|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Ebola spreads?
| 
Dec 3 09:05 UTC 2000 |
In an unattributed post to the news wires apparently from the
_telegraph_(england) one 'ahmed rashid,lahore' says that 9 are
dead and at least three others sick from 'ebola' in pakistan.
For those of you geographically challenged pakistan is not in
central africa where all the illnesses and deaths thus far have
been located in the entire history of some decades of the disease.
Indeed, pakistan is in central asia rather far removed from the
'home' of this plague. One wonders how medical persons in pakistan
would even think to consider such. Given the way this 'global village'
connects one would also wonder why pakistan instead of london or cairo
for the first non-central african spread.
"ahmed rashid" sounds so much like a 'character' that one with
little knowlege of regional names would plot if one were writing
fiction that one thinks 'fiction' rather than fact - not the first
time nor the last the news media has been accused rightfully so of
spreading.
But, what if it is true. It would seem to either quickly
give an indicator to a non human vector - thus far elusive in decades
of study - or indicate that it is a virus (is known to be such) that
somehow resides in the human specie and if the latter it could spring
up in Ann Arbor just as easily the next time it is detected.
There is one school of thought that suggests that millions of years ago
the dominant entity on earth - the dinosaur - was destroyed, not by a
meteor, but by the most simple organism, a virus.
Sleep well.
|
| 20 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 1 of 20:
|
Dec 3 17:23 UTC 2000 |
Virii don't tend to kill their primary vector. What is ebola's primary
vector?
|
senna
|
|
response 2 of 20:
|
Dec 3 17:42 UTC 2000 |
Had virii evolved by the time of the Dinosaurs?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 3 of 20:
|
Dec 3 20:50 UTC 2000 |
what's the vector victor?
|
polygon
|
|
response 4 of 20:
|
Dec 3 21:09 UTC 2000 |
Re 1. Generally, it takes many generations of co-evolution for the
virus and the vector/host to work this out.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 20:
|
Dec 3 22:45 UTC 2000 |
My recollection is that no one knows where the ebola virus goes
between human outbreaks.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 6 of 20:
|
Dec 3 22:53 UTC 2000 |
it hangs out here, in ypsi. i saw it one weekend drinking
bapst at the elbow room.
|
birdy
|
|
response 7 of 20:
|
Dec 4 03:21 UTC 2000 |
Hail to the vectors valiant...
|
danr
|
|
response 8 of 20:
|
Dec 4 13:01 UTC 2000 |
re #6: I always suspected ypsi was a hotbed of something.
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 20:
|
Dec 4 18:02 UTC 2000 |
ypsi is a hotbed of a lot of things.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 10 of 20:
|
Dec 4 21:08 UTC 2000 |
i.e. a crucible
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 20:
|
Dec 5 21:16 UTC 2000 |
Yes, virii had evolved by the time of the dinosaurs.
I believe virii were in existence before anthing in the plant or animal
kingdoms evolved.
|
senna
|
|
response 12 of 20:
|
Dec 5 22:35 UTC 2000 |
Really? I have a vague understanding that they are a fairly sophisticated
evolution and may be much more recent. Bacteria preceded everything, of
course, but the virii might have needed a more plentiful host.
|
russ
|
|
response 13 of 20:
|
Dec 7 01:31 UTC 2000 |
Re #11: Viruses require other cells in order to reproduce.
Among other things, viruses have no ribosomes (required for
the transcription of messenger RNA into peptides), so they
cannot create the proteins of their own shells. It is certain
that the first life forms were NOT viruses; they may have been
even simpler, but they had to have things that a virus doesn't.
Re #12: If I recall correctly, recent studies have shown that
a large proportion of the bacteria in the seas are infected
with viruses. Viruses which prey on bacteria are called
bacteriophages, and have even been investigated for use as
anti-bacterial agents against human infections.
|
swa
|
|
response 14 of 20:
|
Dec 9 20:07 UTC 2000 |
So is it really correct to say "virii"? Why? You don't say "virius", do
you? I'm puzzled. Inquiring minds wanna know.
|
dunne
|
|
response 15 of 20:
|
Dec 9 20:34 UTC 2000 |
re #14: No, it isn't. "Virii" is cod-Latin. The plural is "viruses".
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 20:
|
Dec 9 22:14 UTC 2000 |
I think the plural form in proper Latin would be viri.
|
swa
|
|
response 17 of 20:
|
Dec 9 23:25 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, my dictionary gives the plural as "viruses", but I'd've thought
"viri" would also be okay.
Same dictionary gives the etymology as deriving from the Latin for
"slime" or "poison", for anyone who cares.
|
flem
|
|
response 18 of 20:
|
Dec 10 01:27 UTC 2000 |
From the dictionary.com word of the day list, for Oct. 14, 2000:
"It is from Latin ignoramus, which is actually a verb, meaning
'we are ignorant' ... Note that the correct plural form is
ignoramuses. Since ignoramus in Latin is a verb, not a noun, there
is no justification for a plural form ignorami. To use it would be
to leave oneself open to the charge of being an ignoramus."
|
drew
|
|
response 19 of 20:
|
Dec 10 04:39 UTC 2000 |
If 'ignoramus' is a verb (we are ignorant), wouldn't *that* be the plural
form? Wouldn't the singular be something like 'ignoro' (I am ignorant)?
|
senna
|
|
response 20 of 20:
|
Dec 10 05:25 UTC 2000 |
Hell, I'm just following the crowd.
|