Ebola round 2

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
I may just be a huge slob, but all of my efforts to thoroughly clean things around the house usually creates sprays and splashes. Unless I've been cleaning bathrooms and kichens and empty fishtanks wrong all my adult life?
 
So Ebola is not air borne, but can be aerosolized? And if simply washing will destroy the virus, their incinerating every thing is just going the extra unnecessary mile or two here? It seems that the experts/authorities say one thing to placate a nervous general population, but practice something different.
 
It can be aerosolized, yes. Same way that gut bacteria like E. coli briefly can be, once you flush the toilet. Incineration really does make sense, because of the concerns related to correctly handling the contaminated materials on their way to the wash (ie, incineration is not necessary, but IS simpler to do correctly. Also, it's cheaper). I've had a lot of frustration about the lack of detail in most of the reporting that's been going on about it, it always seems like important pieces of information which could better educate people don't get included -- I often wonder how much of it is intentional on the authors' part, or if they just don't really have the understanding to ask the right kind of questions.
 
heatherbeast said:
It can be aerosolized, yes. Same way that gut bacteria like E. coli briefly can be, once you flush the toilet. Incineration really does make sense, because of the concerns related to correctly handling the contaminated materials on their way to the wash (ie, incineration is not necessary, but IS simpler to do correctly. Also, it's cheaper).
Click to expand...


Do not use my name in vain.


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
 
Hello; have a look at the following link.
http://search.aol.com/aol/image?q=sneeze+image&v_t=comsearch

We had a brief discussion about airborne and aerosol in past posts. That may have been in the thread the MOD's shut down.

While the Ebola virus is described as not being airborne, I contend that it would exist in the spray of a sneeze. The aerosol effect would also be present when flushing a toilet. I think this means that for some period of time after a flushing there will be a fine mist in the air. Also implied is that if the toilet had contained "body fluids" of an infected person, the virus particles will be in that mist. I imagine something is known about how long these aerosol mists last. It may be only minutes.

A friend and I talked about the toilet flush aerosol issue some time ago before the current Ebola outbreak. I recall that simply closing the lid is supposed to reduce the effect a great deal.

My thinking is that there is an aerosol effect near the surface of our aquariums with the pumps and bubblers breaking the surface.

Let me speculate about what is meant by airborne. My take is that airborne pathogens can persist in the air like very fine dust does and for some significant time. An example of non-pathogen in the air is when I sit a container of boiled water and lettuce out to make an infusorians culture. I allow the container to be open to the air and in a few days I have a jar of decaying lettuce with lots of critters in the water. (And quite a smell.) This makes a fine started food for newly hatched fry. (Perhaps best for bachelors) The starter critters are in the air around us all the time. Feel free to correct or add to this.

If I had to clean up suspected Ebola contaminated body fluids, wearing a lot of protection would be a must. I would also have a sprayer filled with a Clorox solution and spray things down. Anyone have a suggestion for how to make an effective Clorox (bleach) that is not over strong?
I would also burn clothes, bed sheets and stuff.
 
ecoli73 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/first-outside-africa-nurse-spain-hospital-contracts-ebola-174043185.html

Oops...
Click to expand...

Hello; Back weeks ago I, and some others, were against transporting known infected people into the USA for treatment. So far there are no reports of the virus getting out from those brought into the USA for treatment. I think the time window is still open before we can be sure all is well. I believe another was brought in during the last few days.

I did not see the reward (Somewhat better care for the infected) of bringing the infected back being worth the risk of additional infections in a place where the virus had not existed. I understand the reasons given by those who likely still think it is the thing to do. That being that those who went to Africa to help people deserved to be treated here in the ____ (Insert the name of the country). To my way of thinking what may be "deserved" does not outweigh the potential bad outcomes.

ecoli73's link describes a nurse who treated two Ebola infected patients that died and is now infected with the virus. She may have been noble and volunteered to work with these people, I do not know. She may have drawn the short straw or somehow not had any choice, I do not know. Someone made the decision to bring infected people into a place where the Ebola virus did not exist and now it is out. While it has not happened in the USA yet, this is the very outcome I had feared. I wonder if the now infected nurse had any say so about bringing those infected people into her country? Let us hope that question will not need to be asked about people she has been in contact with.

I will take the criticism of being hard hearted for not wanting these infected people to be brought into the country where I live. There are ways to get treatment to sick people in place. It also seems to me that these health care workers who went into Africa to help people must have understood what they were getting into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom