
Limited airborne transmission of Ebola is ‘very likely,’ analysis says (2015) - Fjolsvith
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/02/19/limited-airborne-transmission-of-ebola-is-likely-new-study-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f246aa881ca8
======
Fjolsvith
Quote from the article: "As evidence, the research notes that Ebola virus has
been found on the outside of face masks worn by health workers caring for
victims of the disease. It also points out that the virus has been passed
between animals via respiration. And the authors say that Ebola can infect
certain cells of the respiratory tract, including epithelial cells, which line
body cavities, and macrophages, a type of white blood cell that consumes
pathogens.

The paper notes that breathing, sneezing, coughing and talking can release
droplets of fluid from the respiratory tract that travel short distances and
most likely cause infection by settling on a mucous membrane. Those actions
also release smaller airborne particles capable of suspension in mid-air that
can be inhaled by others. Technically, both qualify as aerosols, the paper
says."

Consider where those smaller airborne particles might land that could be
ingested by people/animals. Say, in an open marketplace where there are
produce/food vendors shooing Rhesus monkeys away.

~~~
defterGoose
This is why I always had a problem with the idea that they expound in "The Hot
Zone"; that because the monkeys across the room from the sick monkeys didn't
get sick, that the disease wasn't airborne. I always thought that the idea of
a disease like that (which affects only animals capable of shooting virus-
laden particles of mucus out of their faces at high velocity) not being
airborne by definition was ridiculous.

~~~
Retric
It's a useful distinction to say someone walking through a room 30 seconds
after a sick person left is or is not at significant risk. Especially when
setting up quarantine etc.

Basically, respiratory droplets are considered a different category from true
airborne transmission because they are much easier to contain.

------
jacquesm
Disease vectors are an interesting subject. You will often hear unqualified
statements such as 'x can't be transmitted through vector y'. But viruses and
bacteria don't read books or scientific papers that state their capabilities.

They do their own thing and we determine what can or can not be transmitted
through what vectors typically by observing what _can_ be transmitted.

Which leaves the door open to low incidence or harder transmission paths that
are not observed until the numbers are high enough. One nice example was the
dentists office for HIV. In the beginning it was said to be impossible, then a
couple of unexplainable cases popped up and it turned out the slush from the
drill made it into the hose and under some circumstances back out again. If
that happened from one patient to another transmission could occur. At a
guess, unless there is a hard mechanical reason (such as the particle size a
filter will pass) _all_ communicable diseases can be transmitted through _all_
vectors but with extremely low incidence, so low as to be safe to ignore
unless there is documented evidence that a disease can be transmitted.

~~~
forapurpose
> At a guess, unless there is a hard mechanical reason (such as the particle
> size a filter will pass) all communicable diseases can be transmitted
> through all vectors but with extremely low incidence, so low as to be safe
> to ignore unless there is documented evidence that a disease can be
> transmitted.

I'd be interested in an epidemiologist's or other expert's analysis of this
question. My experience is that non-experts in any field greatly exaggerate
the _possible_ in 'anything is possible'. But I know that in my field bugs and
errors are predictable; a user might say 'X happened' but I know that X simply
never occurs (something is wrong and the problem needs to be solved, but it's
not X). (I'm trying to come up with an example for X, but it's kind of hard to
think about the impossible.)

------
forapurpose
The article is from 2015. I wonder what subsequent research has said? The CDC
currently says direct contact is necessary:

[https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html)

(Some accounts on HN have been actively trying to stir up alarm about the
contagiousness of Ebola,[0] without evidence, though they seem to like to
refer to the 'technothriller' The Hot Zone. What could possibly be the
interest or motive? This includes the account that posted the article:

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17102769](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17102769)
)

~~~
Fjolsvith
While not subsequent to the 2015 article, other research seems to indicate the
same cautions regarding Ebola:

[https://www.globalresearch.ca/ebola-can-be-transmitted-
via-i...](https://www.globalresearch.ca/ebola-can-be-transmitted-via-
infectious-aerosol-particles-health-workers-need-respirators-not-
masks/5408022)

~~~
forapurpose
To a degree, we can find studies that agree with almost anything. The question
is, why are you so anxious to prove this?

~~~
Fjolsvith
I found a button to push?

------
davesque
I believe this is the actual paper that was referenced in the article:
[http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00137-15.full.pdf](http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00137-15.full.pdf)

------
5DFractalTetris
Probably all the germs you have heard about are different than when they were
first characterized, more or less durable than as studies have shown, strictly
transmissible through any pathway but practically limited in pathway, and
dose-dependent. There's strains of stuff never detected or isolated, there are
seven billion people. Try not to think about it!!

It is neither strictly possible nor ethical to study transmissible disease in
vivo, because tissues cannot be inspected in vivo during infection. In vitro
experimentation and blood testing do not have the same preconditions as a
person's living tissue. Even high-volume blood tests are fallible, why
Theranos got in trouble.

Patient self-reporting and some experiments varying in ethical character from
"An immunologist developed and self-tested a vaccine first" to "subjects were
purposefully exposed by scientists without their knowledge or consent" give
epidemiologists and physicians a set of heuristics for preventative care and
treatment.

------
stevespang
article is 3 years old.

~~~
facetube
Yeah, agree, that's a big miss.

Aside: there have to be better user interfaces for attaching dates to
articles. Make the date more prominent/visible as it ages or something like
that. The color of the date on that page is rgb(170, 170, 170) and seems very
easy to accidentally skip over.

