3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoYeah, 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.