I turned in last night and see at least 10 pages I missed. Yikes. Before I go back and read, I would like to submit something to you all.
There has been much talk and angst and disagreement about the terms "droplet transmission," which can travel short distances in the air and "airborne transmission." If droplets travel through the air, it must by definition be "airborne", right? Well, no, not in the sense of how we categorize modes of transmission. As a nurse, I know or have access to a lot of doctors, 2 ID doctors in particular, and many great ones in other specialties. Yesterday I wrote a letter to a doctor who has spent a large part of his career giving care to remote populations. He is soon going back to Africa to take care of patients in the "hot zone." I can't prove his credentials, so you will have to give me the benefit of the doubt or not as you read this.
Here was my question:
You have been very generous with your time. If you are willing or able, can you comment on this article as it relates to categorizing ebola as a contact and droplet transmitted disease vs. airborne? Does it change anything with regard to prevention/isolation/treatment/protection of caregivers? Is the distinction between droplet and airborne essentially nullified by this "evidence"?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ebola-...th-workers-need-respirators-not-masks/5408022
If you don't have the time or inclination to deal with this, I would totally understand.
He graciously responded:
For a level 4 isolation virus, it doesn't change anything. But for the population it does. Airborne means that after the droplet has evaporated, the infectious particle remains suspended in air or dust particles and continues to be infectious. The particle has to be resistant to drying and remain infectious for a long time.
Doplets are large and fall to the ground. They can only cause infection through direct contact (while wet and intact). Gravity quickly takes them to the ground.
Airborne is a big deal. It means that breathing air that may have been contaminated hours before is potentially lethal. It would require isolating anyone that has entered the airspace of a previously infected individual. Literally anyone walking through an airport through that airspace within the half-life of that infectious material must be isolated.
So what he is saying is that if you are the unlucky one taking care of an ebola patient, you are likely always in the vicinity of droplet transmission infectious material. Likewise, if you are the guy standing near an infectious ebola victim and they sneeze into your face, or vomit and you inhale or ingest through your mouth the aerosol of that vomit, you are toast. However, for the population at large in our communities and out in the world, the implications of airborne transmission are incredibly ominous.
Can you imagine if ebola was actually aireborne? Every person who entered Duncan's apartment and breathed the air in that apartment would be infected, even those who never even saw him, never touched anything in the room, but were simply standing in the room he had been standing in a certain time before. If he had gone to CVS to get pepto bismal, everyone who followed him for a period of time afterward would be at risk, even though they'd never been near him, never been near his body fluids, never been near enough to him to be contaminated by a sneeze or aerosol vomit or any other body fluid.
Can you understand how this would spread throughout a community if you never even had to see Duncan to become infected, and in turn to infect others? If you believe in God, you should be on your knees thanking him that ebola is NOT an airborne virus. Or thank the stars, or just simply be very grateful. If it were, this would be a disaster most likely unprecedented in our history, due to this virus' virulence. It's why, when lay people constantly insist that this is an "airborne disease," people with medical knowledge get frustrated or roll their eyes, thinking, "no, no, Thank God, no."
If you are the guy who is contaminated with droplet material and become infected with ebola, the distinction is irrelevant to you, or if you are the nurse caring for the patient without proper equipment, it's also rather meaningless in the short term. But it is such an important distinction in the big picture. It's the difference between Amber Vinson's immediate seatmates being at risk, and the entire plane all facing likely infection. And so on...
Here is another concise link about the various modes of transmission:
http://microbiology.mtsinai.on.ca/faq/transmission.shtml#three
