Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Found the Origin of the Ebola Outbreak

Soulskill posted about 1 month ago | from the it-was-the-butler-with-the-candlestick-in-the-library dept.

Medicine 86

Taco Cowboy sends this report from Vox: One of the big mysteries in the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is where the virus came from in the first place — and whether it's changed in any significant ways. ... In a new paper in Science (abstract), researchers reveal that they have sequenced the genomes of Ebola from 78 patients in Sierra Leone who contracted the disease in May and June. Those sequences revealed some 300 mutations specific to this outbreak. Among their findings, the researchers discovered that the current viral strains come from a related strain that left Central Africa within the past ten years. ... Using genetic sequences from current and previous outbreaks, the researchers mapped out a family tree that puts a common ancestor of the recent West African outbreak some place in Central Africa roughly around 2004. This contradicts an earlier hypothesis that the virus had been hanging around West Africa for much longer than that. Researchers are also planning to study the mutations to see if any of them are affecting Ebola's recent behavior. For example, this outbreak has had a higher transmission rate and lower death rate than others, and researchers are curious if any of these mutations are related to that. ... The scientific paper on Ebola is also a sad reminder of the toll that the virus has taken on those working on the front lines. Five of the authors died of Ebola before it was published.

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790623)

Tell them niggers to stop fucking moneys and they'll stop getting these diseases

Re:LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790711)

OK, you call your side of the family, and I'll call your wife's.

Once I'm done assfucking her.

Sex with monkey? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790637)

Who would do that? Ballmer? Is he our patient zero?

Think you're "brave" running your mouth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790657)

Think you're "brave"? You "stand up to power"? Over First World problems?

Quit patting yourself on the back.

Five of the authors died of Ebola before it was published.

There's REAL dangers to be faced out there away from your sheltered basement, and there always will be.

Re:Think you're "brave" running your mouth? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790659)

There's brave and then there's dumb.

Ain't no ebola in my basement and I plan to keep it that way.

Re:Think you're (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791913)

But you may have a nigger in your basement.

Third World problems. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790695)

What is with this guilt tripping over First World problems?

Why don't we ask why many many people in this World have Third World problems in the 21 st century and let's guilt trip THEM for having them.

Some of the complete horseshit, lies, corruption and endliess wars on much of the African continent isn't my fault or my ancestors.

It is theirs. THEY need to get their acts together. Stop the tribalism. Stop he denying of science. Stop the extractive economies. And most of all, get rid of the despots and create democratic governments.

Same goes for India. The British left them wonderful infrastructure and what did they do? Let it rot. And it's not my fault that they have been popping out babies like crazy for centuries and now have a population crisis.

So, no. I have NO guilt about having First World problems because I do not live in a backward shithole.

You're assuming.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790737)

The people living in third world conditions are the ones causing it, rather than all the wealthy living in first world conditions while they let all that infrastructure for the peons rot so there will be more wealth in their own pockets.

Now as to why the peons don't rise up and reclaim their infrastructure: For the same reason Americans have let the misdeeds of (pick a timeframe) come to pass. Because it's easy to say other people should pull themselves up by the bootstraps, while it's often harder to do if you're one of them.

Re:You're assuming.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790767)

Stop trying to blame the first world. Africa is terrible because it's full of savage niggers. If it wasn't for the "wealthy first world" ebola would kill every single one of them and the human race would be better for it.

Re:You're assuming.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790907)

It was the local population that is to blame for the current spread by doing things like breaking into hospitals to "free" infected patients from the hospitals, so they can spread the disease. They are stupid enough to think that the medical workers there are promoting the disease, or that the disease is caused by witchcraft or some other nonsense.

These negro third world countries have had self rule for decades, and despite recieving constant aid and assistance, have been unable to develop any sort of technical economy.In fact, the countries have collapsed and degraded economically after the Europeans pulled out of Africa. Europeans in fact brought civilization to Africa, including roads, legal systems, improved technology, to what was before a primative, savage, uncivilized area of the most primative cultures. Of all of the many negro majority countries, not one today has a significant modern technology economy. They have thrown away everything the Europeans gave them and gone back to living like savage, low IQ simpletons. The only two negro majority countries not third world countries, Bahamas and Bermuda, have low skill tourism based economies and with offshore banking. You would think that at least one Negro country would be a success, if what the liberals tell us is true, that they are just as intelligent as anyone else, considering that there are also several negro countries in the western hemisphere, showing how that the negro takes their third world, cesspit ways with them wherever they go, that its not something to do with the african environment. In contrast, small beleuguered countries such as Israel, and Japan, despite being other devastated by a war or not existing decades ago, have flourished. When you look at the IQ data for racial groups, its apparent why this is. Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and the Jews, all have average IQ levels about 100, while in negro minorities in first world countries with (attempted) first world educations have an average IQ of 85, while in negro majority countries, IQs around 70. Even when correcting for levels of access for education, blacks still score 20% lower than Europeans on IQ tests. The pre-flynn score for the uneducated negro in Africa seems to hang around 70, first world education pushes it to 85, still well below the 100 level of Europeans. MRI studies have shown that the Negro brain is 4 cubic inches smaller than the Caucasian brain. The IQ differences also show up by age 3, so they cannot be due to educational issues.

Mainly, the liberal ideology seems to be about blaming Caucasians and trying to scape goat them for the worlds problems. This is an obscene lie, Caucasians have been bringers of civilization to the world and have invented a vast majority of the technology that has made medicines, machines and so on possible. Michael Savage wrote a piece, White Man Inventions listing all of the inventions coming from Whites that have enhanced living conditions. If negro populations can only throw all of this away and go back to living like savages, that is their own problem.

The white guilt trip and the demonizations of whites seems to be promoted by truly evil people, who do not want a future where there are free countries, and where we have growing first world economies, but a bleak future where much of the planet lives in abject poverty and in depraved ignorance and stupidity. This is because this elite group is insanely psychopathic, to such an extant that they want to exterminate much of the planets caucasian population in order to eliminate higher intelligence groups that would oppose their agenda, and to create a festering mass of low IQ populations that, since a low IQ, decripit, is easier to control.

We need to start appreciating our own caucasian race and our capabilities, stop apologizing to the rest of the world who only has themselves to blame, and stop allowing caucasian populations to be exterminated through suppressed birth rates and replaced with mass immigration invasions.

Re:You're assuming.... (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 1 month ago | (#47790977)

Some medical workers are in fact spreading the disease.

Re:You're assuming.... (-1, Offtopic)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 1 month ago | (#47791215)

Heil Hitler. Nuff sed.

Re:You're assuming.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791405)

The only Hiter kind of people these days are those who want to get rid of the white people, because white people are really the only group in danger of seeing itself go extinct, and its the result of intentional policies with a clear motive by the most powerful elites who control Europe.

. Blacks can have africa and fuck it up however they please as far as I am concerned.. Just dont come complaining and trying to scapegoat white people for the failures of other races. But for some thats not enough, they are not happy until whites have been defeated in every white country, its not enough that blacks get their own countries, whites must be exterminated as a majority in all countries.

The black population of africa is increasing in size, with nigeria expected to having 1 billion people in a few decades. At the same time, white people are going extinct. It has been projected that the white population of the UK will be a minority there by 2040, because of intentional policies of the anti-white genocidal governments of these countries, which have caused the low birth rate. The white birth rate in the UK is half of what it needs to be just to maintain the population level. The white people are being crowded out of their own country by often violent, savage muslims and chicoms. Since the invaders of these countries consume the resources, they displace the indigenous population permenantly, this is a bona fide genocide through immigration invasions and suppressed birth rates being carried out by European governments against their own people.

  Its white people who have high IQ they are trying to get rid of, through the 1) artificially suppressed birth rates 2) social engineering such as feminism, 3) abortion 4) contraceptives 5) Make sure whites cant get jobs by replacng them with h1b visa workers 6) offshore jobs to keep whites from getting them (manufacturing, tech, etc). 7) promote poisonous anti family ideologies 8) demand increasingly expensive college degrees for middle class jobs, then pull the rug out from under them by giving the jobs to an Indian, 9 ) replace shrinking white population with brown skinned race x through mass immigration 10) social engineering socialist programs such as Social Security and pension programs which have disrupted family dynamics by removing incentives to have children for old age support, by replacing the role of children with governmental programs. Add to this political correctness, words like diversity, and multiculturalism, shaming and guilt, which is used by the elites for one purpose and one purpose alone, to enable the extermination of white people throygh using psychological warfare to suppress opposition to it, shame white people into allowing themselves to be exterminated. Basically the elites have made it so that if you are against extermination of entire racial groups you are labelled "Racist" and "intolerant", while if you want to get rid of white people adn white countries through stopping them from having kids so they can be replaced, you are "tolerant, multicultural, diverse". Demographic change is a nice way of saying genocide. Up is down and right is left. Obviously exterminating a racial group is against diversity, but they have manipulated the public into having such a manipulated view of things they cant tell up from down, and they so demonize people opposed to genocide to try to make it impossible to oppose it. Obviously immigration invasions destroy the uniqueness of nations and is against global diversity, immigration is against diversity, but up is down in the orwellian world of the genocidalists. Diversity and multiculturalism are code words for genocide against whites.

Re:You're assuming.... (2)

F34nor (321515) | about 1 month ago | (#47792873)

Even if you kill all the below average people 50% of the remain people will be below average and you will be in both groups.

Re:You're assuming.... (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 2 months ago | (#47793157)

because white people are really the only group in danger of seeing itself go extinct

Funny, especially because the Pygmies, who happen to be in Africa, are a lot more likely to do so.

Its white people who have high IQ they are trying to get rid of, through the 1) artificially suppressed birth rates 2) social engineering such as feminism, 3) abortion 4) contraceptives

Since when did doctors know the IQ of fetuses before they were born?

Obviously immigration invasions destroy the uniqueness of nations and is against global diversity

I wonder how that's supposed to be applied to the U.S., when its uniqueness is its diversity, due to immigrants. :)

. Blacks can have africa and fuck it up however they please as far as I am concerned.. Just dont come complaining and trying to scapegoat white people for the failures of other races. But for some thats not enough, they are not happy until whites have been defeated in every white country, its not enough that blacks get their own countries, whites must be exterminated as a majority in all countries.

All I can say is: go read a history book. Read over how Africa came to become the divided continent it is today.

but up is down in the orwellian world of the genocidalists

Have you even read 1984?

Re:You're assuming.... (2)

codeButcher (223668) | about 1 month ago | (#47792585)

despite recieving constant aid and assistance, have been unable to develop any sort of technical economy.

Perhaps that should read: "because receiving constant aid and assistance, have been unable to develop any sort of technical economy."

Re:Third World problems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791069)

Why don't we ask why many many people in this World have Third World problems in the 21 st century and let's guilt trip THEM for having them.

One word: bushmeat [wikipedia.org]

Re:Third World problems. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791967)

Its what niggers traditionally eat. What's the problem?

Re: Third World problems. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792655)

.....by pure luck.
Even if we accept your "logic", it has the ring of a sociopath.

death rate could be higher in the end (0)

TerraFrost (611855) | about 1 month ago | (#47790663)

Trying to figure out the mortality rate for a virus that's still making it's rounds seems premature. What if you've been infected for a day? That you haven't yet died from Ebola doesn't mean you won't..

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (2, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 1 month ago | (#47790675)

If you wait long enough the mortality rate goes to 100%.

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (2)

TerraFrost (611855) | about 1 month ago | (#47790683)

Someone who dies in ten years after an Ebola infection is probably going to be dying of something other than Ebola (unless they got infected again I guess).

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (1)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 1 month ago | (#47795505)

*whoosh*

I was just making a dumb joke. Chuckle (or not) and move along.

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 1 month ago | (#47790681)

Trying to figure out the mortality rate for a virus that's still making it's rounds seems premature.

Especially when the reaction of many who are exposed is to run, and hide from medical treatment...

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790699)

If this epidemic gets really bad, the social and economic consequences can kill a lot of people who don't even get the disease.

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 1 month ago | (#47792329)

If this epidemic gets really bad, the social and economic consequences can kill a lot of people who don't even get the disease.

Given that five of the authors are dead of Ebola ....
This is really bad... and can only get worse.

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (4, Insightful)

Roceh (855826) | about 1 month ago | (#47790725)

It could be the mortality rate for Ebola has been overestimated in any case, mild cases may not be recorded at all - there is something of a stigma with Ebola. The most recent case with the Nigerian diplomat who skipped quarantine and holed up in a hotel and then recovered after a few days indicates there are some who get mild symptoms (and are still infectious however - see Port Harcourt outbreak).

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824275)

OTOH, it could be that the mortality rate is within the expected bounds (1 in 2 to 3 in 4 ) and that a lot of people are getting infected and dieing away from the areas that the forces of the state can get to, to count the living and the dead.

Re:death rate could be higher in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47798351)

not really. most semi-intelligent people will assume that a stated death rate is the current death rate, not the final tally. also, 2,000 people have died. i think they would have a good idea of the death rate by now.

Good use of resources? (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 1 month ago | (#47790685)

It's nice to have this analysis. But am I the only wondering to what other use they could have put those DNA Points???

That's one of my worries also ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790755)

It's nice to have this analysis. But am I the only wondering to what other use they could have put those DNA Points???

There was an important line from the original FA which was omitted in the submission:

"The longer Ebola circulates, the more opportunities it has to change --- possibly for the worse"

Meaning, with all the DNA data-points that they have gathered they _could_ figure out how to trigger a virus to become a most virulent kind, and they _could_ foreseeably use _that_ insight to aid them in creating something that is ultra-ordinarily deadly, virulent and efficient

I too, am worry about it

Good use of resources? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792013)

Might have been a good idea to figure out what makes nigger dicks to big.

misleading clickbait title (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790689)

The big mystery about where it comes from is where it lies dormant, which it seems is as yet still unknown.

pharmaceutical industry cash cow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790709)

Notice how there are trials of new super drugs underway - staged?

Origin? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790717)

So which animal did someone eat or have sex with?

Re:Origin? (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 1 month ago | (#47790771)

Yo mama!

Re:Origin? (4, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | about 1 month ago | (#47790831)

Or get bitten by. The hypothesised reservoir is fruit bats, but other primates can be infected by filoviruses, and pigs have also been found to carry them asymptomatically. Source: the WHO fact sheet on Ebola virus disease [who.int] .

Re:Origin? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824307)

Or get bitten by.

Or get tissue (including blood) into a wound on the human, when skinning / gutting / butchering a carcass killed for meat.

Which One? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 1 month ago | (#47790747)

There's another one in Congo that appears to be a different strain.

Take a look at this chart (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790779)

There's a chart accompanying the original FA which may help you

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbo... [vox-cdn.com]

Umm... Niggers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790787)

That wasn't so hard.

Umm... Niggers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790811)

Too many niggers is not good.

Umm... Niggers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792109)

Wow, you can say niggers on the internet?!? Well fuck... niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers niggers Niggers niggers

Wow... I feel special.

Re:Umm... Niggers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792261)

It rimes with giggles, and causes happiness with the way the tongue is pressing to the palate during pronunciation. It also gives one a troll bonus. No wonder people like to repeat the word.

Dangerous virus (3, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 1 month ago | (#47790795)

The fact that so many experts on the disease die of it is a testament to its extreme contagiousness, and why we really should be scared of this thing. Of all people, experts of the disease take precautions to avoid catching it themselves, when they do, its not a good sign. It only makes sense to put into place travel bans from infected countries. It is important when dealing with this diseases to stop the spread by banning travel from the hot zone. There also needs to be public funding for a vaccine.

Re:Dangerous virus (4, Interesting)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 1 month ago | (#47790851)

Ebola is actually not that contagious. Its usually high mortality rate makes it slow to propagate, since it tends to kill the host before they can spread it much. You also need extended contact with infected people to be susceptible to transmission (hence why the researchers were amongst the most likely to get it, protection or not, and the lack of treatment or prevention mechanism meant that there was little to do for them once they had it).

An Ebola outbreak in Europe or North America would do little damage as it would be contained swiftly. Unless ZMapp is mass produced before then, the infected would probably be quarantined and left there, but either way you could control it and even in a major population center the damage would be relatively low. An influenza epidemic like the Spanish flu would be far more devastating, despite the fact flu is a much more common (and less "scary") disease.

Re:Dangerous virus (3, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47790971)

despite the fact flu is a much more common (and less "scary") disease.

Flu is killing 200.000 to 500.000 people globally every year.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre... [who.int]

Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children.
Illnesses can result in hospitalization and death mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill).
Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.

It's just not that sexy to make a movie about it with Morgan Freeman, Dustin Hoffman and a monkey.
Plus people ignorant of distinction between common cold and influenza don't perceive it as a threat.
Which is a further reason why there is no movie with a monkey about it.

Re:Dangerous virus (3, Insightful)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 1 month ago | (#47791025)

despite the fact flu is a much more common (and less "scary") disease.

Flu is killing 200.000 to 500.000 people globally every year.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre... [who.int]

Dying the flu generally requires complicating conditions. Most people survive it just fine. Ebola is scary because most people don't survive it.

Re:Dangerous virus (2)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47791357)

Dying the flu generally requires complicating conditions. Most people survive it just fine. Ebola is scary because most people don't survive it.

Following that logic, ebola is not scary simply because most people don't ever catch it.

Or are you arguing that since it's not your ass, you not being elderly, pregnant or a small child - fuck those weaklings dying in hundreds of thousands each year from a disease "Most people survive it just fine".

And again... Most people DO NOT GET THE FLU each year but simple common cold.
"3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths" comes to 8-10% fatalities.
That's about 3 kids dead in a class of 30 children. Every year.
But it's spread out across the globe and it happens mostly in "third world" countries so - fuck those weaklings.

Back in winter of '96 I had a case of actual flu.
As a teenager, wasn't really in an "at risk group", other than maybe having my immunity lowered.
Unfortunately, my doctor wasn't in that day and I was sent home (by a rather young doctor, rather fresh from the med school) with a prescription for cough syrup instead of a penicillin shot.

That night I had a fever of +40C, and ended up barely breathing by the morning.
Had to sit in a semi-reclined position to be able to breathe as it was difficult for me to do that while sitting or lying down.
Had to lean on my mother's arm to be able to walk to the doctor's office in the morning, about 200-300 meters downhill (mostly) from where I live.

There it turned out that I practically had a heart attack [oxfordjournals.org] - an inflammation of the myocardium.
Ended up staying over at the hospital for couple of weeks and having tests and booster shots for next half a year - though I was "fixed" after couple of shots of penicillin, getting out of the bed and walking to the bathroom by myself that very night with no difficulty at all.
By tomorrow I felt ready to go home. Still had to stay though.

Funny thing is, during all my stay at the hospital doctors never figured out what was wrong with me. They were looking for congenital heart conditions, trichinosis... only much later as I kept being fine did they take a look back at the original symptoms and figured out that it was all a viral inflammation of the heart muscle.

THAT'S influenza!
"Most people" catch a cold and call that "the flu".

Re: Dangerous virus (5, Informative)

rhodium_mir (2876919) | about 1 month ago | (#47791475)

Penicillin is not an effective treatment for Influenza.

Re: Dangerous virus (4, Informative)

HuguesT (84078) | about 1 month ago | (#47792331)

It could be for complications. Influenza causes inflammation, which itself creates a happy medium for bacteria in the lungs. It is standard practice to give antibiotics in severe cases of influenza. This does not help against the virus but helps lowering the risk of reinfections. See there [nih.gov] .

Re: Dangerous virus (2)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47792507)

It was effective against a bacterial inflammation of the heart muscle, for which influenza "opened the door".
Like I said, they never figured out what exactly was the cause, they just settled for viral once they ran out of congenital and parasitic causes.

Penicillin (probably a streptomycin combo) was administered "just in case".
Same as the glucose I was receiving intravenously for several days more, despite being quite able to eat and digest solid food - which I did as I was allowed to.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

ch0knuti (994541) | about 1 month ago | (#47791879)

Influenza is a viral infection. Penicillin is an antibiotic. If a few shots of penicillin "fixed" you, it probably was something else.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47792565)

Probably.
It probably took out a bacterial infection for which the influenza opened the doors.
It was the only thing other than the glucose I was given intravenously, just in case.

And it started working from the first shot I received in the morning at the doctor's office (now my doctor WAS on duty) as I was already feeling well enough to walk on my own around the hospital, following the doctors and nurses from examination room to examination room while being examined there later that day.

Had they said "Go home, you're fine." I would have.
But, the EKG said differently so I was provided with couple of nights in the intensive care, listening to delirious old men on the other side of the ward yelling and screaming all night.
Fun times.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 1 month ago | (#47792055)

Unfortunately, my doctor wasn't in that day and I was sent home (by a rather young doctor, rather fresh from the med school) with a prescription for cough syrup instead of a penicillin shot.

Why would you think a doctor would give you penicillin for a viral infection? Do you know how antibiotics work?

Re:Dangerous virus (2)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47792519)

Same reason they later kept me on glucose for several days while allowing me to eat solid food - just in case and cause it fit the symptoms of an infection.
In this case, it took out the bacterial infection of the heart muscle for which the influenza opened up the doors.
Cough syrup on the other hand did diddly squat.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824359)

Cough syrup on the other hand did diddly squat.

IT worked perfectly, you mean?

cough syrup is meant to do diddly squat. It's a placebo. It comes in bottles, can taste nasty or horrible, and is a bright colour . All perfect placebo packaging. Possibly a very slight dose of topical painkiller for the throat, but otherwise, diddly squat.

Not quite... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a month and a half ago | (#47829257)

A "topical painkiller for the throat" in on itself makes it NOT a placebo but a painkiller for symptomatic relief.
And syrups which require prescription (not over the counter) tend to be based on some form of an antibiotic.

The main issue is the kind of antibiotic in the syrup and the dosage. Followed closely by the method of administration.
Dosage is usually 2-3 times lower when the antibiotic is taken orally instead of via an intramuscular or intravenous injection.

http://www.globalrph.com/penic... [globalrph.com]

Ampicillin:
Dosing:
  Infants and Children:
Mild-to-moderate infections:
I.M., I.V.: 100-150 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) .
Oral: 50-100 mg/kg/day in doses divided every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) .
Severe infections/meningitis: I.M., I.V.: 200-400 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 6-12 g/day)

On top of that, a teaspoon of antibiotic suspension tends to contain about 250 mg of actual medicine.
They are prescribing these to both babies and to kids in puberty, like I was back then.
So, better safe than overdose policy from a young MD ensured I got a baby dose instead of an adult one as I was almost 18 and weighed about 62-63 kg.
Not that I looked like an adult. Apart from the beard. Which I've probably shaven off before going to a doctor.

I.e. I got a 25-35 times lower dose than it was safe and about 5-6 times lower than needed.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 1 month ago | (#47792327)

You need to read a bit more carefully because you cited the number of severe cases, not the total number of cases. That same report says that 5-10% of adults get it annually, and 20-30% of children. If we go with the lowest number of infected, 5%, and multiple it by the 7 billion on this planet, we have 350 million. With the high estimate of half a million deaths, that clocks in around 0.14% mortality. Take out the high risk groups and that number is even lower.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47792495)

You are working with rather imaginary numbers there.

For one, 5 percent of adults and whatever-percent of children won't give you that 5% number to multiply it with 7 billion.
And second, death tends to be a severe case. A VERY severe case.
Does WHO discount those deaths from severe cases? I don't know. They didn't say.

But it is a much more accurate shorthand to assume a correlation between the number of severe cases and the number of deaths and compare those numbers as percentages of the same population than what you did there.

Precise numbers are not an issue here anyway.
The fact that flu is a much more serious global problem than ebola is the issue.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 1 month ago | (#47795495)

No, every number except for the world population and the final calculated number for mortality rate is from that WHO report. I used the numbers most favorable to producing a high mortality rate, and the number I got was far less than your 8-10% death rate (which would possibly be an accurate rate for severe cases). You can argue that the influenza is a big concern, but the numbers suggest that people with healthy immune systems don't die of influenza very often.

Another thing to keep in mind is the availability of effective options. The flu virus changes in ways that require us to update our vaccines practically every year. That makes a complete cure for the flu virtually impossible. The ways we could improve would be better immunization methods, better tracking of the spread of the flu, and adapting more quickly to new strains.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a month and a half ago | (#47801275)

No, every number except for the world population and the final calculated number for mortality rate is from that WHO report.

About the same way that every letter is in the alphabet.

       

I used the numbers most favorable to producing a high mortality rate

No you didn't.

If we go with the lowest number of infected, 5%, and multiple it by the 7 billion on this planet, we have 350 million.

You used imaginary numbers for determining your supposed population, and you purposefully used lowest numbers which you've also imagined.
Those numbers are nowhere to be found in the WHO report.

THIS is what the report says. Again...

Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children.

NOT 5% of 7.2 billion.
5-10% of adults (so "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 10% based on adults alone) and 20-30% of children (where "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 30%).

Have fun figuring out how many "children" that is as not only do they NOT provide such numbers, but they don't even define "children".
Prepubescent? Everyone under 18? 16? Babies?

ON THE OTHER HAND...
8-10% is the number you get when comparing lowest number of deaths to lowest numbers of severe illness, while comparing highest numbers of deaths to highest numbers of severe illness.
It is a moderate guesstimate value based on known relations between known facts.

Just taking 5% out of 7.2 billion is practically the same as taking any random number.
8%. 19%. 56% 807%. Pumpkin %.
I.e. Completely unrelated to given facts.

The flu virus changes in ways that require us to update our vaccines practically every year. That makes a complete cure for the flu virtually impossible.

Again, that is not the issue. Vaccines are kept up to date.

From the same WHO report.

For many years WHO has updated its recommendation on vaccine composition biannually that targets the 3 (trivalent) most representative virus types in circulation (two subtypes of influenza A viruses and one B virus). Starting with the 2013-2014 northern hemisphere influenza season, quadrivalent vaccine composition has been recommended with a second influenza B virus in addition to the viruses in the conventional trivalent vaccines. Quadrivalent influenza vaccines are expected to provide wider protection against influenza B virus infections.

The issue is the unavailability of vaccines everywhere and the disregard of the disease as people "don't die of influenza very often".
With a dose of that general trend of fear of vaccination on top of it all.

Meanwhile, a couple of thousand dead, ONLY in Africa, over several decades, is a cause of panic because that disease is much more sexy.
Cause everyone dies from ebola. Almost nobody gets it but everyone DIES.
Clearly, we should all panic and duct-tape our doors and windows to stop the virus from coming in. [cnn.com]

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 1 month ago | (#47792413)

Remember, penicillin is not an effective treatment for Influenza
or other viral infections. There are some secondary infections
where penicillin or another antibiotic has value BUT penicillin is
not an effective treatment for Influenza.

This Ebola thing is dangerous... it is lethal enough
and contagious enough to totally upend the health care
and economic systems of the UK, France, Germany, US,
Russia, Japan...

Most modern nations do not have infrastructure that permits
long term quarantine of all but a small handful of individuals.
Nothing in place will address the millions of travelers... stuck in
transit.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 1 month ago | (#47792709)

Yet, there was never a case of ebola in humans which originated outside of Africa and the total number of deaths EVER is counted in thousands FOR ALL THIS TIME and not in hundreds of thousands EACH YEAR.
There's a clue there regarding the nature of the disease. I.e. It's quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.

And African nations which are currently dealing with, and which have historically had to deal with ebola outbreaks don't have "infrastructure that permits long term quarantine of all but a small handful of individuals" either.
Often, they don't have running water.
Yet... It's mere thousands of cases. Ever.
Again, quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.

Nobody is arguing that it is not dangerous.
Just that as far as the number of fatalities and global issues go - it's trivial compared to influenza which kills a whole city of people and severely affects a small country of people. Each year.
But since it's not sexy and it's kinda like the common cold so many people confuse the two... meh... fuck those hundreds of thousands dead.

But let's all panic about a disease which has killed couple of thousand people who lived near a jungle in Africa, practically at their doorstep.

As for the penicillin, I already answered that couple of times in other posts and my reasoning there is quite similar to yours.

Re:Dangerous virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47793121)

Even only a hundred years ago you could afford to get a village wiped out by Ebola or the plauge, how fast the SARS went around shows us that in an interconnected world, even a disease like Ebola that doesn't spread -that- easily can be transmitted to many countries and kill people.

Luckily SARS showed us that we can quite comfortably stamp it.

Re:Dangerous virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47798385)

by your logic, flu is scary because you had it - fuck all those black people in africa with ebola.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 1 month ago | (#47795033)

So I guess we shouldn't worry about Ebola either coz you don't think you'll ever get it either? Check your hipster-holier-then-thou-attitude at the door mate.

Influenza infects hundreds of millions of people every year, but kills only a tiny fraction of them. To die of influenza you need to have complicating conditions. The type you had are curable with drugs we already have. The type which aren't are the type of lifestyle or age related issues which are a problem no matter who gets them, and regardless of whether you get the flu.

A virus for which we also have a vaccine.

By every measure, influenza is not scary. People who get it do not expect to die of it. But we're also going to be able to bugger-all to stop it being a yearly global epidemic. Which is fortunate, because again, it's very hard to die of it.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a month and a half ago | (#47800963)

So I guess we shouldn't worry about Ebola either coz you don't think you'll ever get it either? Check your hipster-holier-then-thou-attitude at the door mate.

How about you check your words at your mouth and refrain from putting it into other people's mouths? Mate.
We should not panic about ebola. We SHOULD worry more about the flu, as it clearly kills hundreds of thousands each year.

How easy/hard to die from a disease is not an issue - it's how easily it spreads and IS it deadly.
Ebola is not airborne, it happens only in certain parts of Africa, it requires direct contact for transfer, and it is deadly.
Flu on the other hand, IS airborne, does NOT require direct contact, happens EVERYWHERE, and it is also deadly.

One of those two is a clear and present danger to EVERYONE.
One is an imaginary threat for the most of the planet, on the level of a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb.
I.e. It never happened. There was never an ebola pandemic.

Once an epidemic starts anywhere outside of Africa or some other tropical country with free roaming apes/monkeys - that's when the world needs to panic.
Until then... any panic outside of Africa is based on fantasy and delusion.

Meanwhile, due exactly to writing off of flu as "not scary" people forgo on vaccination - and we bury another 0.2-0.5 million.
While diligently panicking about ebola, sky falling down, terrorists, bronies and drinking from plastic cups.

Like with any disease, further research should be done to create a cure.
Meanwhile, 85% of the world can chill and relax and stop worrying about Dustin Hoffman possibly being infectious.

Re:Dangerous virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47798377)

apparently, your 'flu' experience damaged your logic unit but intensified your ass unit.

Re:Dangerous virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47793061)

This is ALL because of Climate Change!

Re:Dangerous virus (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 1 month ago | (#47790985)

Five of the authors of this paper died of Ebola, including one who did not work with any patients or samples directly.

Re:Dangerous virus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791851)

They should have left the niggers alone then.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47794033)

Its usually high mortality rate makes it slow to propagate, since it tends to kill the host before they can spread it much.

100% Wrong- The incubation period can be as long as three weeks, and can be spread by 'recovered' patients for up to 7 weeks after they appear healthy.
The slow rate of spread is primarily because it requires very close contact with body fluids to transmit, and because the infected don't begin transmitting it until near the end of the incubation period.

Ebola is scary not because of what it is NOW, but because of what it might mutate into.

Re:Dangerous virus (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about 1 month ago | (#47790855)

Of all people, experts of the disease take precautions to avoid catching it themselves, when they do, its not a good sign.

Maybe. Then again, where I work it's the new guys who follow safety guidelines religiously, while those who have been there for a while can't be bothered because, after all, nothing's happened this far so it must be safe.

Experts are humans, and humans are notoriously bad at keeping their guard up with familiar things.

Re:Dangerous virus (1)

quenda (644621) | about 1 month ago | (#47790867)

The fact that so many experts on the disease die of it

TFS is misleading; no experts have died. The "authors" is a very long list of names, like the credits at the end of a movie.

Supercarrier (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47790801)

So, my take of what they're saying is that there is a "asymptomatic (super-)carrier" out there, a single person much like Typhoid Mary who is causing the outbreaks?

Supercarrier (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791833)

I am surprised they let the niggers live this long.

has ebola been weaponized? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791725)

Posting anonymously because I don't really want to be associated with this bleak, black writing. Yet I think perhaps it is time to jam these thoughts into the public discourse.

So the current ebola outbreak originated from a strain located about 3,000 miles east of current patient #0 and its mortality rate is siginificantly lower, from around 90% to around 67%, which actually improves its infection rate, IIRC.

Am I wrong, or is this consistent with what one would expect if the virus had been weaponized? Between deaths directly due to the disease and deaths due to the collapse of infrastructure caused by the disease, a large area in western Africa that is rich in resources is being depopulated and becoming available for a massive land grab. The first group to establish isolated and fortified enclaves while the current society crumbles, the first group that is willing to shoot to kill any possible carrier of the disease who approaches their enclaves' walls, could take over and defend itself against all adversaries. There are groups not too far away in northern Nigeria that are openly talking about establishing a Caliphate in western Africa, using if necessary a full out Jihad where infidels could be lawfully slaughtered without cause. Ebola might be seen as a Holy Intervention From Above in certain well-armed groups.

Or maybe Western Medicine is going to pull a rabbit out of its hat and develop, prepare, and deliver enough vaccine to stop ebola in its tracks. Currently WHO says that in 6 months it will have some kind of a plan for dealing with ebola-- and presumably the secondary deaths due to malnutrition from closed markets and disease from failed sewage and water treatment-- and there will only be 20,000 dead by that time. By the time when the planning phase is completed, and the plan is ready to be put into action. It really sounds like WHO has no rabbit in hand and is talking through its hat.

has ebola been weaponized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47791873)

Even if it has been weaponized, the niggers reproduce so fast it might not even be beneficial.

Re:has ebola been weaponized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792267)

Why do you think they brought 2 patients to the U.S.? I'm sure ISIS has an eye (or other body parts) on it too.

Re:has ebola been weaponized? (2)

HuguesT (84078) | about 1 month ago | (#47792373)

It is unlikely Ebola has been weaponized. It makes sense to use a virus as a weapon if the attacker has some kind of effective defence against it, otherwise the disease may backfire. Right now Ebola is too dangerous for this.

Re:has ebola been weaponized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47792623)

But there is a very good defense against ebola, provided the defenders have no ethical or moral qualms about using it. You simply establish a wide perimeter and do not let anyone from outside your chosen group to get into it. Boko Haram has demonstrated that it has no qualms about killing infidels.

Ebola is contagious only through contact with body fluids. Kill any possible carriers at a distance, dispose of the bodies with equipment that avoids direct contact, and your little enclave could be safer than an armored patrol in an ISIS battlefield.

Re:has ebola been weaponized? (1)

romons (2767081) | about a month and a half ago | (#47813909)

Nobody in the western world gets ebola, because it requires terrible sanitation and hospital practices to get started as an epidemic. There have been 10 cases of hemorrhagic fever in the US in the last 10 years. None of them erupted into an epidemic.

If somebody tried to use it as a weapon, they would need to introduce huge quantities of it into the food supply. Given the west's food inspection regime, that would be difficult to do.

Newer strain of the virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47795729)

Ebola could be evolving into a less deadly form. After all if it rapidly kills a carrier it's not likely to be communicated to another victim. While a less deadly but more contagious form would flourish.

SG

Ebola mutations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 1 month ago | (#47795973)

" For example, this outbreak has had a higher transmission rate and lower death rate than others, and researchers are curious if any of these mutations are related to that"

This is good news I guess, the virus is adapting to become less lethal and more transmittable. This is the history of diseases. A disease that kills
it's host is not successful and eventually mutates to cohabit with the host, hopefully before it has wiped out the whole population.
Think 'Mutually Assured Destruction'...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?