IUHoosier, thank you so much for the education! I particularly like how you illustrated that knee-jerk "solutions" actually compound and do not alleviate the risk. Exercising common sense -- which seemed to be in short supply in recent episodes -- can go a long way in managing risk.

Though I am not hanging out with wet towel at-risk folks, I am curious about the "shelf-life" of bugs and good health management practices. The Xenex robot probably is noisy like a CAT SCAn, but I like that it uses environmentally friendly xenon and see a lot of potential uses with proper use and without the knock-on effects of triclosan. Norovirus on cruise ships -- be gone! MRSA -- be gone!

Different contagious diseases spread in different ways. Some diseases are spread directly by rodents, but more often, insects act as intermediaries. Most diseases spread by rats and mice are actually carried by the fleas, lice, or ticks that live on the rodents. The way an infection spreads, greatly affects whether it becomes milder over the ages, stays much the same, or gets more virulent.

In my experience with some of my patients, a lot of times some of these viruses/diseases can be difficult to eradicate, because different diseases evolve at different rates. Generally, the fewer genes that are involved, the more rapidly the diseases evolve. Like with viruses, they evolve much faster than bacteria, because they have fewer genes. The fewer the number of genes, the more rapidly an organism can change yet remain functional.

For example, higher organisms have approximately 10,000-50,000 genes, bacteria have about 500-5,000 genes, and viruses have about 3-1,000 genes. So, the fewer genes, the more likely mutations will be tolerated and the faster evolution may occur. So, coming up with a solution is not as easy as you think it should be.

This has been going on since there has been written history and before. Measles and Chickenpox practically wiped out some Native American tribes brought by pioneers heading West and Syphilis was introduced to European explorers and taken to Europe. It's called Cultural Exchange and as the World has become easier to navigate so will the exchange, both the good and the bad. What I don't get is the ABSOLUTE PANIC Be smart but don't be a fear monger.As a resident of Dallas who lives just 3 miles West of Presby, I had to chuckle today as I visited CVS for some bandages and right there in the medicine aisle was a $2.98 special display for a gallon of bleach. I have a feeling Dallas is going to have some clean shiny homes after all this is said and done.

I kinda get what you're thinking, but the reality is people are going to get through borders and on flights no matter how much "locking down" we do of the borders. Plus, it's not cool to tell people "don't go helping the people who need it because you won't be welcome back". The rest of the world mostly thinks we're jerks (my opinion, of course) so why perpetuate that stereotype? If there aren't planes coming this way (due to locked down borders) then our humanitarian efforts can't get back that direction. Simple airline economics.

My understanding is that SARS (a few years ago) killed more people and was FAR more contagious than Ebola. Did we lock down our borders (or even discuss it?) to Asian countries then? Of course not. We shouldn't now either.

Go get a flu shot - that's probably your biggest viral threat right now & there IS a vaccine for that one! :)

IU Hoosier...thanks so much for all the good info! I find it very interesting reading. You too, CheerfulGreek.

This just posted on CNN, looks like Spain is having luck treating ebola.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/19/health...sis/index.html

Ditto what IUHoosierGirl and CheerfulGreek said - vaccines aren't just an easy thing to whip up.

It takes big bucks and resources to develop vaccines. Where was the real incentive to spend that kind of money for a disease that, while terrifying, had infected fewer than 2,500 people globally over the almost 40 years since it first popped up? (prior to the 2013-14 outbreaks, of course)(source)

Even if you do have the money and the will, it can take years to develop treatments. It depends on the nature of the virus and how wily it is.

I looked up the SARS outbreak the other day, because my memory was that SARS was much less scary than Ebola. The outbreak of 2002-03 killed fewer than 800 people, and had a fatality rate a little under 10% (source). The current Ebola outbreak has killed more than 4,500 people, and the fatality rate is likely between 50-70% (source).

I don't know about how contagious one is versus the other, but based on this thread, I suspect you're right that SARS is more contagious.

If we really want to talk about contagious, can we talk about how freaking contagious MEASLES is? There was a kid in the DC area who got measles last year, and public health officials were reporting all the locations this kid had been to while contagious but asymptomatic. Non-immune folks have up to a 90% chance of contracting it by getting near a contagious person.

Measles actually has a high R-naught value (aka the average number of people a sick person gets sick in an average uninfected population). The average measles patient infects 12-18 people, if it weren't for vaccines!

Just for comparison:
Measles: 12-18
Pertussis: 12-17
Diptheria: 6-7
Smallpox: 5-7
Polio: 5-7
Rubella: 5-7
Mumps: 4-7
HIV/AIDS: 2-5
SARS: 2-5
Influenza (1918 Spanish flu pandemic): 2-3
Ebola: 1-2

Ok, I know better than to go quoting crap I read without being able to find the source, so consider me wrong on the mortality/catchability of SARS! It was one of those things I read when people were discussing locking down borders, and the concept made sense to me (we didn't do it then, why now?) but of course I don't know how reputable my source was.

And ugh...yes...on measles. I remember when there was a big outbreak back in the late 80's. Was a big deal. Isn't the big thing about measles is that you're contagious when you don't know you have it? Once you have the symptoms, you're done being contagious? Like chicken pox? Ugh, ugh ugh.

1. It's not really a hygiene problem--do you know what spread the bubonic plague back in the day? Yup, fleas. People come in contact with fleas often due to pets. Bedbugs are still a problem in many major cities b/c they're so dang hard to get rid of. Lice actually are attracted to clean heads, vice dirty ones.

2. Do you know how many insect species live in this world? Around one million. And those are the only ones that have been discovered. Some estimate there may be as many as 30 million different species. Insects also play a crucial role in life as we know it, so getting rid of them isn't going to happen.

3. You "hate those other countries that don't like us"...have you ever been overseas (and Mexico/Canada doesn't count)? Most countries don't hate us. Even those that have unfriendly governments usually have American-friendly citizens. Putting that aside, Liberia and the USA are on good terms--we actually founded that country (their capital is named Monrovia after James Monroe). We went through a 5 year period from 1997-2003 where relations were a little rocky due to the election of Charles Taylor, but since he resigned in 2003, things have been pretty peachy. We actually deployed marines there to help stabilize the country during the Bush administration. Similar things can be said about Sierra Leone, and most of the other affected countries. They don't not like us.

Truth be told, even in the most hardcore, hardline anti-American governed countries, most of the citizens don't hate us.

I remember watching something on the history channel about the Bubonic Plague. I just remember it being spread by rats, and also, back then, people didn't practice the best hygiene measures. The thing that gets me, and maybe you or CG can answer this question, but what happened to the Bubonic Plague? Why aren't people affected by it today? A lot of the old diseases have seemed to "disappear", but the newer diseases are still doing damage. No, not like the Bubonic Plague, but still keeping numbers.

I actually agree with Iota guy in a sense. I find it to be aggravating giving other people in other countries "free healthcare", but people in this country don't receive it. Take care of your own lawn before you help someone else maintain theirs.

Nigeria is now Ebola-free:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebo...-cases-n229536

Don Lemon on CNN right now: Nurse Amber Vinson's mother

Well, the diseases that are often carried by insects such as mosquitos/other external parasites, and flies or by animals such as rats and mice, in my experience, we've always referred to this as vectors. Sometimes multiple vectors are involved, such as (as mentioned above) in the spread of the Bubonic Plague by fleas carried by rats or typhus fever by ticks carried by rodents. I wouldn't say "eliminate", but controlling vectors usually limits the spread of a disease far more effectively than treating infected humans. In my experience as a vet, with my patients, insects and their relatives, the ticks and mites, are the most common vectors. Fleas also carry/transmit tapeworms.

However, other animals may act as vectors, as in the spread of rabies by bats and squirrels, or of West Nile virus by migrating birds. Plague and typhus normally rely on fleas and ticks to distribute them, although, under some circumstances, they can spread from person to person. Other diseases are obliged to spend part of their life cycles in a second host.

With the "hygiene" part of your post, you are partly correct. Hygiene/cleanliness does play a part, because infectious agents can also be taken in with food or drink. Poor hygiene may result in food or drinking water being contaminated with human and/or animal waste. Typically, such infections affect the gastrointestinal tract and include the many types of protozoa, bacteria and viruses that number diarrhea among their symptoms. I see it quite often with some of my patients that are outdoor pets. Parasites.

Well, over the long-term, novel diseases may adapt to humans or may go extinct. Adaption does not imply that the disease becomes mild -- merely that it gains the ability to survive and multiply in humans. The level of virulence acquired depends on the mode of transmission and how plentiful, crowded (and as said above), unhygienic the human hosts are.

I thought this was pretty interesting!

http://time.com/3522984/ebola-nigeria-who/

I always thought that natural selection and population resistance had something to do with it, in addition to basic hygiene and city planning. Several major rounds of plague destroyed pretty large portions of the population in some cases. In the middle ages, a major bout wiped out more than a third of the European population. Isn't that classic Darwinism?

Also, it's a bacterial infection, so several antibiotics are effective treatment against it, no?