New Ebola Reservoir: Is It At Risk of Increasing Future Outbreaks?

  • Thread starter BernieM
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ebola
In summary, the Ebola virus can infect several mammals, including bats, monkeys, and humans. The reservoir of the virus is currently unknown, but some of the hosts that people have contact with have been identified. With the current infections in major population areas in Africa, there is a risk that a new reservoir of Ebola could develop in these cities, increasing the likelihood of future outbreaks on a larger scale. However, the most important strategy for preventing these outbreaks is basic health education. While bats are considered the most likely reservoir for Ebola, it is contested in other literature and there are other animals, such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and pigs, that can also contract and pass on the disease to humans. With improper disposal of infected bodies and
  • #1
BernieM
281
6
The Ebola virus as I understand it infects several mammals, including bats, monkeys and people of course. The reservoir of the virus is currently unknown I believe, though some of the hosts that people have contact with have been identified.

With the current infections in major population areas in Africa, with both wild and domestic as well as feral animals (once pets) and bodies being dumped in the street, intimate contact between pets and humans there, (I am sure some of those people have monkeys as pets,) is there a risk that a new reservoir of ebola will come to exist and reside within and near these cities? Increasing the likeliehood of future outbreaks on a much larger scale?

And if so, isn't it also just as important to detect, monitor, and prevent this from happening as well as quarantining the sick human patients?

I have seen of course like everyone, a lot of attention by the media regarding ebola, but I have not seen anyone address this issue (if in fact it is one) and it seems to be an important thing that seems to be being overlooked.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Seems to me that a far more serious matter (or perhaps you could look at it as alternate source of what you are concerned about) is the fact that the people in several of the affected countries so distrust their corrupt governments that they do not believe the health instructions that have been disseminated and are hiding infected people, readily touching potentially infected sources (bloody sheets, bodies, etc) and generally oblivious to pertinent sanitation measures.
 
  • #3
And I would agree completely. But we are aware of that. My concern is that once the domestic animals and wild animals in close contact with the humans in these area are exposed (those that might catch and transmit the disease,) then in back alleys among strays and other wild animals in the area might then also get the disease (rats? mice? I don't know which animals CAN catch ebola though,) thereby disseminating the disease further and more extensively and making it much more difficult to contain or to isolate. Then what do you do? Or perhaps it is not even a remote possibility what I am suggesting, and if so, it would be nice to know.
 
  • #4
According to Wikpedia, the most likely reservoir of the disease is bats, which show no clinical symptoms of it.

Other primates can be infected (possibly by eating fruit previously half-eaten by infected bats) but as with humans, the rapid fatality of the disease means they are unlikely to be a major cause of spreading the infection. Previous outbreaks have been traced to human contact with infected (and already dead) primates and with bats.

Other species do not appear to be involved significantly. Of the 30,000 animals tested during previous outbreaks, there were very few positive results.

Because of the short incubation time and severity of the disease, human outbreaks are unlikely to spread widely unless people have large-scale access to rapid transportation. As phinds said, basic health education is probably the most important strategy, given there is no proven cure.
 
  • #5
AlephZero said:
According to Wikpedia, the most likely reservoir of the disease is bats, which show no clinical symptoms of it. …………………………………………………………………………………….

While this is stated in the Ebola virus Wikipedia article, it's contested in other literature. Ebola-Zaire has been claimed to be pathogenic in certain species of bats. Bats are considered likely reservoirs, but perhaps not as efficient as such as previously thought.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/bats.html
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Well there is a lot of finger pointing at bats as being the permanent reservoir for Ebola, but this hasn't been proven so far as I am aware, it is just strongly suspected. But here is a list of OTHER animals that can contract Ebola and pass it on to humans. There are 9 (other than man) so far known:

chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, antelopes, porcupines, rodents, dogs, and pigs

I see 3 of those as likely vectors in a city or populated areas (as in Africa.) Rodents, dogs and pigs and as well some people likely have pet monkeys as well.

So, with cases where the victims of Ebola, as has been reported, are dumped into the streets and lay there for days (stray dogs coming up and sniffing or licking the deceased, perhaps a stray cat as well or rodents too,) as well as possible contact with improperly disposed of hazardous waste in the city dump where there are likely to be many rodents as well as stray dogs and cats, and pigs used as pets and farmed for their meat.

I feel that there is a very considerable risk that enough animals could become infected and pass it through the other animals in and around the cities and towns, to ultimately bring the source of Ebola out of the jungle and entrench it in the population centers, where it would be very hard to eradicate, especially if it was in the rodent populations.

I am not trying to fear monger. But is it truly ONLY the human aspect that can get out of control and if one controls the humans passing on the disease to other humans that there is no chance that the disease will find a new environmental niche to reside and become a constant source of re-introduction of the disease?

And how would one know or be able to tell? Persons getting the disease that did not travel anywhere and did not have contact with anyone who was infected? Would this be the indicator?

Sorry for the hard questions, but I don't think it is too far fetched. It might be worth looking at a bit more closely by those who are monitoring and are attempting to contain the disease.

And will that rat infected with Ebola that jumps aboard a ship carrying produce to New York City survive that trip? Then what?

Here is a quote from a recent article:
"Blaming humans, bats, chimps or birds for the illness does not then take into account its full possible scope within the ecosystem. That, the present unprecedented epidemic, the potential for bioterrorism, and the fact that no vaccine is available for clinical use have scientists around the world paying greater attention to Ebola and to the animals it can infect.

Sanders and his colleagues continue to study birds and their possible role in Ebola's evolution and transmission. They are also attempting to determine what other animals might be added to the already long list of species that the virus and related viruses could impact."
 
Last edited:
  • #7
BernieM said:
Well there is a lot of finger pointing at bats as being the permanent reservoir for Ebola, but this hasn't been proven so far as I am aware, it is just strongly suspected. But here is a list of OTHER animals that can contract Ebola and pass it on to humans. There are 9 (other than man) so far known:

chimpanzees, gorillas, fruit bats, monkeys, antelopes, porcupines, rodents, dogs, and pigs

Do you have a reference for the affected animals?

Bats are infected by types of Filovirus, specifically Lloviu virus found in dead bats in caves of Spain, France, Portugal, and suggested that the Marburg virus resides in bats.
By deduction it is thus suggested that Ebola, another Filovirus, is carried by bats in the wild, although the transmission to humans is not completely known.


So, with cases where the victims of Ebola, as has been reported, are dumped into the streets and lay there for days (stray dogs coming up and sniffing or licking the deceased, perhaps a stray cat as well or rodents too,) as well as possible contact with improperly disposed of hazardous waste in the city dump where there are likely to be many rodents as well as stray dogs and cats, and pigs used as pets and farmed for their meat.
Do you know the level of survival with the animals mentioned if they develop the desease? If dogs acquire the disease one would expect their population to decline.
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/pdfs/04-0981.pdf is a discussion of a study regarding dogs in previous ebola outbreaks.


And will that rat infected with Ebola that jumps aboard a ship carrying produce to New York City survive that trip? Then what?
Do rats acquire the disease? Source?
 
  • #8
List of some animals that get ebola mentioned in article:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ebolas-deadly-jump-from-animal-to-animal-140730.htm

About dog infection, same article, and a quote from it:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/pdfs/04-0981.pdf

" Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete
infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a
short period before virus clearance, as observed experi-
mentally in other animals. Given the frequency of contact
between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infec-
tion must be considered as a potential risk factor for human
infection and virus spread. Human infection could occur
through licking, biting, or grooming. Asymptomatically
infected dogs could be a potential source of human Ebola
outbreaks and of virus spread during human outbreaks,
which could explain some epidemiologically unrelated
human cases. Dogs might also be a source of human Ebola
outbreaks, such as the 1976 Yambuku outbreaks in
Democratic Republic of Congo (19), the 1995 Kikwit out-
break, some outbreaks that occurred in 1996 and 2004 in
Gabon and Republic of Congo (5), and the 1976 (6), 1979
(20), and 2004 (21) outbreaks in Sudan, the sources of
which are still unknown. Together, these findings strongly
suggest that dogs should be taken into consideration dur-
ing the management of human Ebola outbreaks."

And don't forget the natural mutation of the disease. With dogs in some cases running 30% infection in the report in areas that had human infections, in these areas, the more animals with the infection and exposure to humans, the better the chance of a new strain that resides in dogs asymptomatically and infects humans more effectively can evolve.

In this same article it mentions other animals such as horses and guinea pigs. I guess you didn't read it.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
So I guess that kind of answers my original question, as it appears that someone has taken a look at the potential for this to occur and has found it significant enough to be "...taken into consideration during the management of human Ebola outbreaks."

Sounds to me that in Africa right now they should be running a con-current program of rounding up stray dogs, cats and work toward eliminating indigenous rodents in the communities as a precaution. Besides, getting rid of the rats and mice might also have the benefit of creating a more healthy environment for them and helping to prevent other diseases transmitted by rodents.

Any disease management plan put in place in any other countries that the disease may become epidemic in (perhaps other neighboring African countries) should put that in their contingency plans too. Hindsight is 20/20.
 
  • #10
List of some animals that get ebola mentioned in article:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/eb...mal-140730.htm

I was looking and did not find any actual impact upon these animals except for the dogs.

The PDF mentions that ( red bold )
Other animals
such as guinea pigs (15), goats (16), and horses (17)
remain asymptomatic or develop mild symptoms after
experimental infection, but Ebola virus infection has never
been observed in these species in the wild. Thus, dogs
appear to be the first animal species shown to be naturally
and asymptomatically infected by Ebola virus
.
Asymptomatic Ebola infection in humans has also been
observed during outbreaks (18) but is very rare.

which is why the other animals were not mentioned by me in that they have not been observed in the wild to be infected.

Mice have been experimentally infected also in a laboratory setting, but not with the strains of Ebola found in the wild.

From what I have read, they do not know for certainty the actual incubator of the virus. Arthropods, which includes insects and all those other buggy looking creatures, have come to mind to researchers.
And don't forget the natural mutation of the disease. With dogs in some cases running 30% infection in the report in areas that had human infections, in these areas, the more animals with the infection and exposure to humans, the better the chance of a new strain that resides in dogs asymptomatically and infects humans more effectively can evolve.

From Wiki, in support of your conjecture
Phylogenetics[edit]

The mutation rates in these genomes have been estimated to be between 0.46 × 10−4 and 8.21 × 10−4 nucleotide substitutions/site/year.[15] The most recent common ancestor of both the Reston and Zaire species has been estimated to be ~1960. The most recent common ancestor of the Marburg and Sudan species appears to have evolved 700 and 850 years before present respectively. The complete family appears to have evolved ~10,000 years before the present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filoviridae
 
  • #11
The article stated that this was the list of animals able to be infected by Ebola, but also goes on to say that there may be other animals that can contract the disease, they just don't know.

You're talking about the statistical possibilities of it mutating. Problem with statistics is that even though the odds of rolling 5 dice at the same time all coming up the same number are very small, it does happen, and can happen on the first roll of the dice, though the odds are against it. With increased exposure between animals and humans infected, it greatly accelerates that mutation process. If all animals and all humans on Earth were infected with Ebola, I would venture a guess that the mutation of the virus would happen every few years!

With the estimates now that probably around 20,000 people will become infected by the virus before it is under control, I will venture a guess that that is more cases than has existed in the last 1000 years before. That would probably guarantee a new mutation in my opinion.

The reason this virus doesn't mutate often is that it resides in very remote areas with little contact between the animals infected and a very small human population, until now.

And if you check my original post, my question was whether or not there should be concern, monitoring and control of the animal populations in the affected cities as well as taking care of the sick humans, to prevent a possible entrenched source in the cities and towns. I don't know where having 30% of the stray dogs running around in the street carrying the Ebola virus is a comforting thought.

So your advice would be then ... ? ... just forget about the animals they are of no concern??
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Here is a quote from another post in another thread regarding it's mutability:

KenTucker said:
...
Can Ebola mutate to a more virulent species? Absolutely. In fact, the strain that's causing so much panic in West Africa has never been seen before. As long ago as December of 2013, the WHO and CDC knew it was a new strain.

Does this new strain have different strategies for spreading more efficiently? It would seem so given the record-setting number of cases (1300+ as of today) and the silence since April from the world's prominent health agencies. I would really like to know that the WHO and CDC are exploring the capabilities of this new strain.
 
  • #13
BernieM said:
Here is a quote from another post in another thread regarding it's mutability:

I thought they had re-visited, and concluded the recent outbreak was Zaire-Ebola.
 
  • #14
SW VandeCarr said:
While this is stated in the Ebola virus Wikipedia article, it's contested in other literature. Ebola-Zaire has been claimed to be pathogenic in certain species of bats. Bats are considered likely reservoirs, but perhaps not as efficient as such as previously thought.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/bats.html
The Stanford article is dated 1999, and so is already 15 years old.

From WHO site - Fruit bats of the Pteropodidae family are considered to be the natural host of the Ebola virus.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

Also from the WHO site:
Natural host of Ebola virus

In Africa, fruit bats, particularly species of the genera Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti and Myonycteris torquata, are considered possible natural hosts for Ebola virus. As a result, the geographic distribution of Ebolaviruses may overlap with the range of the fruit bats.

Ebola virus in animals
. . . .

As one can see, there is already research into hosts and transmission vectors.
 
  • #15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014719/

This review, published this year, appears to sum up the current knowledge regarding bats as Ebolavirus reservoirs. At the top of page 10, the authors seem to use the term Ebolavirus to include Lloviu virus. Lloviu is a recently discovered filovirus associated with a bat die-off in Europe in 2002. I'm wondering if the 1999 Stanford article was referring to an earlier bat die-off in Africa that may have been associated with the then unknown Lloviu virus. Lloviu is not known to infect humans.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
256bits said:
I thought they had re-visited, and concluded the recent outbreak was Zaire-Ebola.

Researchers have classified ebolaviruses into five major subtypes and the current outbreak is indeed the Ebola Zaire subtype. However, this does not mean that the current outbreak is the same virus that caused previous Ebola-Zaire outbreaks. A new study published earlier this week in Science, has sequenced virus samples collected from patients in Sierra Leone in order to better understand the origins of the virus and the mutations it is undergoing. The data suggests that the recent outbreak resulted from an independent zoonotic event from the same natural reservoir of viruses that produced the 2002 outbreak in Gabon and the 2007-2008 outbreak in the DRC. The sequencing data also indicates that the current outbreak has resulted from human-to-human transmission and additional zoonotic events are not contributing to the spread of the outbreak.

Thus, dealing with the natural reservoir will likely be important for preventing outbreaks in the future, but it will not help with the current outbreak.
 
  • #17
Ygggdrasil said:
... The sequencing data also indicates that the current outbreak has resulted from human-to-human transmission and additional zoonotic events are not contributing to the spread of the outbreak.

Thus, dealing with the natural reservoir will likely be important for preventing outbreaks in the future, but it will not help with the current outbreak.

I wasn't thinking about the short term control of the outbreak. My whole concern was a long term entrenchment of Ebola in the indigenous animal populations in these cities, becoming a local source for future infection of the residents there. Yay or nay? Can or can't happen? Should be monitored and prevented, or don't waste time or money on it? That's what I want to know personally.
 
  • #18
BernieM said:
I wasn't thinking about the short term control of the outbreak. My whole concern was a long term entrenchment of Ebola in the indigenous animal populations in these cities, becoming a local source for future infection of the residents there. Yay or nay? Can or can't happen? Should be monitored and prevented, or don't waste time or money on it? That's what I want to know personally.

I would agree that for preventing future outbreaks of the disease, it is important to understand which species harbor the natural reservoir of Ebola virus. Monitoring is certainly warranted, especially if we develop vaccines against Ebola, since we would want to track how the virus evolves in its wild populations in order to update Ebola vaccines. In terms of prevention, probably making the population aware of which species harbor the disease and promoting practices to minimize the risk of zoonotic infection would be important.

I'm not sure it would be wise, however, to dedicate too many resources to trying to control ebola in animal populations, however. Despite the media attention the disease has drawn, orders of magnitudes more people have died from more common diseases like malaria and tuberculosis during the current outbreak. Given limited resources, it would seem to make sense to address these diseases (for which we have effective ways of preventing and treating them), that to focus too much on a relatively rare disease that is fairly limited in its ability to spread between individuals.
 
  • #19
Drug show promise.
The drug, called TKM-Marburg, was developed by pharmaceutical company Tekmira in Burnaby, Canada, to treat Marburg virus. Like its close relative Ebola, the Marburg virus causes a lethal haemorrhagic fever; an outbreak in Angola in 2004–05 killed more than 90% of people infected, and the virus is circulating in countries affected by the current Ebola outbreak, such as Sierra Leone2.
http://www.nature.com/news/drug-saves-monkeys-from-close-relative-of-ebola-1.15745

The results from this study were posted in Nature Friday Aug 22, 2014

In the latest study, researchers used the Tekmira drug against Marburg in 16 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), divided into four groups that each received the treatment at a different time: 30–45 minutes after infection, or one, two or three days after infection. All of the treated monkeys — including the four given the drug three days after exposure, roughly equivalent to day six of a human infection — survived, whereas four untreated animals died.
 
  • #20
Ebola virus stays virulent only a few days outside a human host. In a densely packed area such as the slums in Sierra Leone that are now quarantined, is it possible for biting insects and flies to transmit the disease from human to human? I know they say it is not a mosquito borne illness like malaria, but then most of the places that the disease was before was in areas of low population density. What about now that it's in a high population density city?
 
  • #21
BernieM said:
Ebola virus stays virulent only a few days outside a human host. In a densely packed area such as the slums in Sierra Leone that are now quarantined, is it possible for biting insects and flies to transmit the disease from human to human? I know they say it is not a mosquito borne illness like malaria, but then most of the places that the disease was before was in areas of low population density. What about now that it's in a high population density city?

I'd doubt it. Ebola has been compared to HIV in that it requires direct contact with bodily fluids to spread. Because insects cannot spread HIV, they would also be very unlikely to be able to spread ebola. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria have specifically evolved mechanisms to be able to survive and replicate inside insect hosts, and diseases that lack these mechanisms would not be able to spread using these vectors.
 
  • #22
So you are saying that if a fly lands on some vomit from a sick individual at the Ebola quarantine center, then flies over the fence and lands on your meal at a nearby restaurant and regurgitates some of his stomach contents (that now contain some Ebola virus) on your food, and you consume the meal that you will not risk infection? Or a mosquito sucks some blood from someone at the clinic then flies over the fence then bites you, you're perfectly safe?
Why is it needed for these insects to replicate in the host? Or are you saying that a larger dose of the virus is needed for infection than can be carried by an insect? I saw somewhere that there was a concern as to arthropods being both being a potential reservoir or source of, and a potential vector for Ebola.

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S127.full

Here is a quote from the article:

" ... Turell et al. [8] reported that EBO virus, subtype Reston (EBO-R), failed to replicate in Culex or Aedes mosquitoes and in Ornithodoros ticks. However, Kunz et al. [9] previously reported that MBG virus could persist in Aedes mosquitoes for 3 weeks or more, indicating that certain arthropods exposed towasp.Altho the virus could be transient or persistent carriers of infection. Many potential blood-feeding arthropod vectors (phlebotomine flies, culicoids, ixodid ticks, mites, fleas, and wingless flies associated with bats) have not been tested by experimental inoculation... "

http://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/insects.html

The more closely I examine a lot of the notions being tossed around in the media, the more dangerous this situation seems to be than is being presented. Panic is not warranted and is counter productive, but I think that this would be a good time for some really definitive work being done as the expected infected will reach 20,000 before it is under control according to the WHO. My guess, 60,000 by end of the year. That's IF it stays contained in the region it's in now and doesn't get to the middle east and northern Africa.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
BernieM said:
... Why is it needed for these insects to replicate in the host? ...

Sorry, I meant ... Why is it necessary for the virus to actually replicate in the carrier (mosquito or fly or what have you) versus simply being carried, without 'dying', from one host to the next? ...
 
  • #24
Well I think the argument whether ebola can get to the USA now is a moot point. It's here.
I was reading an article in the news about 'professional crews' cleaning a house one infected person had stayed in. This brought to mind again my original question. Can it establish a new 'natural reservoir' in the animal kingdom here and thereby be rooted in our country permanently. There has been a lot of question as to what animals can in fact harbor it, including insects, and whether or not it is airborne. I mean did these professional crews take into account these things or did they just take all the carpets up and belongings and put them in plastic bags and deliver them to a high temperature incinerator and scrub the house down with bleach? So I wonder now what 'professional cleaning' of an ebola infected house or apartment entails. If they are smart, I would say that it would warrant a nuke approach, killing every last living critter in the building, even in the walls, attic and under the foundation, and the immediate area around it. Seems that erring on the side of caution in this case is extremely important.

It seems on the airborne issue that there is actually good suspicion that it can be airborne. Quite some time ago in the early study phases of ebola when it was a new disease, a testing lab with monkeys not in direct contact with each other had to have all the monkeys killed and the building 'baked' to sterilize it as they all became infected. I saw that it was stated that 'we always suspected ebola may be airborne but it was not politically correct to mention it recently.' Political correctness seems may end up being our undoing.

Residences professionally cleaned brings a very important social and personal welfare question to mind. Knowing how devastating ebola is, having a family of 5, would you knowingly move into a house or apartment that had been previously occupied by someone who had ebola and was "professionally cleaned?" Knowing that if they were NOT really professionals or missed some very tiny speck that your family of 5 may soon end up a family of 2 and 3 funerals to attend? What then will that do to real estate prices and values afterwards if it becomes a full scale national infection. Burn houses? That's what they did in the old days to prevent infection spreading.

It is said that ebola has a "short term viability" outside of a host, I have gleaned that to mean 72 hours, but find contradicting reports however as to any definitive actual length of time. For example, the bodies of ebola victims in Africa have to be buried away from a regular cemetery and a lot more precautions have to be taken to bury them to make sure that others can't be infected by them later. But if the virus is only viable 72 hours, if nobody dug them up in that period of time they wouldn't infect anyone. Right?

So just how long CAN the ebola virus, and under what circumstances, remain viable for how long outside a host? You know in that rare situation it seems that it can last longer than 72 hours. And just exactly what IS that situation that it can persist. I think it's important for people to know now, if anyone does know that.
 
  • #25
BernieM said:
Sorry, I meant ... Why is it necessary for the virus to actually replicate in the carrier (mosquito or fly or what have you) versus simply being carried, without 'dying', from one host to the next? ...
I believe virus are tuned to certain proteins or cellular materials that unique to certain cell structures, e.g., fibroblasts of any type (especially fibroblastic reticular cells) and endothelial cells.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/trop.html

". . . . filoviruses use a combination of familiar and apparently new ways to baffle and battle the immune system"
http://www.nature.com/nri/journal/v7/n7/full/nri2098.html (needs subscription or purchase)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
BernieM said:
I was reading an article in the news about 'professional crews' cleaning a house one infected person had stayed in. This brought to mind again my original question. Can it establish a new 'natural reservoir' in the animal kingdom here and thereby be rooted in our country permanently. There has been a lot of question as to what animals can in fact harbor it, including insects, and whether or not it is airborne. I mean did these professional crews take into account these things or did they just take all the carpets up and belongings and put them in plastic bags and deliver them to a high temperature incinerator and scrub the house down with bleach? So I wonder now what 'professional cleaning' of an ebola infected house or apartment entails. If they are smart, I would say that it would warrant a nuke approach, killing every last living critter in the building, even in the walls, attic and under the foundation, and the immediate area around it. Seems that erring on the side of caution in this case is extremely important.

A 2007 study from the Journal of Infectious Diseases looked at the risks for transmission of ebola by collecting samples from an ebola isolation ward and tested the samples for the presence of ebola virus. Although the samples were from a clinical setting where cleaning is daily and routine, most areas would not be thoroughly decontaminated with bleach unless visibly contaminated (per standard guidelines, such as those recommended by the CDC).

The authors write "Other than in samples grossly contaminated with blood, EBOV was not found by any method on environmental surfaces and by RT-PCR on the skin of only 1 patient. These results suggest that environmental contamination and fomites are not frequent modes of transmission, at least in an isolation ward [...] Taken together with empirical epidemiological observations during outbreaks, our results suggest that current recommendations for the decontamination of filoviruses in isolation wards are effective." The results essentially confirm the prevailing view that close contact with the bodily fluids of infected individuals or animals is necessary for the virus to spread. Thus, a professional cleaning crew should be able to decontaminate the individual's residence.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt and lisab
  • #27
I am not overly concerned myself about ebola at this point. It just seems as though there has been a lot of backpeddling lately by the CDC, WHO, researchers, etc. I just think that the media and government are glossing over some important facts regarding ebola, or omitting what they are aware is NOT known about the disease.

Is this another H1N1 media circus? Or is this the real deal that will cull half of the population of the planet eventually? Or will it fall somewhere between?

I sure hope everyone else here is right. I think we get a chance to find out soon enough, unfortunately.
 
  • #28
Ygggdrasil said:
The results essentially confirm the prevailing view that close contact with the bodily fluids of infected individuals or animals is necessary for the virus to spread. Thus, a professional cleaning crew should be able to decontaminate the individual's residence.
Apparently they're wrong since it is believed that the nurse in Dallas that contracted ebola got it from removing her protective clothing. Of course the question is how long the virus remains contagious on surfaces. If it's no longer contagious, then a decontamination crew is not necessary. It seems there are differing opinions on how long the bodily fluids remain contagious on external surfaces. They won't even allow dead ebola victim's bodies to be buried in public cemeteries. So how long does the ebola virus remain contagious?

On Monday morning, an official with direct knowledge of the Texas nurse's case told CNN that CDC disease detectives interviewed the nurse several times and thought there were "inconsistencies" in the type of personal protective gear she wore and with the process used to put the gear on and remove it.

Frieden has spoken of possible ways she became infected. It could have happened when the nurse removed her protective gear -- a bit of infected bodily fluid somehow touching her -- or it she could have come into contact with infected fluid as Duncan received kidney dialysis or respiratory intubation.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/13/health/ebola-nurse-how-could-this-happen/index.html
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Caregivers need to wise up and quit listening to supervisors and management who never get outside of their offices. The key to safely removing contaminated protective gear will be to have a second person closely observe the person who is removing the gear.
 
  • #30
Evo; Apparently they're wrong since it is believed that the nurse in Dallas that contracted ebola got it from removing her protective clothing. Of course the question is how long the virus remains contagious on surfaces.

This was answered in a link posted by SixNein in the other thread:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php: ... In another study, Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions ...​

Evo; If it's no longer contagious, then a decontamination crew is not necessary. It seems there are differing opinions on how long the bodily fluids remain contagious on external surfaces. They won't even allow dead ebola victim's bodies to be buried in public cemeteries. So how long does the ebola virus remain contagious?

It depends, on the environment, as to how long the virus is contagious.

As are probably most people, who have worked in a hospital environment, I was curious how two nurses contracted the disease.

(same source --v)

MODE OF TRANSMISSION: ...
In laboratory settings, non-human primates exposed to aerosolized ebolavirus from pigs have become infected, however, airborne transmission has not been demonstrated between non-human primates. Viral shedding has been observed in nasopharyngeal secretions and rectal swabs of pigs following experimental inoculation.
Correct me if the following is an incorrect conclusion:

"aerosolized" + "nasopharyngeal secretions" = "a sneeze"​

hmmm... I'm not medically trained. So what's the difference between airborne and "aerosolized"?

FAQ: Methods of Disease Transmission
Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.

What is transmission by droplet contact? [aerosolized]
Some diseases can be transferred by infected droplets contacting surfaces of the eye, nose, or mouth. This is referred to as droplet contact transmission. Droplets containing microorganisms can be generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. Droplets can also be generated during certain medical procedures, such as bronchoscopy. Droplets are too large to be airborne for long periods of time, and quickly settle out of air.

Droplet transmission can be reduced with the use of personal protective barriers, such as face masks and goggles. Measles and SARS are examples of diseases capable of droplet contact transmission.

»What is airborne transmission?
Airborne transmission refers to situations where droplet nuclei (residue from evaporated droplets) or dust particles containing microorganisms can remain suspended in air for long periods of time. These organisms must be capable of surviving for long periods of time outside the body and must be resistant to drying. Airborne transmission allows organisms to enter the upper and lower respiratory tracts. Fortunately, only a limited number of diseases are capable of airborne transmission.

Diseases capable of airborne transmission include:
  • Tuberculosis
  • Chickenpox
  • Measles
(bolding and hyper-bolding mine)

So, it's not clear to me, that any protocols were missed, and I see no proof that the infected ones did anything wrong.
 

What is the new Ebola reservoir?

The new Ebola reservoir refers to a species of bats, called Angolan free-tailed bats, that have been found to carry the Ebola virus. This discovery has raised concerns about the potential for future Ebola outbreaks.

How was the new Ebola reservoir discovered?

The new Ebola reservoir was discovered through a study conducted in Sierra Leone in 2018. Scientists collected over 6,000 bat samples and found that Angolan free-tailed bats had the highest prevalence of Ebola virus antibodies.

Is the new Ebola reservoir a significant threat?

While the discovery of a new Ebola reservoir is concerning, it is important to note that not all bats carry the virus and not all individuals within the species are infected. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that these bats have transmitted the virus to humans.

What are the potential implications of the new Ebola reservoir?

The discovery of a new Ebola reservoir highlights the need for continued research and monitoring of potential sources of the virus. It also emphasizes the importance of implementing proper safety protocols and measures to prevent future outbreaks.

What is being done to address the potential risk of the new Ebola reservoir?

Scientists are currently conducting further research to better understand the role of Angolan free-tailed bats in the transmission of Ebola virus. Additionally, public health agencies are working to educate communities and implement measures to prevent contact with potentially infected bats.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
483
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
957
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
100
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
148
Views
15K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
22
Views
2K
Back
Top