Hacker News Reader

Comment by josu | Hacker News Reader

>Ebola kills up to 90 percent of those infected and there is no cure or vaccine

Apparently this strand of the virus "only" kills 63% of the patients[1]. Even if it doesn't kill him, does anybody know what are the consequences of having suffered from ebola?

I don't mean to disrespect his work, and I'm asking this without having any clue: Why is this doctor so important? If there is no cure, what was his main role? Can't he be easily "replaced" by another brave person that is also willing to risk his life?

On another note, the article says that ebola has killed 600 people. Apparently this strand of ebola "only" killed 63% of the people that contract the disease. So far 964 people contracted the disease in a country of more than 6 million people. Aren't HIV or Hep C worst threats than ebola?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus

View on HN

My understanding is Ebola is incurable but sometimes treatable, so while there is no medicine you can give that will stop it, you can care for the patient in ways that increase the chances of them surviving.

edit - and if you want to know why this is being taken so seriously as a threat, have a look at this graph - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak... - it is chilling.

That is chilling. As wise people have said, be always on look out for any exponential trends because that's what would change the world. In this graph, although data is limited, it appears the number of cases are doubling every month. At this rate we can easily hit 10,000 by end of year. And THE 10,000 is almost always a magic number where tipping point occurs and power laws becomes unstoppable then on. It is a chilling graph. I'll keep an eye on this every month now.

This one [1] however looks more optimistic. While the disease is still spreading, how fast is is spreading is slowing.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak...

I'll try to answer your questions and clear some fear about Ebola that I read in this topic.

Ebola is unlikely to become a massive pandemic mostly because it isn't airborne. To contract it, you need to touch the victim's fluid (alive or dead)[1]. Some funeral practices in Africa involve the family cleaning the defunct body and washing their hands in the same bowl. As this is the first serious outbreak in West Africa, people have a hard time understanding they can't touch their loved ones bodies after they're gone. Besides, Ebola kills too fast to become a world-spread pandemic, probably even if it was airborne.

Surviving Ebola is possible - this epidemic so far kills between 60 and 70 % - but because of the numerous haemorrhages you endure you may suffer consequences, such as eye or liver damage. Apparently most people don't have sequelae but it's hard to find relevant sources for this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#Transmissi...

100% of people die, This strand of Ebola kills 63% of people who contract it within weeks, as opposed to your examples of HIV and Hep C. It's also a particularly gruesome way to go. I suggest you look up what some of those symptoms listed actually are.

Doctors with experience trying to treat incurable viruses are also much less interchangeable than you seem to think. There's also a lot of work done to try and limit the spread of the virus as well as attempting to learn what we can to cure/prevent it in the future.

If you look at the outbreak list that you linked to, you can see that this is also the largest outbreak listed.

> Aren't HIV or Hep C worst threats than ebola?

They've certainly killed more people, but the terrifying thing about ebola is how very contagious it is.

There are fairly basic steps to prevent HIV or Hep C. The worry has been if Ebola really gets loose and how quickly that could utterly fuck the world up.

I always thought the issue with Ebola was how quickly the host dies. If there were a period of about a week where no symptoms arose, then the virus would become significantly more deadly.

Until then, it doesn't seem probable that the host lives long enough to spread the virus.

Then again, my info is based off of what I researched in school around the mid 90s (fresh off of reading The Hot Zone).

"If there were a period of about a week where no symptoms arose, then the virus would become significantly more deadly."

This is precisely the problem with the new Ebola Zaire strain: the incubation period varies from ~3-21 days, during which the patient may show no symptoms yet can spread the virus. And since Ebola Zaire's mortality rate is 60-90% (early estimates were on the high end) this is an epidemiologist's nightmare.

I looked at the graphs and thought it might be time to go live in the woods for a bit.

Wow do you have a citation for that? Because that's utterly terrifying.

They should really try to recruit the survivors to do some of this work. They very likely have immunity now.

Replace him with another brave person and they are also a hero. You don't need to have super powers to be a hero.

you need super powers to be a super hero.

A lower initial mortality and a longer incubation time combined are the differences between a really bad virus for a small number of people and a potential global pandemic.

This is very serious.

So far Ebola was not capable of killing a large number of hosts because it killed swiftly and symptoms occurred very shortly after contracting it.

It's about respecting the loss of life for someone who devoted their own to improving others'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com