Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cm2187 34 days ago
No it's not a big deal. Ebola is deadly if you catch it but it is not very contagious at all. You need to be in contact with someone's fluids basically. It can't go very far.
3 comments

> Ebola is deadly if you catch it but it is not very contagious at all

This isn't straight Ebolavirus (Zaire), but this thing [1]. We don't have enough data yet to confirm it spreads like Ebola among humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundibugyo_ebolavirus

Fine, but "we don't know" != "it's a big deal". All I see here is wild speculation.
But also "we don't know"! = "it's NOT a big deal".

I'm OK with some caution.

Yeah I agree with you here…

Haven’t we been burnt by being not cautious enough when COVID hit? Initially most scientists said “we don’t know if it’s airborne” or they said “there are no signs that it’s airborne” and the media turned it into “nothing flying fear” - and a few weeks later it was suddenly airborne.

“We don’t know” is a normal state in science and policies and personal behavior can take unknowns into consideration.

If it was that simple Ebola wouldn’t ever spread and nobody would bother trying to contain it. Instead it’s relatively easy to contain but still requires active effort.
It's that simple... in first world countries. Lacks in infrastructure and educatin make it harder
COVID spread didn’t break down into first world vs third world countries because first world countries infrastructure isn’t built with pandemics in mind.

Instead a great deal of modern infrastructure like subway systems makes things more difficult not less.

I’m not an epidemiologist, but Ebola isn’t airborne like COVID is, so that isn’t a comparison that can be made.

infrastructure density matters, but it doesn’t affect both the same way.

This gets into the question of definitions vs edge cases.

Ebola like many viruses can be contagious without direct touching.

It’s not well adapted to airborne transmission, but it’s very good at causing people to spread bodily fluids all over the place. So a very sick individual passing through a subway seeking medical treatment could infect a large number of people.

Ebola can mutate and this would no longer be true
There are a million viruses that can mutate. That's not really an argument for anything.
There aren't million of viruses that are as deadly as ebola
But they can mutate to be as deadly as Ebola.
Pigs can grow wings too. Is there a particular small set of mutations that you're referring to that we're actually worried about, or just wildly speculating of what could happen in a one-in-a-quadrillion event?
If pigs reproduced and mutated as rapidly as viruses then yeah, we would probably need to plan around the eventuality that they would develop wings and escape their pens.
Not answering the question. Is there some small gene change that we're specifically worried about here or was GP wildly speculating?

> reproduced and mutated as rapidly as viruses

HIV spreads in similar ways afaik (some fluids, I don't know the details of Ebola but it's not respiratory), yet that hasn't gone airborne in decades. I'm well aware that pigs don't get a million offspring each, but it doesn't seem like a common event for viruses to completely change their mechanism overnight either. Hence the quadrillion odds I mentioned, I was indeed referencing that they mutate so much, and yet...

> Is there some small gene change that we're specifically worried about here

Yes. A single gene change allows for airborne Ebola transmission. This gene change has occurred in the Reston strain, which luckily does not cause symptoms in humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston_virus

Where does that article say Reston (or a mutant strain of Reston) is airborne?