I think that overseas travel is about to become trickier.
https://www.today.com/video/two-new-potential-cases-of-ebola-emerge-in-brazil-264260165628
YokelRidesAgain said:
wouldn't expect any issue with travel unless there is clear evidence of person-to-person spread within a country.
Ebola is just not very transmissible unless you are in close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person.
It goes without saying that if you are in the middle seat of a flight from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Easterwood and the person on the aisle has blood coming out of their eyes or coming of their whatever, you should nope right off of the plane. But the hemorrhagic fevers are not like respiratory viruses in which a casual contact could spark off an epidemic.
Rapier108 said:
Lots of people, for various reasons, wanting to see this thing become a global pandemic, especially with the US November elections coming up.
Thankfully Ebola is not an airborne virus, and unless you're in contact with sick people or dead bodies, it doesn't really spread.
Well, unless Wuhan gets their hands on it.
BigRobSA said:
So.....double masks, 12 feet apart and voting from home....only solutions!?
YokelRidesAgain said:
I wouldn't expect any issue with travel unless there is clear evidence of person-to-person spread within a country.
Ebola is just not very transmissible unless you are in close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person.
It goes without saying that if you are in the middle seat of a flight from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Easterwood and the person on the aisle has blood coming out of their eyes or coming of their whatever, you should nope right off of the plane. But the hemorrhagic fevers are not like respiratory viruses in which a casual contact could spark off an epidemic.
BigRobSA said:
So.....double masks, 12 feet apart and voting from home....only solutions!?

BboroAg said:YokelRidesAgain said:
wouldn't expect any issue with travel unless there is clear evidence of person-to-person spread within a country.
Ebola is just not very transmissible unless you are in close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person.
It goes without saying that if you are in the middle seat of a flight from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Easterwood and the person on the aisle has blood coming out of their eyes or coming of their whatever, you should nope right off of the plane. But the hemorrhagic fevers are not like respiratory viruses in which a casual contact could spark off an epidemic.
Don't worry...the CDC, the WHO, and the MSM will get right to work on changing the rules of transmission (it is not like we have not seen that movie before)
Quote:
I wouldn't expect any issue with travel unless there is clear evidence of person-to-person spread within a country.
Rapier108 said:
Lots of people, for various reasons, wanting to see this thing become a global pandemic, especially with the US November elections coming up.
Thankfully Ebola is not an airborne virus, and unless you're in contact with sick people or dead bodies, it doesn't really spread.
Well, unless Wuhan gets their hands on it.
boulderaggie said:
If they start vaccinating, watch out. It's my understanding that the Ebola vaccine sheds (read that a couple of years ago). That's how you create an Ebola pandemic.
Rapier108 said:
Lots of people, for various reasons, wanting to see this thing become a global pandemic, especially with the US November elections coming up.
Thankfully Ebola is not an airborne virus, and unless you're in contact with sick people or dead bodies, it doesn't really spread.
Well, unless Wuhan gets their hands on it.
Rapier108 said:
Lots of people, for various reasons, wanting to see this thing become a global pandemic, especially with the US November elections coming up.
Thankfully Ebola is not an airborne virus, and unless you're in contact with sick people or dead bodies, it doesn't really spread.
Well, unless Wuhan gets their hands on it.