Unanswered questions.
Just this morning we learn a second "health worker", in addition to that beautiful girl of Viet ethnicity, has come down with ebola. This second health care worker also "treated" the Liberian who got into the US lying about his direct contact with ebola. We assume, and surely the CDC will claim, that this second (nurse?) was in some sort of direct contact (touching the Liberian) with the ebola "patient", or... something.
But actually don't assume anything. Maybe there was direct contact ... Or maybe the nurse simply came in contact with the protective attire of the first. Or something.
This brings up two questions I have been wondering about, real basic questions, just your typical questions always asked and answered - no, volunteered - right away in cases of an introduction of a disease like this or a dangerous virus.
(1) How long does the virus stay active in a liquid host (such as a drop of blood on a counter top), and likewise in a dry host (such as dried residue of spital or vomit and so on) before it goes inactive due to exposure to air?
For some reason, I cannot find the answer to this obvious question in this case, which is typically part of the conversation from the get go, certainly vital information the public and responders need to have awareness of. It is typically on line two of a five line brief on any such virus.
But I cannot find the definitive answer. Maybe I am not looking in the right places. Or this is dangerous information in the hands of the public like me. In fact, no one even mentions it at all, not even addressing it.
Oh, ok - I found one statement from some doctor trying to get face time in the media, who actually knows nothing about ebola, who stated the ebola virus "rapidly decays in exposed air".
He didn't say what rapidly means. Also decay is not the operable word - the correct term is inactive, not "decay". Decayed doesn't mean "no problemo". Inactive means it won't infect. The word is inactive, not decayed.
I did find a very well researched report from some Canadian medical researchers on ebola, released before this outbreak currently in West Africa, that the virus can be made inactive in a liquid host such as blood by "boiling for 30 minutes". This didn't sound good.
I am sure as the public asks more questions, the CDC will tell us the virus becomes inactive the very second it is exposed to air. But then, why all this fuss scrubbing down even the most tiny droplet of "bodily liquid" (including sweat), why hazmat teams washing down dried up vomit? Days later? I mean if it "rapidly" goes inactive when exposed to air, no problem. Just wait ten minutes, everything is cool.
Ten nano seconds? Ten seconds? Ten minutes? Ten hours? Ten days?
(2) We known from nature and from history, such as in the example of smallpox, when a deadly disease or virus is introduced from one culture where it was endemic to another people where it was not endemic, that the later can and is often much more susceptible to it, that transfer within the introduced demographic is quicker and deeper.
This is a basic question. An ABC question. A required question.
Are non-ethnic African peoples, non-blacks who are not from the endemic zone, such as Caucasians and Asians for example, or African-Americans who have lived outside Africa proper for generations, or Hispanics more susceptible to ebola than even it's deadly template along the Congo river?
I have no doubt, as the public starts asking more obvious questions, the CDC will say "no problem".
Just this morning we learn a second "health worker", in addition to that beautiful girl of Viet ethnicity, has come down with ebola. This second health care worker also "treated" the Liberian who got into the US lying about his direct contact with ebola. We assume, and surely the CDC will claim, that this second (nurse?) was in some sort of direct contact (touching the Liberian) with the ebola "patient", or... something.
But actually don't assume anything. Maybe there was direct contact ... Or maybe the nurse simply came in contact with the protective attire of the first. Or something.
This brings up two questions I have been wondering about, real basic questions, just your typical questions always asked and answered - no, volunteered - right away in cases of an introduction of a disease like this or a dangerous virus.
(1) How long does the virus stay active in a liquid host (such as a drop of blood on a counter top), and likewise in a dry host (such as dried residue of spital or vomit and so on) before it goes inactive due to exposure to air?
For some reason, I cannot find the answer to this obvious question in this case, which is typically part of the conversation from the get go, certainly vital information the public and responders need to have awareness of. It is typically on line two of a five line brief on any such virus.
But I cannot find the definitive answer. Maybe I am not looking in the right places. Or this is dangerous information in the hands of the public like me. In fact, no one even mentions it at all, not even addressing it.
Oh, ok - I found one statement from some doctor trying to get face time in the media, who actually knows nothing about ebola, who stated the ebola virus "rapidly decays in exposed air".
He didn't say what rapidly means. Also decay is not the operable word - the correct term is inactive, not "decay". Decayed doesn't mean "no problemo". Inactive means it won't infect. The word is inactive, not decayed.
I did find a very well researched report from some Canadian medical researchers on ebola, released before this outbreak currently in West Africa, that the virus can be made inactive in a liquid host such as blood by "boiling for 30 minutes". This didn't sound good.
I am sure as the public asks more questions, the CDC will tell us the virus becomes inactive the very second it is exposed to air. But then, why all this fuss scrubbing down even the most tiny droplet of "bodily liquid" (including sweat), why hazmat teams washing down dried up vomit? Days later? I mean if it "rapidly" goes inactive when exposed to air, no problem. Just wait ten minutes, everything is cool.
Ten nano seconds? Ten seconds? Ten minutes? Ten hours? Ten days?
(2) We known from nature and from history, such as in the example of smallpox, when a deadly disease or virus is introduced from one culture where it was endemic to another people where it was not endemic, that the later can and is often much more susceptible to it, that transfer within the introduced demographic is quicker and deeper.
This is a basic question. An ABC question. A required question.
Are non-ethnic African peoples, non-blacks who are not from the endemic zone, such as Caucasians and Asians for example, or African-Americans who have lived outside Africa proper for generations, or Hispanics more susceptible to ebola than even it's deadly template along the Congo river?
I have no doubt, as the public starts asking more obvious questions, the CDC will say "no problem".
Last edited: