Limited airborne transmission of Ebola is ‘very likely,’ analysis says (2015)

Quote from the article: "As evidence, the research notes that Ebola virus has been found on the outside of face masks worn by health workers caring for victims of the disease. It also points out that the virus has been passed between animals via respiration. And the authors say that Ebola can infect certain cells of the respiratory tract, including epithelial cells, which line body cavities, and macrophages, a type of white blood cell that consumes pathogens.

The paper notes that breathing, sneezing, coughing and talking can release droplets of fluid from the respiratory tract that travel short distances and most likely cause infection by settling on a mucous membrane. Those actions also release smaller airborne particles capable of suspension in mid-air that can be inhaled by others. Technically, both qualify as aerosols, the paper says."

Consider where those smaller airborne particles might land that could be ingested by people/animals. Say, in an open marketplace where there are produce/food vendors shooing Rhesus monkeys away.

Disease vectors are an interesting subject. You will often hear unqualified statements such as 'x can't be transmitted through vector y'. But viruses and bacteria don't read books or scientific papers that state their capabilities.

They do their own thing and we determine what can or can not be transmitted through what vectors typically by observing what can be transmitted.

Which leaves the door open to low incidence or harder transmission paths that are not observed until the numbers are high enough. One nice example was the dentists office for HIV. In the beginning it was said to be impossible, then a couple of unexplainable cases popped up and it turned out the slush from the drill made it into the hose and under some circumstances back out again. If that happened from one patient to another transmission could occur. At a guess, unless there is a hard mechanical reason (such as the particle size a filter will pass) all communicable diseases can be transmitted through all vectors but with extremely low incidence, so low as to be safe to ignore unless there is documented evidence that a disease can be transmitted.

The article is from 2015. I wonder what subsequent research has said? The CDC currently says direct contact is necessary:

https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html

(Some accounts on HN have been actively trying to stir up alarm about the contagiousness of Ebola,[0] without evidence, though they seem to like to refer to the 'technothriller' The Hot Zone. What could possibly be the interest or motive? This includes the account that posted the article:

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17102769 )

I believe this is the actual paper that was referenced in the article: http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00137-15.full.pdf

Probably all the germs you have heard about are different than when they were first characterized, more or less durable than as studies have shown, strictly transmissible through any pathway but practically limited in pathway, and dose-dependent. There's strains of stuff never detected or isolated, there are seven billion people. Try not to think about it!!

It is neither strictly possible nor ethical to study transmissible disease in vivo, because tissues cannot be inspected in vivo during infection. In vitro experimentation and blood testing do not have the same preconditions as a person's living tissue. Even high-volume blood tests are fallible, why Theranos got in trouble.

Patient self-reporting and some experiments varying in ethical character from "An immunologist developed and self-tested a vaccine first" to "subjects were purposefully exposed by scientists without their knowledge or consent" give epidemiologists and physicians a set of heuristics for preventative care and treatment.

article is 3 years old.