waterspyder: (Default)
waterspyder ([personal profile] waterspyder) wrote2005-09-12 03:05 pm

Catching up

Okay, so I'm catching up on this hurricane deal.

[livejournal.com profile] theweaselking posted an awesome newsclip you can see here.

[livejournal.com profile] panthertriad on the other hand linked to a jounral post http://thememoryblog.org/archives/000588.html, and while some of this is a little exagerrated, as in Ebola and Marburg are not level 3 contagions, they are level 4 and thus would not be located at these facilities (in theory), the premise is still frightening. I was personally concerned about outbreaks of cholera, maybe typhoid since they are common in this sort of situation, but now it could be that release of a variety of pox and flus would also be a legitimate concern. The probability is low that an outbreak would happen, but I can certainly also see why the evacuation of people from the affected areas, willing or not, would be a little more pressing that just "death by dysentery". Also http://www.cdc.gov/od/sap/index.htm.

Quick Primer of Biosafety

Biosafety Level 1
Basically these are things that are difficult to catch as defined by how it is spread (airborne is more contagious than by touch), and are not life threatening. Many of these things can not even be contracted by humans. Think E.Coli infection or low level bacterial or yeast infections.

Biosafety Level 2
These are things that are easier to acquire (bloodborne or by touch, longer persistence in the environment), and while they are generally not life threatening, they can cause serious complications. There is immunization or antibiotic treatments available for each of the items in this category. This is where salmonella, chicken pox, Hepatitis B and measles reside. Not enjoyable, but won't kill you.

Biosafety Level 3
I'll be honest, this can still be scary despite not being the highest level. All of these pathogens can be lethal, but take a little effort to catch and are mainly bloodborne. This includes things like HIV, encephalitis and tuberculosis.

Biosafety Level 4
These are scary, and as such are only housed in 5 reported facilities in the world. These are all typically airborne, highly infectious and deadly. This includes Ebola and Marburg.

I think I need to not read anymore for now. *The part of my brain trained in epidemiology shivers*

[identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com 2005-09-13 10:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Children younger than a year shouldn't get vaccinated, but there's no problem with them living with someone who did.

365,000 doses of the vaccine are stored in Canada, and they're loking at the possibility of dilution (according to the AAP page, 2001 studies show that the vaccine seemed to remain effective at at least 1:5 dilution, and possibly 1:10; the CDC doesn't give proportions, but does say that diluted doses are just as effective).

Also, in January, the WHO started doubling its smallpox vaccine stock to 5 million.

And yes, I would try to protect my own people. But France was confident enough to give away 85 million doses of the stuff in 2002, so I'm guessing (I can't find stats on this, unfortunately) they feel they have enough for their own use.

On a more practical note, I would not innoculate my entire population because smallpox hit elsewhere, or even because smallpox hit one segment of my population. I realize it's a lot easier for diseases to travel, but it's not like an individual who's infectious is as unnoticeable as someone with a cold; you're either on your back with a 101-104'F fever and possibly vomiting (and not even guaranteed to be infectious by then), or you've started bursting with pus and lesions.

If all of France was exposed to the virus by aerosol or some other means, and no-one realized until people started getting sick, then yes, I'd innoculate everyone.

[identity profile] waterspyder.livejournal.com 2005-09-14 07:13 am (UTC)(link)
Theproblem is tit has an incubation period that allows it to travel and roam. Ebola doesn't scare me as much since a person will be dead before stepping off the flight. Five day incubation is plenty of time to get on a plane and hop continents.

We probably debating this into the ground at this point.
It's freaky, there's no clear answer.

[identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com 2005-09-14 12:11 pm (UTC)(link)
> Theproblem is tit has an incubation period that allows it to travel and roam.

It does. On the plus side, if it's contagious you're obvious to very obvious, and it's not likely to be mistaken for anything else.

> Ebola doesn't scare me as much since a person will be dead before stepping
> off the flight. Five day incubation is plenty of time to get on a plane
> and hop continents.

Ebola's incubation period is 2 to 21 days--longer than smallpox--and the only references I can find to how long it takes to die say things like "the fifth day of illness (http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/ebola.htm)", "begin to recover after 7 to 10 days (http://tarakharper.com/v_ebola.htm)", and "8 to 10 days, but may be up to two weeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola#Fiction)". The specific discussion of a 1976 outbreak (http://www.itg.be/ebola/ebola-12.htm) mentions patients dying on day 7 and 8 after admission.

> We probably debating this into the ground at this point.

Probably. Also, it's worth remembering all those recommendations about vaccination not being worth it are based on smallpox no longer existing outside of labs. If that changes, so do the recs.

[identity profile] waterspyder.livejournal.com 2005-09-14 03:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, it depends on the typpe of Ebola. Uber-scary ebola incubates and kills quickly with a 95% mortality. Kinder, friendlier Ebola incubates longer and has a 25% mortality rate.

I would rather not catch either one in any case.

[identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com 2005-09-14 04:00 pm (UTC)(link)
> Well, it depends on the typpe of Ebola. Uber-scary ebola incubates and
> kills quickly with a 95% mortality. Kinder, friendlier Ebola incubates
> longer and has a 25% mortality rate.

Adding up the figures on cases and deaths from the WHO website gives Ebola-Zaire an 81% mortality rate (a couple of sites say 90% - Wikipedia and what looks like a student page at Stanford), Ebola-Sudan a 53% mortality rate, and Ebola-Côte d'Ivoire (all two cases) a 0% mortality rate. Ebola-Reston has never caused illness in humans, although four people developed antibodies.

Can't find anything on the incubation periods for either; if you have a reference I'd be grateful.

> I would rather not catch either one in any case.

Agreed.

[identity profile] waterspyder.livejournal.com 2005-09-14 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Hmm, I wonder if those rates have changed...

I did a research project on it in 1999, though it is possible these numbers have changed based upon scientific review and/or further outbreaks. Speaking of outbreaks, apparently Marburg virus is currently an epidemic in Angola
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs_marburg/en/index.html
I wonder if I was thinking of Marburg and Ebola...
this one has an update of the Marburg outbreaks...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/marburg/marburgtable.htm

Other Ebola sites.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00037078.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/ebola.htm