Ebola Virus Lives on Hospital Surfaces for Days

The researchers conducted the tests in both a climate controlled environment and a "normal" environment. THey found that.....

Under hospital-like conditions, the virus lived for 11 days on Tyvek, eight days on plastic and four days on stainless steel. The longest the virus was able to survive in the tropical conditions of the West African environment was three days, on Tyvek.

So, the virus lasts the longest on the very material the doctors and responders use to protect themselves against infection. Sounds to me like the time has come to redesign their BL4 suits to use something more inhospitable to the little bugger.Also, it shows hard data that it can be spread without direct physical contact with a victim (not that it was not already known). But, having the lifespan data should help in sanitation and handling procedures.

Source Article

More ebola fear mongering? Didn't we do this already months ago? Are we all dead? No? Neat.

originally posted by: Jefferton
More ebola fear mongering? Didn't we do this already months ago? Are we all dead? No? Neat.

What "fear mongering"? All I'm reporting is that there is now documented evidence of it surviving longer than thought (or reported by the "experts") during the last outbreak. And, that it was time to re-think the design of their protective gear.

The only "fear mongering" is you IMO. Let us rise above that and discuss this intelligently, shall we?

a reply to: Krakatoa
They need to keep Ebola from spreading. What happened with swine flu is that it eventually merged with seasonal flu and if that happens to Ebola when Ebola turns airborne (mutates) results would be drastic.

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: Krakatoa
They need to keep Ebola from spreading. What happened with swine flu is that it eventually merged with seasonal flu and if that happens to Ebola when Ebola turns airborne (mutates) results would be drastic.

Ebola has barely made it out of the jungle in the 30+ years we have known about it. Not a big deal.
And Op, is this posters comment the "intelligent" conversation you wanted? Or fear? Hmmmm.

a reply to: Jefferton

With all due respect, I do not control other ATS members posts, nor should I have that power. The topic at hand is the proof that the virus does indeed survive for longer on a surface than previously stated by TPTB. More to the point, it survives BEST in a hospital environment, on the very protective clothing worn in the fight. So, do we stupidly keep the same protective gear, or do we seek out a better more "lethal" version against the spread?

It's not that "fear mongering" is bad, it's that it's bad for some of us who'll be paranoid because of it. But for people who can keep a cool head, this is potentially useful information to design protective gear.

I myself am not a cool head. But some ppl thankfully are.

This might be a bit off topic from the Ebola information but a couple of days ago I was thinking about the first time we were told about it months ago, and can't help but wonder what was in the news at that time. Alot of people believe the MSM switches their stories based on the needs to cover up other stories, so my point is what was going on at the time ?

a reply to: Jefferton

You need a clue, dude. Ebola has an intelligence. Just because YOU aren't dead yet doesn't mean the threat is gone.

We need this kind of info to SAVE you, get it? Nevermind.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Ebola isn't gone because FOX stopped reporting on it. A gag order is likely in force. The info in this thread helps to understand how to come up with medical resources to eradicate it. Keep a cool head but be proactive in hand washing.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I am very familiar with Ebola and this news is concerning. But we need to know so they can use the info to aid those who are in its direct path.

I guess this can be seen as useless information for those who do not work in a hospital, in an area that recieves thousands of people immigrating from Africa every year. Our hospital had to set up a lot of defenses, but nothing for the kitchen personelle, who touch and wash the dishes patients have eaten off of, thrown up on, etc. This is pertinent information for them.

a reply to: Jefferton

Ebola is obviously more intelligent than you understand. Your statements are dangerously ill informed and, the reason it came to the US and is still here...is people thinking like you.

a reply to: Bluesma

What about drawer knobs, elevator buttons, dispensers buttons, light pull strings, curtains, etc.. Public transportation must have billions of terms!

It is impossible to control that which refuses to be controlled.

a reply to: Ultralight

Public transportation must have billions of terms!

Nah, a hundred at the most.


On topic: because the virus was detected does not mean it is infectious.

a reply to: Phage

Tell you what, you board the next transport of an Ebola patient without benefit of protective wear, and tend to their needs and see how you fair. The virus by its very nature kills in its path. Put your actions where your mouth is?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ultralight

Public transportation must have billions of terms!

Nah, a hundred at the most.


On topic: because the virus was detected does not mean it is infectious.

It doesn't mean it's not, either, does it? How many particles of the virus does it take to infect, especially those (hospital patients) in bad health?

a reply to: NoAngel2u

It has been proven in tests that it takes only one Ebola virus to infect a host (via a valid entry vector such as an open wound, exposed mucous membrane, eyes, etc...). So, it doesn't take much at all. However, this should be tempered with the knowledge that it is still a remote possibility, but it is not zero. And when dealing with a pathogen with a 70-90% mortality rate that only requires a single cell for infection, discretion and knowledge can make the difference between life and death.

This is not "fear mongering", only a prudent respect for the virus and its potential. Knowing what its mortality rate is in various environments and surfaces helps to provide the chance to better prepare and prevent further spread. Imagine, if you will, this scenario.

An outbreak occurs in a country outside of the containment area. The patient is moved to a hospital in a contained vessel. Knowing this research, they can increase the temps and humidity in that vessel to reduce the chance of spread of virus' that might be on the inside surface or the protective garments by those medical personnel treating the patient. This, based upon the research findings that the virus does not survive long periods in this environment.

Without this research, and dissemination of the findings, we might be unwittingly providing a growth medium for the virus on exposed surfaces.

a reply to: Krakatoa

It has been proven in tests that it takes only one Ebola virus to infect a host (via a valid entry vector such as an open wound, exposed mucous membrane, eyes, etc...).

How was this proven?

And when dealing with a pathogen with a 70-90% mortality rate that only requires a single cell for infection, discretion and knowledge can make the difference between life and death.

It should be noted that that mortality rate does not seem to apply under conditions of good medical care.

a reply to: Phage

Phage: How was this proven?

INFECTIOUS DOSE: 1 – 10 aerosolized organisms are sufficient to cause infection in humans (21).

Source: MSDS Online - Ebola virus

Phage: It should be noted that that mortality rate does not seem to apply under conditions of good medical care.

Yes, agreed to an extent. But what was considered good medical care is what I am now questioning. When the findings show (if you read the OP article) that the most hospitable environment for Ebola to survive matches the conditions in a hospital atmosphere, that is important information. Given that, should the existing protocol still be considered "good" medical care, or should we question the status-quo and update our prevention protocols now that we know better? Doing what we did before when we know better is IMO a case of gross negligence. And, a fact I will not advocate just to satisfy TPTB or anyone here.

Lets be clear, I am not "fear mongering" only providing new data resulting from tests of Ebola's survivability outside the body. New, not old, information will help us better isolate and contain this little bugger. Personally, I do not like to defend against the next war with the protocols and knowledge of the last war (see Maginot Line).