There is of course the possibility that there is a good amount of data collected during, in particular this outbreak, that has not been published. The hubris might possibly be in assuming that you have access to all the test results and clinical data that the CDC and the WHO have access to in real time.
In any case I can find on a brief search several studies that are at least suggestive that sweat should be considered infectious, such as this one.
And scrolling down the search page to this one about the lack of infectivitty during recovery.
A comprehensive literature I have not done and an expert on this I aint. But you may want to consider that the experts have more data at their disposal and a better grasp of it than your review allows you.
The difference between ebola and early HIV is that we have nearly 40 years of experience with ebola. It’s patchy and infrequent experience, but at this point chances are that things really are what they seem.
This isn’t a surprise to anyone. Public health systems in Africa were systematically dismantled in the 1980s in the name of fiscal austerity. This was a massive failure, and they are now slowly being rebuilt, but Liberia missed the boat due to protracted conflict.
Public health experts have been warning of this exact scenario for decades-- a rare zoonotic disease hitting the big time in someplace with no health system. The US spends less than 1% of federal revenues on foreign aid. If the developed world have 3%, many experts believe this level of poverty would be eliminated. But, we decided we’d rather just take our chances.
I am hoping we learn from the obvious public health implications of this-- the reality that even getting up to the level of Guinea (which is a train wreck) can avert thousands of deaths and likely billions of dollars. Hopefully the American public realizes that public health in developing countries actually is something worth investing in.
I hate to sound all Machiavellian on this - but the button to push here isn’t deaths in Africa. If we spent more on foreign aid there would be better health in third world countries. Better health - and health systems - would means more easily contained epidemics. It would also encourage those that currently don’t trust doctors and hospitals to start trusting - further containing epidemics. Fewer people with a disease like ebola means it spreads to fewer people, giving it fewer opportunities to end up on a plane to Dallas where OMG Americans!!! might have come in contact with the disease.
We are a selfish people - and it is within our own best interests to make sure health care in Africa improves in quality.
(And fewer deaths in Africa would be way cool, too - personally, we should provide aid to Africa because its the right thing to do. But I suspect if we increase aid, it will be because we are selfish gits looking after our own self interest)
This is simple. It’s not a liberal/conservative thing. It’s a facts thing. You won’t die of Ebola. You’ll die of heart disease at age 79. Just like me.
The LA Times has a decent article explaining some of the concerns about the accuracy of information being put out about ebola. They cite reputable researchers in the field of virology who have years of experience working with ebola and other special pathogens.
C.J. Peters, onetime medical division chief at USAMRIID, commented on the possiblity ebola is spread through the air in tight quarters saying “We just don’t have the data to exclude it.”
Philip Russell, former head of the U.S. Army’s Medical Research and Development Command, is quoted saying about the current ebola outbreak, “Being dogmatic is, I think, ill-advised, because there are too many unknowns here.” Russell is the man the House Armed Services Committee turned to to brief them on bioweapons preparedness in 2013. He is no academic crackpot or fringe opinion.
Peters and Russell aren’t being alarmist. They are basically saying “Show me the data” before making absolutist statements. In SDMB parlance - Cite??
Other public health officials are cited in the article acknowledging that it is a fine line between symptomatic and asymptomatic and we don’t really know at what point a patient starts to shed virus and thus potentially become infective to others.
Actually, for all you young folks out there, in the 1980s, it was LIBERALS who were racing around like chickens with their heads cut off, insisting that AIDS was running rampant, and trying to scare the everyone into thinking that AIDS was on the verge of exploding into the heterosexual popuation.
So, the notion that liberals are calm, scholarly and rational about diseases is not only false, it’s ridiculous.
The difference is, those liberals were generally LIARS, rather than misinformed. Liberals lied, lied, and lied some more because they believed the American people are heartless cheapskates and would never cough up money for AIDS research unless they could be tricked into thinking they themselves were at risk.
Because arguing that the government and medical community should stop ignoring an actual ongoing epidemic—regardless of the subset of the population being affective—is much, much worse than intentionally trying to incite panic for political purposes and advocating pointless and harmful policy reactions.
So, why do you think AIDS didn’t explode into the heterosexual population in the US and Europe, but did explode into the heterosexual population in Africa? Also, cite for these lies? Because I’m fairly certain that your misrepresenting the situation there.
Also, free tip: HIV isn’t your best play, here, what with it being an actual health crisis and all. If you want to pull a tu quoque on liberal health scares, go after the anti-vaxxers, which is a field chock full of leftist dupes and liars.
From Day One, liberals in the media tried to portray AIDS as an equal opportunity killer, which is obviously WASN’T. In reality, if you’re neither a gay male nor an intravenous drug user, your chances of contracting AIDS are extremely low. That was obvious all along.
The media nonetheless trumpeted every case of heterosexual AIDS, from Ryan White to Elizabeth Glaser to (ahem) Magic Johnson. Why? Again, because they believed ordinary straight American people were too heartless to help gays and junkies, and would only fork over money if they believed they themselves were at risk (which they clearly weren’t).
You want a “cite”? Read Michael Fumento’s The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. He had the story right 30 years ago, but nobody was listening to him (and the few that did called him a bigot or a self-loathing gay man).
P.S. Why the “ahem”? Because Magic Johnson has LONG been rumored to swing both ways, and everybody in the sports world knows it. I firmly believe he will be officially outed after he dies and is no longer of any value as a symbol of “heterosexual” AIDS.
Your characterization is so contrafactual, it doesn’t deserve a point-by-point refutation.
Regardless, there was no “scaremongering.” There was a movement to heighten awareness, encourage research, encourage compassion, and advocate safe sex practices, which are effective for most major STDs.
You think that awareness, education, and encouragement had nothing to do with the pattern of spread of the infection, which worldwide is spread mostly by heterosexual contact?
There was an actual epidemic at the time and the government alternatively ignored it or took the attitude that because it’s mostly gay people, who cares, they deserve it.
There was no wild-eyed panic and broad-based effort to scare people into thinking that entire continents should be quarantined.
Or are you actually under the impression that straight people are immune?
It is an equal opportunity killer. Gay or straight, you get infected, you die (back in the 80s, pre-current treatments). You engage in risky behavior, gay or straight, you’re at risk for getting it.
When AIDS (or GRID) first came on the scene people thought being straight meant you couldn’t get it, either by “magical protection” or simply by the type of behavior straight folks engaged in. Straight folks needed to be educated that they were at risk, too. If that awareness help people realize this was a human disease and all humans ( not just gays) need to be careful and contribute to the search for treatments, that’s a good thing.
Amazing. Thirty years later, you’re still pulling the same old tricks.
No, straight people aren’t “immune” to AIDS- it’s just virtually impossible for straight men to contract AIDS via plain old vaginal intercourse with women. You KNOW that. It’s been well known for decades. But your side continually lied or exaggerated to make the threat appear infinitely greater than it was.
All through the Eighties, AIDS activists and their allies i nthe media insisted “within five years, EVERYONE will know someone with AIDS.” Nope, not true.
Newspapers constantly trumpeted misleading stories like, “Rate of AIDS increase now higher among heterosexuals.” Technically true but completely meaningless, and the writers KNEW that.
The widely anticipated explosion of AIDS among hetrosexuals NEVER HAPPENED and was never GOING to happen. Which means that the medical community either misled us OR that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Neither possibility should be reassuring.
Most new HIV cases in women in the USA are from heterosexual contact. Men, while at lower risk for contracting HIV from heterosexual sex are still at risk and are at risk from IV drug use.
At the time AIDS appeared on the scene, people did not believe straight folks were at risk. Emphasizing the that everyone was at risk, even to varying degrees, helped get people willing to take protective measures and sparked universal interest in funding research.
I’m not seeing lies.
Men were encouraged to use condoms and not to engage in risky IV drug use. This protected them (straight or gay) and their female partners. The fact that men are at lower risk for contracting HIV from PIV sex doesn’t make it the whole story. Women are at much higher risk to contract HIV from PIV sex.
So what’s the lie:
Straight people are at risk.
Men are at risk from either anal or PIV sex.
Men are at risk from non-sexual behaviors such as IV drug use
Women are at high risk from infected male partners
There was limited interest in funding research and changing policy until it was proven that everyone was at potential risk.
