General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What We’re Afraid to Say About Ebola [View all]magical thyme
(14,881 posts)In the past, entire villages were wiped out before the could obtain any supportive treatment. So the 90% mortality was more likely untreated cases. They've also tested and discovered that 10-13% of the population in the region has antibodies without ever having become ill -- suggesting that some people were able to mount an immune response to low dose exposure quickly enough to prevent actual infection. That, too, would fit with the 90% mortality.
Remember the the infection and survival rates being reported right now are for *reported* cases, which also tend to be the treated cases. They really don't know how many people have been infected and died already, due to the levels of mistrust. WHO has stated that there could be as many as 2-4 times the cases as they've reported.
It is not uncommon for viruses to wrap themselves in host cells. What that explains, really, is why it is so difficult for the immune system to mount an effective defense once an infection is started -- it doesn't recognize the virions as "non-self" when they are wrapped in cell membrane.
Multiple studies have demonstrated aerolization and infection from animal to animal -- mouse to mouse and the recent pig to macqaque study. So it's not a matter of being wrapped in cell membrane.
It's more likely not to happen because in humans it attacks the liver, which is why the viral levels are highest in blood, feces and urine. It's more likely that the levels aren't as high in other body fluids.