4 ms·

That's all well and good but a slew of actual virologists disagree with this, citing examples such as no viruses affecting humans ever changing from being sprea

That's all well and good but a slew of actual virologists disagree with this, citing examples such as no viruses affecting humans ever changing from being spreadable via bodily fluid/direct contact to becoming aerosol. This includes all viruses that have ever been known to affect human beings. So, yes, while it is theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely and really not worth discussing because no good can come from it.

joeguilmette 12y ago
As the parent comment states, the question isn't will Ebola completely change it's infection vector to become airborne. Someone who has Ebola today can cough blood. If you become infected from someone coughing blood on you, does it matter that the infection came from the blood on their breath or from virus on their breath? It seems that virologists are answering the wrong question and getting caught up on semantics, perhaps to prevent more hand wringing and panic. Edit: removed statements about Reston, as they seem to have been remembered incorrectly from Hot Zone, the book about the primate-only Ebola outbreak in Virginia in the 90s.
- thathonkey 12y ago
  You're confusing "spreads via an exchange of body fluids" (getting sneezed or coughed on by an infected individual would be included in this category) with "can survive and therefore spread via the air without any direct contact with bodily fluids" (walking outside of your house and breathing). You can't even call that a "semantic" distinction without coming off as really dishonest considering it's a totally different infection vector. Anyway, I'm just arguing the points I've heard made by ACTUAL VIROLOGISTS. Read: PhDs who have been studying this exact behavior in viruses for many years. They've all said the same thing: theoretically possible, extremely unlikely.
  - joeguilmette 12y ago
    I think we're actually in agreement. To be fair tho, influenza is airborne, but you're not going to contract it by going outside and breathing, unless you're being breathed on by someone with the flu, or shaking their hand. My point is that being breathed on, or even in close proximity to someone with Ebola is likely to result in you contracting the disease without actually touching them, as it is with influenza. So, does it matter if the virus isn't 'airborne' in the strict medical sense if it is just as contractable as one that is from things like coughing? It's a question, and not a rhetorical one.
    - thathonkey 12y ago
      Yeah, honestly I'm not qualified to answer that question. If I had to guess, one of the reasons why going airborne would be so bad is that it allows the virus to sprawl (geographically) much faster than it ever could otherwise (because it would be subject to wind etc). Basically it could and would spread much faster and further if it were truly airborne. Also pretty much makes it impossible to contain because we can't just quarantine the earth's atmosphere.
iandanforth 12y ago
What are the harms of assuming it is an airborne virus? This seems like a case where, as of today, global leaders are not scared enough. A bit of misinformed public hysteria could be just what politicians need to act.
- joe_the_user 12y ago
  What are the harms of assuming it is an airborne virus? Oh, I donno, maybe panicked and unneeded responses to that hypothetical scenario when sober but aggressive responses to the present very real and already deadly situation are sorely need? Just what comes to mind...
theyrealltaken 12y ago
In a few months it's flu season. A large part of the population will be sneezing and coughing. I don't wish to find out what happens when someone with ebola is introduced in such a system (e.g. infected doctor returning to the west). But your call for silence on the subject is nothing but short-sightedness.
- thathonkey 12y ago
  It's not my call to make. It's the call of the numerous individuals who are infinitely more qualified than anyone reading and posting on HN. People that work at places like the CDC and have years of training and experience researching the effects of viruses like Ebola. They're all saying not to worry about that. Even if they strongly suspected it will become airborne (based on something other than theory), do you think they'd just announce it to the public like "oh, hey, btw..."? Can you imagine the hysteria that would cause? Not "a bit" like another poster suggested. The effect of the hysteria could very well be worse than what the virus might cause on its own. It's really impossible to know, that is why we take measures to prevent getting worked into a highly irrational hysteria. These measures would include things like listening to qualified individuals and not ignoring the rational points they are trying to make to you.

joeguilmette 12y ago

As the parent comment states, the question isn't will Ebola completely change it's infection vector to become airborne. Someone who has Ebola today can cough blood. If you become infected from someone coughing blood on you, does it matter that the infection came from the blood on their breath or from virus on their breath? It seems that virologists are answering the wrong question and getting caught up on semantics, perhaps to prevent more hand wringing and panic. Edit: removed statements about Reston, as they seem to have been remembered incorrectly from Hot Zone, the book about the primate-only Ebola outbreak in Virginia in the 90s.

thathonkey 12y ago
You're confusing "spreads via an exchange of body fluids" (getting sneezed or coughed on by an infected individual would be included in this category) with "can survive and therefore spread via the air without any direct contact with bodily fluids" (walking outside of your house and breathing). You can't even call that a "semantic" distinction without coming off as really dishonest considering it's a totally different infection vector. Anyway, I'm just arguing the points I've heard made by ACTUAL VIROLOGISTS. Read: PhDs who have been studying this exact behavior in viruses for many years. They've all said the same thing: theoretically possible, extremely unlikely.
- joeguilmette 12y ago
  I think we're actually in agreement. To be fair tho, influenza is airborne, but you're not going to contract it by going outside and breathing, unless you're being breathed on by someone with the flu, or shaking their hand. My point is that being breathed on, or even in close proximity to someone with Ebola is likely to result in you contracting the disease without actually touching them, as it is with influenza. So, does it matter if the virus isn't 'airborne' in the strict medical sense if it is just as contractable as one that is from things like coughing? It's a question, and not a rhetorical one.
  - thathonkey 12y ago
    Yeah, honestly I'm not qualified to answer that question. If I had to guess, one of the reasons why going airborne would be so bad is that it allows the virus to sprawl (geographically) much faster than it ever could otherwise (because it would be subject to wind etc). Basically it could and would spread much faster and further if it were truly airborne. Also pretty much makes it impossible to contain because we can't just quarantine the earth's atmosphere.

iandanforth 12y ago

What are the harms of assuming it is an airborne virus? This seems like a case where, as of today, global leaders are not scared enough. A bit of misinformed public hysteria could be just what politicians need to act.

joe_the_user 12y ago
What are the harms of assuming it is an airborne virus? Oh, I donno, maybe panicked and unneeded responses to that hypothetical scenario when sober but aggressive responses to the present very real and already deadly situation are sorely need? Just what comes to mind...

theyrealltaken 12y ago

In a few months it's flu season. A large part of the population will be sneezing and coughing. I don't wish to find out what happens when someone with ebola is introduced in such a system (e.g. infected doctor returning to the west). But your call for silence on the subject is nothing but short-sightedness.

thathonkey 12y ago
It's not my call to make. It's the call of the numerous individuals who are infinitely more qualified than anyone reading and posting on HN. People that work at places like the CDC and have years of training and experience researching the effects of viruses like Ebola. They're all saying not to worry about that. Even if they strongly suspected it will become airborne (based on something other than theory), do you think they'd just announce it to the public like "oh, hey, btw..."? Can you imagine the hysteria that would cause? Not "a bit" like another poster suggested. The effect of the hysteria could very well be worse than what the virus might cause on its own. It's really impossible to know, that is why we take measures to prevent getting worked into a highly irrational hysteria. These measures would include things like listening to qualified individuals and not ignoring the rational points they are trying to make to you.