TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:They're testing someone in Frisco for ebola.

Abraham wrote:I haven't read the entire thread - Is his diagnosis confirmed or they still waiting of find out?

VMI77 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Keith B wrote:It is not easy to catch and you must have direct contact with the individual. The area this comes from has a very poor sanitation standards. Easily passed between people when they have no modern healthcare readily available. I am more worried about the storms coming Thursday and possibly getting struck by lightning.

Not quite accurate. Contact with body fluids is the method of transmission. The infected person doesn't have to be there, just the fluids.

Not something I am normally in contact with from those I don't know. No matter, you must have had some form of contact, it's not an airborn virus. You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

Not true, according to this medical paper:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1

This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.

The paper goes into much greater detail than just the two quotes above.

RoyGBiv wrote:I thought your quoted post above was a bit overly dismissive about the possibility of transmission in this way.
It CAN happen. The remoteness of that possibility is directly related to the number of infected individuals walking among us. Today, VERY remote.
But I would not be so quick to write off the possibility, especially if the number of cases here rises.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Keith B wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

They successfully screw things up and then cover them up very well. Does that count?

They don't cover the results up well either. They just keep lying.

anygunanywhere wrote: Think really hard and tell me what any government has done well and successfully, especially in recent history.

Crossfire wrote:

Keith B wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Keith B wrote:It is not easy to catch and you must have direct contact with the individual. The area this comes from has a very poor sanitation standards. Easily passed between people when they have no modern healthcare readily available. I am more worried about the storms coming Thursday and possibly getting struck by lightning.

Not quite accurate. Contact with body fluids is the method of transmission. The infected person doesn't have to be there, just the fluids.

Not something I am normally in contact with from those I don't know. No matter, you must have had some form of contact, it's not an airborn virus. You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

No, but a person who is sick, and coughing or sneezing, is transmitting body fluids into the air. It is a virus, just like the cold or flu virus. I find it hard to believe that it cannot be transmitted the same way.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Keith B wrote:You're not going to get it off of a toilet seat.

It seems entirely plausible to me that the combination of an unclean toilet (diarrhea from an infected individual CAN contain the virus) and your bare bottom could (not "will" but "could" ) lead to transmission.

txglock21 wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:Mental note - stay away from other peoples' fluids.

Sorry, but that hit me as funny as heck! Coffee coming out nose is not fun though.