looked up the Bubonic Plague vaccine again and yes there is a vaccine but they don't say how effective it is.

You really can't compare the bubonic http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000596.htm with ebola, one is a bacterium the other is a virus but neither is 100% fatal.

[Robittybob1]

You really can't compare the bubonic http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000596.htm with ebola, one is a bacterium the other is a virus but neither is 100% fatal.

We are lucky at the moment we still have antibiotics that work but bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and fleas become resistant to pesticides so sometime in the future plague could become significant again, and i see both cat and dog fleas can spread it as well.

Towns today are full of cats and dogs and rats I'd imagine.

"Study Predicts 220K W. African Ebola Cases by Years' End"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186309#.VEajcPmUd8E

 

Now putting that (220,000) into Excel and doubling it every month that could snowball to the entire Earth's population in a year and a half.

So unless there is a mass exodus from those West Africa countries (in panic as they did in the days of the plague) I can't really see that happening, BUT!!!!

 

Some good news for a change!

"Silent Ebola Infections Could Be Key to Controlling Outbreak"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-ancel-meyers/ebola-silent-infections_b_5996626.html

 

. In one study, 71 percent of individuals with positive Ebola antibody tests had not gotten sick; inanother, 46 percent of close contacts of infectious Ebola patients who remained healthy tested positive for Ebola antibodies.

The latter study also found minute concentrations of Ebola virus in these individuals' blood, suggesting that their antibodies could not be explained by their exposure to dead virus, but that rather they had truly been infected by live virus. Could silent Ebola infections be contagious? Given that Ebola typically spreads through contact with bodily fluids of very sick individuals, who have exceedingly high viral counts, it is very unlikely that silent (asymptomatic) cases can spread the virus with the low levels found in their blood. ....

Edited October 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

I keep thinking of WWZ...

[CharonY]

 

Ebola was doubling every 3 weeks recently, but I don't think HIV ever spread at that rate, so Ebola seems to have the potential to snowball much faster than HIV.

 

HIV spread at a higher rate than ebola. The estimates for secondary infections (i.e. how many people are getting infected per patient) are around 2 for the current outbreak. For HIV it is estimated to be around 4.6-5. That means that on average more than double the amount of people are getting infected for HIV are double that of ebola. It just now sounds high as the media makes quite a fuss about it. Looking at actual numbers paints quite a different picture.

[Robittybob1]

 

HIV spread at a higher rate than ebola. The estimates for secondary infections (i.e. how many people are getting infected per patient) are around 2 for the current outbreak. For HIV it is estimated to be around 4.6-5. That means that on average more than double the amount of people are getting infected for HIV are double that of ebola. It just now sounds high as the media makes quite a fuss about it. Looking at actual numbers paints quite a different picture.

That is rather a bluff isn't it? 4.6 - 5 for HIV may be correct but it wasn't all happening as fast as Ebola, With HIV you remain infected for life, but Ebola patients are only infectious for a maximum of about 6 weeks

[CharonY]

Why is that a bluff? Precisely for that reason HIV can spread further than ebola. If the latter is contained, spread will die down. HIV is much, much harder to contain.

It is the same thinking with air crashes. If one plane crashes hundreds of people die. Yet what kills more people? Plane crash or automobile accidents?

I understand that movies and other media like to use these rapid epidemic troupe. Yet, the majority of deaths are actually caused by endemic, re-appearing and consistent deaths caused by diseases that we kind of ignore.

Year after year, more than a million people die of HIV, malaria, pneumonia and some diarrhoeal disease, each. Ebola has serious catching up to do and, as it has been noted on this forum in several posts, because it acts to so rapidly, it has limited chance to become a successful endemic disease.

Edited October 21, 2014 by CharonY

[Blue_Dino2014]

In my opinion it was those that have recovered from Ebola that need to become the next generation of caregivers for they are now immune.

This is mentioned implied in the clip.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/american-ebola-patient-speaks-out-as-another-is-identified/54087c3778c90aec290001fc?cn=tbla

I agree that immune patients should help as caregivers. And if there is any of those medical volunteers that were helping out in Africa they are going to have less weight to carry.

 

 

Thank you for all the educational replies. I now better understand why the media covers Ebola so much and why doctors treat it in that process.

You are all true men of science \(^-^)/

[CharonY]

To be fair though, when HIV/AIDS was discovered and making the rounds in media, the hysteria was the same. Despite the knowledge of transmission, HIV positive patients were stigmatized and discriminated. There was the widespread belief that you could get infected by body contact such as hand shaking of even being in the same room.

The new and spectacular is what the media and the audience likes (to fear). Whereas the persistent killers and risk are just the things we already got used to, even if they are much more likely to end your life.

[knyazik]

I agree that immune patients should help as caregivers. And if there is any of those medical volunteers that were helping out in Africa they are going to have less weight to carry.

 

 

Thank you for all the educational replies. I now better understand why the media covers Ebola so much and why doctors treat it in that process.

You are all true men of science \(^-^)/

I wouldn't worry about extinction whatsoever. Even in the darkest hours of history, people still survived, even when 90% of the human population was wiped out. And today we are much better at diagnosing and separating people that are a biological threat so there will not be any problem with ebola. Don't believe me, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics.