Thread: Viruses and us

Recentoutbreaking of the Ebola viruses in Africa seem terrifies the whole nation. Justwonder that how well the scientist or the community
know about viruses, in termof their characteristic, spreading pattern, and the way to handling n stopthem

is this just about ebola or about viruses in general ? if the latter, then that's a rather large topic for discussion

yup, i mean on the second statement, generally..

Do you have a more specific question?

Ebola and its relatives are quite well known, so there is a fair bit that has been learned about it. For example, the virus particle and its genome, how it enters cells and replicates, its pathology, and how it spreads and so on have been well studied. Exactly where it comes from (might be bats) and how to effectively cure its victims are the two main unknowns.

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Do you have a more specific question?

Ebola and its relatives are quite well known, so there is a fair bit that has been learned about it. For example, the virus particle and its genome, how it enters cells and replicates, its pathology, and how it spreads and so on have been well studied. Exactly where it comes from (might be bats) and how to effectively cure its victims are the two main unknowns.

Well there is one way to combat the virus I have thought of just now.

It is called defense by surrender. Viruses become resistant/immune to drugs due to slow changes in combat.



Keep in mind this is only if the outbreak is VERY bad, there is no where near a need to do this with Ebola currently.

What if we just exposed every single human to the virus, those who were immune survived, those who weren't were would simply die.

The virus wouldn't have time to evolve it would simply manifest its current form into all non immune humans and then die off for lack of a vulnerable host.

Originally Posted by ScienceNoob

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Do you have a more specific question?

Ebola and its relatives are quite well known, so there is a fair bit that has been learned about it. For example, the virus particle and its genome, how it enters cells and replicates, its pathology, and how it spreads and so on have been well studied. Exactly where it comes from (might be bats) and how to effectively cure its victims are the two main unknowns.

Well there is one way to combat the virus I have thought of just now.

It is called defense by surrender. Viruses become resistant/immune to drugs due to slow changes in combat.



Keep in mind this is only if the outbreak is VERY bad, there is no where near a need to do this with Ebola currently.

What if we just exposed every single human to the virus, those who were immune survived, those who weren't were would simply die.

The virus wouldn't have time to evolve it would simply manifest its current form into all non immune humans and then die off for lack of a vulnerable host.

Ebola has between 60% and 90% lethality. So if we take the mean and say it is going to kill 75% of those exposed, so your plan calls for 5.25 billion painfull protracted deaths. I think you will have a hard time selling that. Once it kills the 5.25 billion however the virus will not die, it will remain as a sublethal infection in all the survivors. The 2.75 billion humans left would all be carriers so they would expose the next generation in utero. Babies are protected by their mother's immunitys for a while so there would not be a 75% infant mortality but there would be some increase in mortality. This is basicly the absolute worst case senario, one where you acept horrific losses and gain nothing.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Originally Posted by ScienceNoob

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Do you have a more specific question?

Ebola and its relatives are quite well known, so there is a fair bit that has been learned about it. For example, the virus particle and its genome, how it enters cells and replicates, its pathology, and how it spreads and so on have been well studied. Exactly where it comes from (might be bats) and how to effectively cure its victims are the two main unknowns.

Well there is one way to combat the virus I have thought of just now.

It is called defense by surrender. Viruses become resistant/immune to drugs due to slow changes in combat.



Keep in mind this is only if the outbreak is VERY bad, there is no where near a need to do this with Ebola currently.

What if we just exposed every single human to the virus, those who were immune survived, those who weren't were would simply die.

The virus wouldn't have time to evolve it would simply manifest its current form into all non immune humans and then die off for lack of a vulnerable host.

Ebola has between 60% and 90% lethality. So if we take the mean and say it is going to kill 75% of those exposed, so your plan calls for 5.25 billion painfull protracted deaths. I think you will have a hard time selling that. Once it kills the 5.25 billion however the virus will not die, it will remain as a sublethal infection in all the survivors. The 2.75 billion humans left would all be carriers so they would expose the next generation in utero. Babies are protected by their mother's immunitys for a while so there would not be a 75% infant mortality but there would be some increase in mortality. This is basicly the absolute worst case senario, one where you acept horrific losses and gain nothing.

No worst case scenario is the virus mutates in to multiple forms and kills off whole human population.

If the viruses is beginning to mutate and kill people who were thought to have immunity that is when the virus is becoming more serious.

Of course I know there would be many losses including my own life, but it would save those with immunity to the current strain from an evolving form of ebola

Just to be clear, ScienceNoob, this isn't exactly a WILL DESTROY THE WHOLE WORLD IF WE DON'T START SACRIFICING MOST OF HUMANITY virus just yet. And even if it was, the last thing you'd want to do is expose everyone to the virus and just let nature take its course. Instead you could simply find someone with genetic immunity and observe how their unique biochemistry makes them immune, and use this information to help come up with a treatment. This isn't a disease that has magically infected everyone all over the world at the same time, it is currently contained within a region and can be contained while a treatment is found.

Just a small comment on epidemiology, no diease kills everyone. There are always survivors. In fact in one of the recent outbreaks of an ebola like disease they gave the last 8 victims the raw blood serum of the few who had already recovered from a case of the disease and 7 of 8 of those treated survived. To be fair to science noob his recommended approach is pretty much the default evolutionary approach to a disease threat. Sooner or later everyone gets it, some survive and the survivors pass their immunity to their kids. I predict that, unless there is a dramatic breakthrough, eventually the norm will be for humans to be immune or highly resistent to HIV. Eventually everyone will be HIV positive and the survivors will breed the next generation.

Originally Posted by ScienceNoob

No worst case scenario is the virus mutates in to multiple forms and kills off whole human population.

Ebola has evolved in the last 30 years and become somewhat less fatal. This is good for the virus of course, a virus that is 100% fatal is committing suicide.
Worst case is when such a deadly a virus becomes easily communicable. Then only drunks and colic babies will survive.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

To be fair to science noob his recommended approach is pretty much the default evolutionary approach to a disease threat. .

Well, combating a virus by simply just sacrificing the majority of humanity still isn't a good strategy and I find it slightly disturbing that his first thought went to that :P

The main reason there is no effective vaccine or treatment for ebola is that, up to now, it has been a minor disease in an obscure part of the world. There was no money in developing vaccines and treatments. If it becomes more widespread, the Big Pharma executives will start getting $$$ signs in their eyes, and it will be only a matter of time before a money making method of dealing with the disease is developed.

Yes, but no cure will be made. Only an effective antiviral method, or preventive method to make sure a person is not infected. As there is much more money in prevention then there is in a total cure. Pharma companies will not make the same mistake as with polio or smallpox. Malaria, HIV and the flu vaccine is big money.

I know, i am sure being ethical about it, but only a vaccin created by a person, not a corporation will ever heal a disease, again. Exception to the rule is cancer. As the nice thing about it is that it will come back, as long as you live long enough, you will die of cancer eventually.

Ebola could not, in this state, become a worldwide epidemic. It kills in about 6 days, of which a person is only mobile for a day or 2, and only infectious for about a little over a day of that. A pattern is easily made like this. Also, because it is not airborn, and only by direct contact, with blood, saliva or things like that. Even in afrika, only a few thousands have it. Looking at the conditions they have there, this is a miracle.

Unfortunately just the other day I was reading about a bunch of people who looted a quarantine centre in Monrovia, they let some of the people back into the general population, particularly a slum. And they apparently took blood soaked bedding and medical equipment, while yelling all the while that ebola was a hoax. Was one of both the stupidest and saddest things I've read. BBC News - Ebola crisis: Confusion as patients vanish in Liberia