Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Edited at 2014-10-08 00:48:53

At 10/7/14 10:52 PM, Profanity wrote: You can keep saying that it's not going to happen. Despite that, it being entirely possible, it is a scenario which should be kept in the discussions.

Again, I'm not saying it cannot possibly happen, I'm saying it's unlikely to occur -- so much so that it should not be of much concern to a nervous layman.

People who are paying attention to any arguments about the nature of infectious diseases should never be lead to believe that the experts are 100% in control of the situation or they are 100% safe from the disease. It's just not true. Not only are there unaccounted for microscopic colonies of viruses left behind after every cleanup, but there are carriers who have been infected yet never show symptoms because their immune systems are strong enough to deal with the intrusion. These events take resources—public funding and public support—to fight. And every dollar spent to insulate our health against these dangers is a downpayment toward more effective procedures to diminish the next threat.

This is completely true, and something I agree with.

Sure. The physical difference is about 17-30 nanometres, given that the length of an unfurled Ebolavirus averages 970 nm and the droplet diameter needed for droplet transmission is 800 to 1200 nanometres. The linguistic difference is that people focused on histrionics for mitigating hysteria have a clever way to differentiate between flying viruses as scary and ones floating around in microscopic balloons as benign.

I think you're strawmanning towards the end but for all intents and purposes you're only partially correct simply because of the omission of the complete picture. The physical issue is a big factor, yet at the same time it's a small sliver of the pie. For ebola to become truly airborne and infectious, it would have to be able to grow inside of cells in the respiratory tract; more specifically, it would (most likely) have to gain the ability to infect epithelial cells (or others) inside the lungs, just like influenza or EBV. Regardless of which route it takes, the amount of mutations required to gain this ability would basically turn ebola into an entirely different virus which would be completely unprecedented as we have never observed/documented anything like that happening at any point in our history.

Just so everyone is clear, the term airborne has a strict definition, and it's not just arbitrary academic wizardry -- there are huge differences between droplet transmissions and droplet nuclei transmissions. For a pathogen to be truly airborne (droplet nuclei), it would have to remain suspended in the air not only until after the droplet evaporated, but also still be able to cause infection. There are many pathogens that are technically airborne but cannot cause infection. Generally speaking, this is due to the pathogen being too big to enter the respiratory tract, or due to other issues like tissue tropism. Even in the unlikely event that ebola becomes airborne against all odds, it might not even be able to cause infection via droplet nuclei. So, yes, ebola mutating into an infectious airborne pathogen is "possible" in the same sense that you could suddenly materialize on Mars due to random quantum fluctuations. It's basically not happening.

At 10/7/14 10:52 PM, Profanity wrote: Xenomit's point is that it's an important issue. He adds emphasis by exaggerating.

He is wrong. Period.

Either we will see a naturally mutated airborne pandemic in our lifetimes or we will see one which has been manufactured by malicious actors. Electorates should be made aware of the issues surrounding biological warfare before they become statistically relevant.

I personally don't think we'll see either. A "naturally mutated airborne pandemic" requires so many improbably things to occur it's unfathomable. If it ever happens it'll be long after both you and I are dead; if you run the clock long enough anything is possible, a la infinite monkey theorem. The latter delves too much into Bond villanry for me to take too seriously.

---

At 10/7/14 10:52 PM, Profanity wrote: You can keep saying that it's not going to happen. Despite that, it being entirely possible, it is a scenario which should be kept in the discussions.

Again, I'm not saying it cannot possibly happen, I'm saying it's unlikely to occur -- so much so that it should not be of much concern to a nervous layman.

People who are paying attention to any arguments about the nature of infectious diseases should never be lead to believe that the experts are 100% in control of the situation or they are 100% safe from the disease. It's just not true. Not only are there unaccounted for microscopic colonies of viruses left behind after every cleanup, but there are carriers who have been infected yet never show symptoms because their immune systems are strong enough to deal with the intrusion. These events take resources—public funding and public support—to fight. And every dollar spent to insulate our health against these dangers is a downpayment toward more effective procedures to diminish the next threat.

This is completely true, and something I agree with.

Sure. The physical difference is about 17-30 nanometres, given that the length of an unfurled Ebolavirus averages 970 nm and the droplet diameter needed for droplet transmission is 800 to 1200 nanometres. The linguistic difference is that people focused on histrionics for mitigating hysteria have a clever way to differentiate between flying viruses as scary and ones floating around in microscopic balloons as benign.

I think you're strawmanning towards the end but for all intents and purposes you're only partially correct simply because of the omission of the complete picture. The physical issue is a big factor, yet at the same time it's a small sliver of the pie. For ebola to become truly airborne and infectious, it would have to be able to grow inside of cells in the respiratory tract; more specifically, it would (most likely) have to gain the ability to infect epithelial cells (or others) inside the lungs, just like influenza or EBV. Regardless of which route it takes, the amount of mutations required to gain this ability would basically turn ebola into an entirely different virus which would be completely unprecedented as we have never observed/documented anything like that happening at any point in our history.

Just so everyone is clear, the term airborne has a strict definition, and it's not just arbitrary academic wizardry -- there are huge differences between droplet transmissions and droplet nuclei transmissions. For a pathogen to be truly airborne (droplet nuclei), it would have to remain suspended in the air not only until after the droplet evaporated, but also still be able to cause infection. There are many pathogens that are technically airborne but cannot cause infection. Generally speaking, this is due to the pathogen being too big to enter the respiratory tract, or due to other issues like tissue tropism. Even in the unlikely event that ebola becomes airborne against all odds, it might not even be able to cause infection via droplet nuclei. So, yes, ebola mutating into an infectious airborne pathogen is "possible" in the same sense that you could suddenly materialize on Mars due to random quantum fluctuations. It's basically not happening.

At 10/7/14 10:52 PM, Profanity wrote: Xenomit's point is that it's an important issue. He adds emphasis by exaggerating.

He is wrong. Period.

Either we will see a naturally mutated airborne pandemic in our lifetimes or we will see one which has been manufactured by malicious actors. Electorates should be made aware of the issues surrounding biological warfare before they become statistically relevant.

I personally don't think we'll see either. A "naturally mutated airborne pandemic" requires so many improbable things to occur it's unfathomable. If it ever happens it'll be long after both you and I are dead; if you run the clock long enough anything is possible, a la infinite monkey theorem. The latter delves too much into Bond villanry for me to take too seriously.