21 days might not be long enough for ebola quarantine. Another report. This time from Drexel Uni

[boomer55]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/10/16/drexel-study-claims-21-day-quarantine-for-those-exposed-to-ebola-might-not-be-long-enough/

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – A new Drexel study published in the journal PLOS One suggests 21 days might not be a long enough quarantine period for those who have been exposed to the Ebola virus.
The research, which was conducted by Professor Charles Haas, PhD, and used data from both previous outbreaks and the first nine months of the current outbreak, claims that there is still a .1 to 12% risk of that person developing the virus if they are released from quarantine after 21 days.
“In other words from 0.1 to 12% of the time, an individual case will have a greater incubation time than 21 days,” Haas concludes.

[Barack_America]

1. That's some range there.

0.1 to 12%???

[BillZBubb]

8. Strange range. Maybe he meant 10-12%, .1 being 10%?

[customerserviceguy]

2. What we "know" about this disease

seems to be utter bullshit. Let's face it, our only real documented experience is from Africa, where all kinds of factors may very well be at play to distort our perception of it.

[LiberalArkie]

3. And I am wondering it the Africans might have a better immune system, thus

able to fight the initial event better.

[customerserviceguy]

4. That's occurred to me

Being as Ebola has been in some parts of Africa for decades, it's not impossible that some form of immunity based on mild exposure to the virus has developed among the populations there. Diseases that Europeans routinely suffered from in a minor way were devastating when explorers came to the Americas, where people had no experience with the pathogens that Europeans had developed an immunity to.

[kestrel91316]

6. Not a "better" immune system per se. That's a vague, meaningless term.

There is a theory that Africans have had a very very long time to evolve alongside Ebola and/or they are chronically exposed to miniscule amounts of related viruses that confer cross-protection. We really don't know.

But if you are going to talk about "better" and "worse" immune systems you have to define what criteria you are using to apply those labels and then back it up with some data.

[kestrel91316]

5. Hehehehe, look who's gone anti-science.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=published+papers+in+journals+ebola

Kindly provide evidence refuting each and every one of these published papers on ebola. I'll be waiting.

[The Magistrate]

7. I Would Prefer A More Relevant Credential, Personally, Ma'am

Professor Charles Haas, PhD

Department: Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineer

[SheilaT]

9. A couple of times every day, maybe more like a couple of times every hour,

someone here posts some new claim about the incubation period of Ebola being longer than 21 days, or supposed evidence it has become airborne, and that just being in the same room with someone who has just begun to have the beginnings of a fever with it is terribly dangerous.

None of these things are true. As terrible as Ebola is, it's been around long enough that we know quite a bit about it. And please stop asking the totally stupid question, "Well what if it evolves to be airborne?" because diseases just don't do that.

[boomer55]

10. then can you help me understand why both the WHO and Professor Charles Haas, PhD

both state that the incubation period can be longer than 21 days?


The 42-day period is twice the generally accepted maximum incubation period of the virus. However, some incubation periods are longer - that WHO said that in 95 percent of cases the incubation period was between one and 21 days. In 98 percent it was no longer than 42 days.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0I328W20141014?irpc=932

[SheilaT]

11. How aout they're wrong?

The article doesn't say anything about verified cases of someone developing Ebola more than 21 days after their last known exposure.

If it were happening, I suspect it would have been noticed by now. The 42 day waiting period to declare the epidemic is over, is the sort of erring on the side of caution that makes sense. And despite the statement claiming that: in 95 percent of cases the incubation period was between one and 21 days. In 98 percent it was no longer than 42 days, every single expert out there, other than some unnamed WHO source and someone, who another poster tells us is an environmental engineer.

Once again, unfounded speculation.