Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ebola
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 61 of 111 (738874)
10-16-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by sfs
10-16-2014 3:33 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
You don't pass antibodies to your descendants.
Cannot moms pass antibodies to their unborn children? I know that other posters seem to be talking about some kind of inheritance, but that would be some kind of Lamarckian nonsense.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sfs, posted 10-16-2014 3:33 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by sfs, posted 10-17-2014 12:01 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 10-17-2014 3:50 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


(1)
Message 62 of 111 (738876)
10-17-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
10-16-2014 10:34 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
Sure, mother's antibodies stick around in the baby for a few months. That doesn't seem very relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2014 10:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 111 (738883)
10-17-2014 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by sfs
10-16-2014 3:33 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
You don't pass antibodies to your descendants.
Yes, I should have said ...
In case 1 you have 10% survivors or 1,000 survivors with antibodies, ~500 which can pass them on to descendants. If the 1,000 are carriers then potentially 90% of human population could die.
Thanks
Message 62: Sure, mother's antibodies stick around in the baby for a few months. That doesn't seem very relevant.
Antibodies are passed from mother to child, not just in the womb but via mother's milk. Once acquired they are there for life. This is one of the ways mammals have an advantage for survival.
Message 54, Taq: 10,000 people is not the 6 billion person human population. In this scenario, you would have 9,000 dead.
What I am trying to contrast is the mortality rate vs. the rate of infection.
And I thought I was clear that the potential was there IF they were carriers. Personally I would think that the potential effect on the whole breeding population of a species is a more accurate gauge on how worrisome a disease should be, and this is based on both infection rate and mortality.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sfs, posted 10-16-2014 3:33 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by sfs, posted 10-17-2014 8:10 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 10-17-2014 12:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 64 of 111 (738884)
10-17-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
10-17-2014 7:45 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
quote:
Yes, I should have said ...
In case 1 you have 10% survivors or 1,000 survivors with antibodies, ~500 which can pass them on to descendants. If the 1,000 are carriers then potentially 90% of human population could die.
Antibodies are passed from mother to child, not just in the womb but via mother's milk. Once acquired they are there for life. This is one of the ways mammals have an advantage for survival.
No, you really don't pass antibodies on to your descendants; antibodies are proteins, and they do not last for life. Infants stop being protected by maternal antibodies 3 - 6 months after birth (see e.g. here).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 7:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 8:50 AM sfs has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 111 (738887)
10-17-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by sfs
10-17-2014 8:10 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
No, you really don't pass antibodies on to your descendants; antibodies are proteins, and they do not last for life. Infants stop being protected by maternal antibodies 3 - 6 months after birth (see e.g. here).
Curiously I don't think your link says what you think it says:
quote:
Conclusions. Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.
Artificial antibodies (vaccines) offer less protection than evolved.
Further, this study does not compare live virus vaccines to dead or completely artificial vaccines.
As someone who has had to have their antibodies replaced due to chemo\cancer treatments I find the argument that all antibodies disappear after a couple of months very curious ... especially when quite an effort was made to "restore" my defenses.
A look at other studies shows a discussion of an exponential decline over time, which I would expect absent any (re)infection, but a retained arsenal against future infection.
Otherwise we would be revaccinating children every 6 months, which would be rather impractical.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by sfs, posted 10-17-2014 8:10 AM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by sfs, posted 10-17-2014 9:22 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 10-17-2014 3:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 66 of 111 (738889)
10-17-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
10-17-2014 8:50 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
quote:
Artificial antibodies (vaccines) offer less protection than evolved.
I really suggest you read up on the immune system. Vaccines are not antibodies. They present antigens -- characteristic proteins found on pathogens -- to the immune system, and thereby teach the body to generate antibodies against those antigens. You retain immunity against infection because you have cells (memory B cells) that are genetically wired to produce a particular antibody for that virus. Immunity from infection is often stronger and longer-lasting than immunity from a vaccine, especially if the vaccine presents only a small number of antigens (in contrast to a live-virus vaccine, which uses a weakened form of the virus itself to trigger the immune system).
Rather than vaccinating, you can also directly give antibodies to someone who has been exposed to a virus, as a short-term way to prime their immune system. That's why convalescent serum is being given to Ebola patients (natural antibodies from recovered Ebola patients), and that's what ZMapp is (artificially generated antibodies against Ebola). But this does not give long-lasting immunity.
quote:
A look at other studies shows a discussion of an exponential decline over time, which I would expect absent any (re)infection, but a retained arsenal against future infection.
Please point to one of those studies that shows long-term immune capability resulting from maternal antibodies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 8:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 67 of 111 (738891)
10-17-2014 10:46 AM


Good summary of the state of the outbreak from the Economist.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 68 of 111 (738894)
10-17-2014 11:32 AM



  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 111 (738899)
10-17-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
10-17-2014 7:45 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
removed
Edited by NoNukes, : i was wrong

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 7:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 70 of 111 (738912)
10-17-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
10-16-2014 10:34 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
Cannot moms pass antibodies to their unborn children? I know that other posters seem to be talking about some kind of inheritance, but that would be some kind of Lamarckian nonsense.
Any type of inheritance would much more likely involve other immune proteins (e.g. HLA markers) or the proteins in the host cell that the virus interacts with (e.g. CRC4/5 mutants and HIV resistance).
Other than that, you inherit the entire suite of antibody gene segments from your parents. You hacked these gene segments up during B-cell maturation to make your own library of antibodies. You don't inherit your mother's B-cells which is what you would need to pass on any longer term immunity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 10-16-2014 10:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 71 of 111 (738913)
10-17-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
10-17-2014 8:50 AM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
Artificial antibodies (vaccines) offer less protection than evolved.
As mentioned earlier, vaccines most often present non-infectious antigens to your immune system. B-cells are the antibody factories. Each B-cell has one antibody that it makes. If an antigen binds to that antibody on the surface of the B-cell, then that B-cell is told to divide a whole bunch and start pumping out that antibody. Different types of antibodies offer short and long term immunity, as well as immunity in different parts of the body (blood vs. mucous membranes). This is called active immunization.
Some of the recent Ebola treatments are purified antibodies from humans that have been infected, or genetically modified mouse antibodies that have been raised against the virus. These can bridge the gap between nasty initial infection and the time frame that a person can mount their own immune response. This is called passive immunization, and is similar to what mothers supply for their newborns.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 8:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 72 of 111 (738914)
10-17-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by sfs
10-16-2014 9:52 PM


Re: Hard to Get - Harder to Get Rid Of
But that's not what you did. You contrasted the total number of infected, rather than the rate of infection. As long as the reproduction rate is greater than 1, the epidemic is going to continue growing; all the transmission rate affects is how quickly it grows. An epidemic that doubles in size every week will infect the entire planet in 8 months. An epidemic that grows at 1/4 the speed will take 2.5 years -- but everyone still gets sick.
I should have been more clear, then. What I meant to compare was the total number infected in a specific outbreak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sfs, posted 10-16-2014 9:52 PM sfs has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 111 (738919)
10-17-2014 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jon
10-16-2014 1:44 AM


Re: The Big Questions
You should wonder why they don't eat meat from domesticated animals known to be safe.
As has been pointed out, people all of the world eat something other than domesticated animals. I don't need to wonder why people without access to domesticated animals don't eat domesticated animals.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 10-16-2014 1:44 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 10-19-2014 9:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 111 (738922)
10-17-2014 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
10-15-2014 10:56 AM


So they double-glove, but I don't understand how that solves the problem. You pull the right one off, then contaminate the one underneath it when you pull the left one off. Same problem.
Double gloving provides protection during the exposure even (while working with patients). At removal time, the idea is to remove the gloves without transferring any contamination to the skin.
The interior side of the interior glove can be assumed to be uncontaminated. If your de-gloving procedure involves contacting that only that surface of a glove with your bare hand, you should be able to remove that second glove without contaminating either hand, by stick your thumb under that glove and turning the glove inside out as you remove it. The procedure would require a high level of care. The potential for error seems extremely high. You might even put on a clean, loose fitting glove on your bare hand before removing that second glove.
Using some kind of glove puller for the interior gloves does seem to be a safer option.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 10-15-2014 10:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 10-17-2014 5:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 75 of 111 (738923)
10-17-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
10-17-2014 5:03 PM


Using some kind of glove puller for the interior gloves does seem to be a safer option.
Decontaminating with something as simple as 70% ethanol before attempting to remove the gloves would seem to be the safest of all. Although I wouldn't recommend it, after a good decon with alcohol, you could probably remove the gloves with your teeth and not have to worry about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 10-17-2014 5:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 10-17-2014 5:40 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024