вирус эбола- мнения
Попалась неплохая статья, http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com/2014/09/ebola-virus-hcws-infections-and.html , в блогах, взвешенно, аргументировано написано.
Как обычно, читаю комменты- и, приведу здесь выдержки из тех, которые согласуются с моими знаниями:
Kathy Cassandra
1 month ago - Shared publicly
Isn't Ebola always studied in BSL-4 where the precautions are even more strict than a health care worker with a respirator. Shouldn't they get at least the same protection as lab workers? If that is not needed why not move Ebola study back to BSL-3? Yet this article says a lab got in big trouble for studying full-length copies of Ebola DNA in a BSL 3 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2007/09/wisconsin-lab-broke-ebola-rules-watchdog-group-says
Didn't the Reston Ebola virus infect both monkey's and workers via the air. The infected workers never got sick because this particular strain doesn't make humans sick. But the airborne transmittal means that one Ebola virus is proven to transmit through the air
Do we know how each of the health care workers caught ebola - is there a cut, a needle prick, a touch to the face documented for each one. I read that Mrs. Writebol was disinfecting Drs. and not working with patients. If this is accurate how did she get Ebola?
Given how deadly the virus is should not speculation with some supporting documentation be enough to want to give the best protection to the health care workers. Wouldn't the sound and presence of respirator remind them constantly that they are working with a very dangerous virus and instill in them more caution.
You point to the number of cases as being a reason to doubt that the virus is airborne. That is a valid point IMO but airborne diseases are known not to transmit by air as well in the tropics as they do in colder climates in colder months. So basing the theory that ebola isnon-airborne on the numbers in Africa seems to be as much a belief as the CIDRAP commentary writers is a belief.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041918
Pneumonia, influenza and respiratory mortality were significantly higher during the pandemic, affecting predominantly adults aged 25 to 65 years. Overall, there were 2,273 and 2,787 additional P&I- and respiratory deaths during the pandemic, corresponding to a 5.2% and 2.7% increase, respectively, over average pre-pandemic annual mortality. However, there was a marked spatial structure in mortality that was independent of socio-demographic indicators and inversely related with income: mortality was progressively lower towards equatorial regions, where low or no difference from pre-pandemic mortality levels was identified. Additionally, the onset of pandemic-associated mortality was progressively delayed in equatorial states. Unexpectedly, there was no additional mortality from circulatory causes. Comparing disease burden reliably across regions is critical in those areas marked by competing health priorities and limited resources. Our results suggest, however, that tropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere may have been disproportionally less affected by the pandemic, and that climate may have played a key role in this regard. These findings have a direct bearing on global estimates of pandemic burden and the assessment of the role of immunological, socioeconomic and environmental drivers of the transmissibility and severity of this pandemic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080330203401.htm
A finding by a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health may account for why the flu virus is more infectious in cold winter temperatures than during the warmer months.
At winter temperatures, the virus’s outer covering, or envelope, hardens to a rubbery gel that could shield the virus as it passes from person to person, the researchers have found. At warmer temperatures, however, the protective gel melts to a liquid phase. But this liquid phase apparently isn’t tough enough to protect the virus against the elements, and so the virus loses its ability to spread from person to person.
Monkeys have been infected with aerosolized ebola - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/ what remains to be seen is what will happen if the virus moves into northern climes this winter
I would think that using respirators would make health care workers constantly MORE vigilant, not less. I think given the increasing number of health care workers including now one from Drs without borders, the responsible and moral thing to do is give them the very best of protection. так как тоже полагаю, что вирулентность может отличаться в разном климате и у разных штаммов; потому аэрозолизацию исключать рано.
к тому же, для заболеваний, передающихся ВКП, это не обязательно- доминирующий путь передачи, большую (не меньшую) роль играют прямой или контактный путь передачи.
Как обычно, читаю комменты- и, приведу здесь выдержки из тех, которые согласуются с моими знаниями:
Kathy Cassandra
1 month ago - Shared publicly
Isn't Ebola always studied in BSL-4 where the precautions are even more strict than a health care worker with a respirator. Shouldn't they get at least the same protection as lab workers? If that is not needed why not move Ebola study back to BSL-3? Yet this article says a lab got in big trouble for studying full-length copies of Ebola DNA in a BSL 3 http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2007/09/wisconsin-lab-broke-ebola-rules-watchdog-group-says
Didn't the Reston Ebola virus infect both monkey's and workers via the air. The infected workers never got sick because this particular strain doesn't make humans sick. But the airborne transmittal means that one Ebola virus is proven to transmit through the air
Do we know how each of the health care workers caught ebola - is there a cut, a needle prick, a touch to the face documented for each one. I read that Mrs. Writebol was disinfecting Drs. and not working with patients. If this is accurate how did she get Ebola?
Given how deadly the virus is should not speculation with some supporting documentation be enough to want to give the best protection to the health care workers. Wouldn't the sound and presence of respirator remind them constantly that they are working with a very dangerous virus and instill in them more caution.
You point to the number of cases as being a reason to doubt that the virus is airborne. That is a valid point IMO but airborne diseases are known not to transmit by air as well in the tropics as they do in colder climates in colder months. So basing the theory that ebola isnon-airborne on the numbers in Africa seems to be as much a belief as the CIDRAP commentary writers is a belief.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041918
Pneumonia, influenza and respiratory mortality were significantly higher during the pandemic, affecting predominantly adults aged 25 to 65 years. Overall, there were 2,273 and 2,787 additional P&I- and respiratory deaths during the pandemic, corresponding to a 5.2% and 2.7% increase, respectively, over average pre-pandemic annual mortality. However, there was a marked spatial structure in mortality that was independent of socio-demographic indicators and inversely related with income: mortality was progressively lower towards equatorial regions, where low or no difference from pre-pandemic mortality levels was identified. Additionally, the onset of pandemic-associated mortality was progressively delayed in equatorial states. Unexpectedly, there was no additional mortality from circulatory causes. Comparing disease burden reliably across regions is critical in those areas marked by competing health priorities and limited resources. Our results suggest, however, that tropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere may have been disproportionally less affected by the pandemic, and that climate may have played a key role in this regard. These findings have a direct bearing on global estimates of pandemic burden and the assessment of the role of immunological, socioeconomic and environmental drivers of the transmissibility and severity of this pandemic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080330203401.htm
A finding by a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health may account for why the flu virus is more infectious in cold winter temperatures than during the warmer months.
At winter temperatures, the virus’s outer covering, or envelope, hardens to a rubbery gel that could shield the virus as it passes from person to person, the researchers have found. At warmer temperatures, however, the protective gel melts to a liquid phase. But this liquid phase apparently isn’t tough enough to protect the virus against the elements, and so the virus loses its ability to spread from person to person.
Monkeys have been infected with aerosolized ebola - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/ what remains to be seen is what will happen if the virus moves into northern climes this winter
I would think that using respirators would make health care workers constantly MORE vigilant, not less. I think given the increasing number of health care workers including now one from Drs without borders, the responsible and moral thing to do is give them the very best of protection. так как тоже полагаю, что вирулентность может отличаться в разном климате и у разных штаммов; потому аэрозолизацию исключать рано.
к тому же, для заболеваний, передающихся ВКП, это не обязательно- доминирующий путь передачи, большую (не меньшую) роль играют прямой или контактный путь передачи.