Ebola Zaire Virus

Why the West Can’t Ignore the Ebola Outbreak Now
s.e. smith
Feb 13, 2015

Thousands have been lost to the Ebola epidemic, including people like Doctor Martin Salia, a surgeon who worked at the heart of the outbreak and died of Ebola when careful infection control protocols failed him. Distressingly, he is one of 500 health care providers who’ve given their lives to the fight against the disease, which is leaving West Africa ravaged.

This area is tasked with controlling the epidemic before it can even begin to rebuild — and West Africa needs to address critical infrastructure and social issues to recover from the vicious outbreak that paralyzed many of its social systems. The countries affected will be facing shortages of medical personnel, teachers, police officers and other people critical to day to day government functionality, in addition to the trauma of an outbreak that left almost everyone affected by the loss of family and friends.

Last month, we finally got good news in the fight against Ebola: It looked like the infection rate was beginning to drop. A critical turning point had been reached after dire warnings from the World Health Organization that critical action was needed to stop a dangerous peak in infections in 2015. After hard work from care teams from all over the world, new cases were dropping, survival rates were improving and West Africa was beginning to breathe easier. Ironically, the decline was actually making it difficult to test the efficacy of the experimental vaccine — the risk of infection was decreasing, and test subjects were less likely to be exposed to the virus. Now, all that’s changing. The rate is climbing back up again, and the story of how, and why, illustrates that we don’t have the epidemic under control yet.

In a single week in February, the number of cases in Guinea doubled — a startling upward spike in one of the nations most affected by the disease. The nation’s sprawled remote communities were responsible for the increased infection reports: Care teams hadn’t even reached some corners of the country, or had encountered resistance when trying to access communities wary of health care providers. As health workers get deeper into the country and establish rapport with community leaders, they’re turning up more and more “hidden” cases, which is causing the infection rate to leap dramatically.

The initial downward trend in infections led many nations and groups to start winding down their efforts in West Africa, diverting their support to other regions in need or wrapping up to be ready for the next deployment. This presents two problems for affected nations. As skilled personnel leave the region, it becomes harder to control the remaining cases in the outbreak, increasing the risk that the jump in cases will bloom into another extended outbreak. Additionally, the drop in support leaves nations already facing shortages with further stress on the personnel remaining behind.

One group particularly affected by the departure of health care personnel and the increase in infections is children. There’s an unusually high death rate for children infected with Ebola, in part because they require special care they’re not receiving. Some of that care is medical in nature, while other issues are more psychological and ephemeral — infected children are stressed by being separated from their families and hospitalized in situations where “no contact” rules prohibit physical touch. Feeling alone and isolated contributes to a decreased ability to copy with the infection, which is bad news for infected children.

West Africa’s Ebola situation is still perilous enough that the West needs to remain active in the region — if it doesn’t, Western nations may find themselves having to return once again to help combat a secondary outbreak.

See links in article:
http://www.care2.com/causes/why-the-west-cant-ignore-the-ebola-outbreak-now.html

What Ebola Virus is up to even a week after death.....

The Ebola virus may still be able to cause disease a week after a person infected with the virus has died, a new study suggests.

The study involved five macaque monkeys that had been infected with Ebola for previous research, and were euthanized after they showed symptoms of the disease. Their bodies were then placed in a chamber designed to mimic the hot and humid conditions of West Africa, and the researchers collected samples for 10 weeks.

The scientists detected infectious virus on the bodies up to seven days after the monkeys' deaths.

The results confirm that "transmission [of Ebola] from deceased persons is possible for an extended period after death," the researchers write in an upcoming issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases. "Family members exposed to [Ebola] patients during late stages of disease, or who had contact with deceased patients have a high risk for infection," the researchers said. [Where Did Ebola Come From?]

The study also detected genetic material from the Ebola virus for up to 10 weeks after death. However, this genetic material was somewhat degraded, and no longer able to cause disease. Still, the presence of such genetic material could help researchers determine whether a person or animal had died from Ebola, the researchers said.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/02/16/ebola-virus-still-infectious-for-week-after-death/

Why Climate Change Might Make Future Disease Outbreaks Worse
Steve Williams
Feb 17, 2015

Even as health workers continue to struggle against the current Ebola crisis, two prominent zoologists are warning that climate change could make such outbreaks harder to handle as infectious diseases spread to regions where previously they hadn’t been able to take hold.

Researchers writing in the the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, explain that 30 years of studying animals and parasitic infections suggests to them that not only will parasites and other infections adapt to previous host species dying out, that adaptation could threaten to spread of viruses to new regions that aren’t prepared for them.

Zoologists Daniel Brooks and Eric Hoberg, who have worked primarily in the tropics and Arctic regions respectively, write that they believe this won’t lead to one killer strain that will wipe out wildlife, livestock and humans completely, but many more smaller outbreaks, which will put severe strain on our health systems and ecology and may ultimately cripple health efforts.

We already know that climate change could make outbreaks of deadly viruses harder to handle, and not just because of compromised infrastructure. Previous research has warned that as the climate shifts we will likely see problems with invading species bringing known infections to regions they hadn’t previously inhabited, posing a risk for human populations in those areas.

At the same time though, prevailing wisdom had said that parasites and viruses that haven’t historically posed a risk to humans are unlikely to pose a threat. That’s because scientists have theorized that close evolutionary relationship between a parasite and its host would make the chance of humans seeing emerging threats in new regions relatively rare. However, Brooks and Hoberg believe that this theory is mistaken.

The researchers contend that this argument ignores two very important facts: that parasites have ancestral DNA, meaning that they have a history of other adaptations which may allow them to overcome the problem of having narrowly adapted to one particular host–and that they may do this in a relatively short space of time, too. Secondly, the researchers note that the parasite need not necessarily be that well adapted to a new host in order to be a problem because the host has a disadvantage of potentially not having any resistance to the parasite or invading virus. While the new host species may then quickly adapt, the virus will still have taken hold in a new region and then itself can begin to adapt, thus further spreading potentially infectious diseases and threatening new animal and human populations.

To illustrate this, the researchers use the example of capuchin and spider monkeys. These two species were hunted to virtual extinction in certain regions of Costa Rica. However, the parasites quickly re-emerged in closely related howler monkeys and survive today. Brooks also notes that lungworms, similarly, have moved from caribou to muskoxen and as such have been able to move north out of their original range.

In case this sounds like a scary story, the researchers are clear that they are raising this issue now because they want greater cooperation with those who track diseases among animal populations. They believe that by tracking parasites and infectious diseases among wildlife and livestock, researchers will be able to stop future “emerging” diseases from becoming a threat, not just to human populations but vulnerable animal populations, too.

“We have to admit we’re not winning the war against emerging diseases,” Brooks is quoted as saying. ”We’re not anticipating them. We’re not paying attention to their basic biology, where they might come from and the potential for new pathogens to be introduced.”

The zoologists suggest that by paying attention to this possibility we might begin to get a picture of the potential geographic distribution of infected animals and develop strategies that might help us minimize emerging disease risk. For instance, we could limit human contact–a strategy that has helped in the fight against malaria. In addition, we might also theorize which animals that currently aren’t hosts to these diseases may be susceptible if the parasites were to make that leap in the future, and begin monitoring for signs of such a transition.

The key thing here, the scientists say, is that we plan for emergent diseases carefully and with appropriate health care funding in place because failing to do so could, in both financial and health terms, be a costly mistake.

http://www.care2.com/causes/why-climate-change-might-make-future-disease-outbreaks-worse.html

As Ebola Outbreak Slows Down, So Does Progress Towards a Vaccine

Crystal Shepeard
Mar 12, 2015

The latest Ebola report from the World Health Organization suggests that the worst outbreak in history of the disease appears to be waning. Fewer cases are being reported each week, and they are limited to a much smaller geographical location. Health officials are not yet willing to say the outbreak is over, but are cautiously optimistic that vigilant containment and contact tracing is leading to an eventual close to this horrific chapter of the disease.

Unfortunately, this end also puts the search for an effective vaccine in jeopardy.

To date, more than 24,000 people have contracted the disease, with the death rate hovering just under 10,000. Nearly all cases were from the West African countries of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, with nine countries total having reported cases. The speed at which this outbreak occurred fast tracked already existing vaccine research which has been in the works for more than a decade. A lack of funding and interest in a disease that, until now, had affected only a few hundred per year in remote areas of African countries has slowed progress.

Early clinical human trials have begun in the UK, Liberia, Australia, Mali and Uganda. A report from trials in Uganda that began in 2009 showed some encouraging results, leading to the current trials of a more potent vaccine. However, large scale Phase 1 studies have been stymied by academic disagreements over study protocol and ethics. These delays coupled with the waning spread of the virus have impeded progress once again.

To get accurate results there have to be enough patients in a study. They also have to represent the population most affected by the disease. This means that the participants would need to be from the West African countries where these outbreaks occur. The lack of an adequate healthcare infrastructure, as well as distrust of western medicine has led to few people signing up for trials. The vaccines must undergo several phases in which they determine the safety and the effectiveness. Each stage requires a larger group of people.

Nearly 18,000 health and emergency workers have been given two potential vaccines. Yet, there are not enough new infections happening to determine effectiveness. For now, researchers are going forward with a vaccines that are ready for Phase II and III trials. Different approaches are being done, including asking contacts of newly infected patients if they are willing to be vaccinated. In all cases, study participants are being closely monitored and receiving the best care. This in itself could skew any data, as those with access to quality care have better survival outcomes.

New vaccines and treatments normally undergo years of testing. If the current infection trends continue, there may not be enough data to safely bring an Ebola vaccine to market for even longer. The scale of this outbreak was created by a perfect storm of bureaucratic arrogance, poverty, war, dilapidated infrastructure and an unprecedented level of worldwide incompetence. If officials learn from their mistakes, future outbreaks will return to their traditional levels of just a few hundred annual cases, less than needed for any accurate data. With the worse Ebola outbreak in history possibly behind us, the future is a little less clear on how we will deal with the next one.

Signs Ebola Spreads in Sex Prompt a C.D.C. Warning

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/world/africa/signs-ebola-spreads-in-sex-prompt-a-cdc-warning.html?referrer=

By SHERI FINK
APRIL 19, 2015
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its guidelines on Ebola transmission on Sunday night, urging survivors to abstain from all forms of sex or use condoms every time “until more information becomes available,” rather than three months as previously recommended.

The World Health Organization and Liberia have issued similar recommendations in recent weeks. They were acting on evidence suggesting that a Liberian man who recovered from Ebola might have transmitted the virus to his female partner many months later.

Ebola genetic material was found in a semen sample the man provided 175 days after he developed symptoms, 74 days longer than ever before found in a survivor. Scientists in Liberia have compared the genetic sequence of the virus found in the woman, Ruth Tugbah, 44, to partial sequences obtained from the virus in her boyfriend’s semen and in blood samples taken months ago from his potential contacts with Ebola, and found that they matched at several key points.

Thus far, the information is consistent with sexual transmission, scientists said, but not conclusive, and the study is continuing. Researchers at the C.D.C. were also trying to establish whether the sample the man provided contained infectious virus, rather than only harmless genetic material or RNA.

Experts said they had expected sexual transmission of Ebola to be rare. It has not yet been proved, but “cannot be ruled out,” the C.D.C. guidance said. Marburg, a similar virus, is thought to have been transmitted sexually. The World Health Organization, the C.D.C. and the Sierra Leone health ministry are planning a study of survivors intended to help establish the range of time that various body fluids, such as semen, urine and breast milk, tend to contain Ebola after it has been cleared from the blood. That time frame has varied in the small number of survivors previously studied.

“The problem is we haven’t looked at a large number of cases,” said Stuart Nichol, an Ebola researcher at the C.D.C. Philip Ireland, a Liberian doctor who contracted Ebola while working last summer at John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Monrovia, the capital, said that despite the practical difficulty involved in collecting semen samples, all survivors should be offered the chance to know whether their body fluids still contain traces of Ebola. “Tests have to be made available, and have to be made next-to-free,” he said.

Dr. Bruce Aylward, the lead Ebola official at the W.H.O., said the agency was exploring the feasibility of just such a program. “It’s a smart thing to do,” he said.

Presented on PBS this evening was a documentary on this past year's Ebola Virus that devastated the populations of several countries in Africa. The virus has not been eradicated, nor will it be.

If you have an hour or so and are interested in the Ebola Virus, you will find this report very interesting and educational.
Swan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/outbreak/

Presented on PBS this evening was a documentary on this past year's Ebola Virus that devastated the populations of several countries in Africa. The virus has not been eradicated, nor will it be.

If you have an hour or so and are interested in the Ebola Virus, you will find this report very interesting and educational.
Swan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/outbreak/

With 11k deaths, I would hardly say it devastated the population. The virus COULD be eradicated via vaccine much like smallpox and rinderpest.

Tell that to families that lost loved ones and in some cases, entire families with a single survivor. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that weren't devastated.

Tell that to families that lost loved ones and in some cases, entire families with a single survivor. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that weren't devastated.

It was not a knock against anyone who died. "Devastated" is not the correct word. It's hyperbole. The bubonic plague devastated the population.

Tell that to families that lost loved ones and in some cases, entire families with a single survivor. I'm sure they'll be pleased to know that weren't devastated.

It was not a knock against anyone who died. "Devastated" is not the correct word. It's hyperbole. The bubonic plague devastated the population.

Devastate:

Yes. Devastate was my choice of word to describe that which Ebola's wrath did on populations in Africa, especially New Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. I fail to comprehend how Africa's peoples do not qualify to be defined as being devastated, when speaking to the countries within it and specifically those horribly affected by this monster. Is there a specific number of deaths that must be attained - due to viral/ bacterial outbreaks - in order to define its outcome as being devastating? What is that number?

Entire villages were devastated from the Ebola Zaire outbreak (yes, I choose outbreak).
Communities were destroyed - devastated.
Entire families were completely wiped out.
Economies were overwhelmed.
The medical system was overcome; the mere shock and grief was devastating.
Yes. Devastating is my choice of word.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/distribution-map.html

Vaccine:

Pharmaceuticals; Research; FDA approval; clinical trials; International BOH approvals - I'm familiar with it all. The vaccine must be developed...by tossing out the possibility of a "vaccine" does not necessarily mean that one will be available in any timely fashion, although we all wish it were possible.
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/strive/qa.html
Swan

There are over 60 million people in those countries, 10k deaths are devastating but I'm sorry, did not devestate the population.

There are over 60 million people in those countries, 10k deaths are devastating but I'm sorry, did not devestate the population.

May I ask: Of 60 million people then, what is the number of deaths or what percentage of the total population resulting in death, constitutes what you define as a "devastation?"

Ok, I'll give you a number for S&G's, 10 million. The Black Death killed at minimum 75 million. At minimum 30% of population. That is kind of where I base my definition. I don't want to argue with you, it is splitting hairs. Yes, those 10k are devastating to each family/village. I just thought it was an odd choice of words based on historical precedence.

Ok, I'll give you a number for S&G's, 10 million. The Black Death killed at minimum 75 million. At minimum 30% of population. That is kind of where I base my definition. I don't want to argue with you, it is splitting hairs. Yes, those 10k are devastating to each family/village. I just thought it was an odd choice of words based on historical precedence.

Black Death: It is caused by a Bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, which makes manifest Bubonic Plague, Septicemic Plague, and Pneumonic Plague; is passed on to humans by fleas of rodents; is responsible for between 25 - 200 million deaths during a pandemic that swept through Europe in the 14th Century. Devastating...

Ebola Zaire: The monster of all Viruses; it is still alive and well. Devastating....

Ok, I'll give you a number for S&G's, 10 million. The Black Death killed at minimum 75 million. At minimum 30% of population. That is kind of where I base my definition. I don't want to argue with you, it is splitting hairs. Yes, those 10k are devastating to each family/village. I just thought it was an odd choice of words based on historical precedence.

Black Death: It is caused by a Bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, which makes manifest Bubonic Plague, Septicemic Plague, and Pneumonic Plague; is passed on to humans by fleas of rodents; is responsible for between 25 - 200 million deaths during a pandemic that swept through Europe in the 14th Century. Devastating...

Ebola Zaire: The monster of all Viruses; it is still alive and well. Devastating....

Yes, but as I'm sure you are aware, Ebola is a virus and epidemiologists have had much better success with viral vaccinations than bacterial. Ebola is obviously devastating to anyone who gets it, but less devasting (for now) than say Bubonic Plague or the 1837 smallpox epidemic in U.S. which did also devastate Native American populations

Ok, I'll give you a number for S&G's, 10 million. The Black Death killed at minimum 75 million. At minimum 30% of population. That is kind of where I base my definition. I don't want to argue with you, it is splitting hairs. Yes, those 10k are devastating to each family/village. I just thought it was an odd choice of words based on historical precedence.

Black Death: It is caused by a Bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, which makes manifest Bubonic Plague, Septicemic Plague, and Pneumonic Plague; is passed on to humans by fleas of rodents; is responsible for between 25 - 200 million deaths during a pandemic that swept through Europe in the 14th Century. Devastating...

Ebola Zaire: The monster of all Viruses; it is still alive and well. Devastating....

Yes, but as I'm sure you are aware, Ebola is a virus and epidemiologists have had much better success with viral vaccinations than bacterial. Ebola is obviously devastating to anyone who gets it, but less devasting (for now) than say Bubonic Plague or the 1837 smallpox epidemic in U.S. which did also devastate Native American populations

Viruses and bacteria are two very different entities and can run the gamut from no human deaths to millions. A comparative probably shouldn't be made, but in this case they both came together for discussion because of a word: devastation. Regardless, you and I are on the same page whereas these relentless, microscopic predators are concerned. In the future, we can't relax our posture when an outbreak occurs somewhere, sometime, somehow, someway. The world's response to pleas for help from Africa during this outbreak were poor at best. I hope we have at least learned to listen to those who are in desperate need...and respond accordingly...

Ok, I'll give you a number for S&G's, 10 million. The Black Death killed at minimum 75 million. At minimum 30% of population. That is kind of where I base my definition. I don't want to argue with you, it is splitting hairs. Yes, those 10k are devastating to each family/village. I just thought it was an odd choice of words based on historical precedence.

Black Death: It is caused by a Bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, which makes manifest Bubonic Plague, Septicemic Plague, and Pneumonic Plague; is passed on to humans by fleas of rodents; is responsible for between 25 - 200 million deaths during a pandemic that swept through Europe in the 14th Century. Devastating...

Ebola Zaire: The monster of all Viruses; it is still alive and well. Devastating....

Yes, but as I'm sure you are aware, Ebola is a virus and epidemiologists have had much better success with viral vaccinations than bacterial. Ebola is obviously devastating to anyone who gets it, but less devasting (for now) than say Bubonic Plague or the 1837 smallpox epidemic in U.S. which did also devastate Native American populations

Viruses and bacteria are two very different entities and can run the gamut from no human deaths to millions. A comparative probably shouldn't be made, but in this case they both came together for discussion because of a word: devastation. Regardless, you and I are on the same page whereas these relentless, microscopic predators are concerned. In the future, we can't relax our posture when an outbreak occurs somewhere, sometime, somehow, someway. The world's response to pleas for help from Africa during this outbreak were poor at best. I hope we have at least learned to listen to those who are in desperate need...and respond accordingly...

(tu)