Science and technology related to the virus itself. Drugs, disinfectants, vaccines, etc. How and why does Ebola work? What do we know? What don't we know?

I posted these sources of science-based info over in the original EBOV thread, but thought I'd add them here. Will post a few more as I have time.


*Australian virologist's blog that breaks down the latest CDC reports. LOTS of helpful, up-to-date charts -- http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/ebola-virus-disease-evd-2014-west.html

*Also from the same blog, a collaborative article which explains the terms, "airborne" versus "droplet sprays": http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/ebola-virus-may-be-spread-by-droplets.html

*Another blog from a scientist who works in a BSL4 lab: http://www.pathogenperspectives.com/

*And the This Week in Virology Podcast: http://www.twiv.tv/ (Search "ebola" for relevant episodes) Primarily aimed at those within the virology field, not epidemiology. A bit heavy on the jargon at times, but provides very pertinent links to scientific papers.



--M

Well, let me migrate and comment on this recent post from one of the original Ebola threads:


That's an often cited experiment done recently in Canada. I just wanted to repeat the caveat that Ebola affects pigs differently than humans. As the study authors mention in the article itself, in pigs, Ebola can infect the respiratory tract and virus was detected in oro-nasal swabs. Virus was not detected in the swabs of infected macaques, which is what you would expect because Ebola is not a respiratory disease in macaques (or humans).

So, the main thrust and take away message from that particular experiment is that pigs can be a vector for Ebola that does not require direct contact. So stay away from any Ebola-infected pigs.

The study authors also note that infected macaques did not seem to be able to infect macaques in other cages, so the spread was limited to pig-to-macaque transmission.

For the mathematicians,

This model is predicting the Ebola outbreak with incredible accuracy.

There is a new analysis out regarding the quarantine period for Ebola here.



It's rather technical, but the bottom line is:

This Scientific American article is from the end of August, but it is still relevant. For those people curious about the more technical aspects of how people with Ebola are being treated at places like Emory University, this article is a pretty detailed description of the clinical game plan involved.

My estimate is this. I think they will probably stop this outbreak at the borders of Ghana and Senegal. Ghane is to the east, and Senegal is to the west. the two countries have more resources and are more organized. they will be serious about stopping it.

the big unknown is how far ebola will penetrate in Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Gambia and the Ivory Coast. If it gets into all those places, then maybe 40,000 dead total. if they stop it at just Sierra Leona and Liberia, then maybe 15,000-20,000 dead. Keep in mind that real casualties are probably at least 2x higher than what is reported.

if they stop this outbreak with 30,000- 40,000 dead in a limited number of W. Africa countries -that is a VERY good outcome for the world. NOT good for West Africa. But good for everyone else.

the danger is that if ebola gets into a country with a much larger population (Ivory Coast and Ghana have a total population combined of 50 million), then the virus could mutate again. and if it does, the lethality might go down, but the transmission rate might go up. that is really NOT good. which is why they are working hard to stop it now.

cheers,
Pete

There is a meeting going on now to discuss ways to test whether experimental Ebola treatments actually work while also balancing that with trying to provide hope and care to severely sick patients.

The greater the public perception that something might work, regardless of the lack of evidence to back that up, the more ethically difficult it becomes for scientists to withhold it and give someone a placebo instead in their search for finding how effective that treatment is. In the case of highly lethal diseases with few or no treatment options, that conflict is magnified.

With time and enough data, a scientific consensus can often be reached on the effectiveness of a given treatment without using the gold standard method of a placebo-controlled clinical trial, but that process takes longer and the results are less definitive.

An article about how one simple treatment--easier said than done--could have a profound effect on the high mortality of Ebola.