Ebola is an extremely slow virus when it comes to mutation. The Zaire strain has just barely shown a minor change in its genetic coding since it was discovered back in the 70s and the 70s samples sequenced when the technology is available.
Let's be honest, viruses don't work like the pandemic game where it just decides to go airborn one day. There's no way to look at a virus's code and go "Ayup. That there's the airborn gene." We barely even know how our own genetic code works and we've been focused on that since the ability to unravel DNA was produced.
HIV and Influenza had a ridiculous rate of mutation. That's why an HIV vaccine that works indefinitely is the holy grail of HIV research. Also the reason you need a new flu shot each year.
Ebola doesn't have that rapid mutation factor.
Besides, going by your logic of it's only a matter of time before it becomes airborn through mutation then why hasn't the more rapidly mutating HIV virus done it yet? It'd provide an easier infection vector which is clearly beneficial. But it hasn't and we don't really understand why because we really still don't understand viruses all that well when you get down to it.
Ebola actually appears to be pretty close to going airborne, already. While it hasn't done it in an actual outbreak, lab tests indicate that it already can go airborne.
Airborne transmission has not been documented during previous EVD outbreaks.[3] They are, however, infectious as breathable 0.8–1.2 micrometre laboratory generated droplets;[25] because of this potential route of infection, these viruses have been classified as Category A biological weapons.[26] Recently the virus has been shown to travel without contact from pigs to non-human primates.[27]
The phrase "uncomfortably close" comes to mind, especially as that last one (the pigs to primates) was published after the outbreak before this one. This could be a very recent change.
Can you link me the article where he said an outbreak is inevitable?
That was a sparknotes from the AP. It isn't exactly what he said, which was why I quoted him in the original post. The link is right here. What he actually said suggests that globally there's not much will to quarantine any disease.
Also I did hear about issues at the CDC labs regarding The anthrax issue and that is quite an embarrassment. However, anthrax is a biosafety level 3 pathogen while Ebola is biosafety level 4. The facilities that work on each level are different as night and day really.Level 3 facilities just require safety clothing and respirators to be used with the containment cabinets and hoods. The air has to be filtered before being released. It's considered a neutral/warm zone.
Level 4 is freaking intense. All facilities have to be under negative pressure so if there is a breach in containment, air is sucked in first rather than out to buy time. Usually that means they're separated from other research facilities. This is where you see the "space suit" work being done. That actually requires a segregated air supply and the suits are under constant positive pressure. The entrance and exits include multiple shower stations, a vacuum room, and ultra violet room along with any other safety methods deemed necessary. Then the lab workers work inside the same hoods used in level 3 as extra precaution. This is the infamous hot zone.
Multiple airlocks are used which use electronic systems to make sure no two doors are open at the same time. All tools enter the lab and exit via autoclave. All water used in these labs is decontaminated and held for a certain period of time. Most methods use superheating the water. Some places that superheat the water actually have to wait to dump until it cools back down or it will crack the pipes.
The Laboratoire P4 Jean Mérieux lab in France is a rather impressive level 4 lab with some cool pics.
It probably won't cause a problem, but I seriously doubt that the lab in Emory is actually a level 4 lab.I went through a half dozen articles online and not one of them described the facility beyond the word "safe." Not one described the safety procedures or codified them in a safety level. The most I found was a news article with the floor plan of the facility (no description of safety proceedures) and another with a picture of a facility like the one the CDC had set up in the airplane.
I am sure the people at the CDC and Emory understand this word "Biosafety Level" and would normally throw this around as workplace jargon. Not seeing it is a notable omission.
I can only conclude the CDC disagrees with WHO on Ebola's biosafety classification and if we're lucky the patient ward they set up is level 3. All of these articles reinforce that Ebola is not airborne and can't be spread by casual contact...and like I pointed out earlier, I don't think that's a sure bet because there is some research which says otherwise.
If they did set up a level 3 lab. of course they wouldn't describe the ward's safety procedures in detail. Anyone could fact-check what biosafety level it was and find out it isn't actually up to World Health standards.
That's my little theory, anyway.
Interestingly enough from what I've been reading the mortality rate for the current outbreak is around 60%. While still staggeringly high compared to most diseases, this strain of Ebola is know to have up to a 90% mortality rate. I wonder if the comparatively lower death rate is partially to blame. In the epidemics with 90% mortality, the virus tends to go through victims too fast to spread efficiently and perpetuate infection rates. But with a 60% mortality rate it might just be low enough to chew through people but not so fast it that it doesn't have any more victims to infect...
That strikes me as uniquely plausible. It's hard to assess what the old Bubonic Plague's mortality rate was, but most of the resources I've found put it in the 30-70% range, which is surprisingly low. There's probably an optimum mortality rate which depends on a disease's incubation and infectiousness periods, but between 60 and 70% strikes me as a butter zone of optimum killage.
