[ExI] no-touch transmission, was: RE: 23andME - Company issues: privacy

spike spike66 at att.net
Mon Oct 20 11:30:44 UTC 2014

>... On Behalf Of david
Subject: Re: [ExI] 23andME - Company issues: privacy

>...I think you could stop this argument in its tracks by defining the word
Snopes and Adrian appear to be using a technical definition of "can infect
hours later via a dried remnant of droplet", whereas Spike is using the term
to mean "catching it without physically touching".


Ja you are right David.  We were talking past each other because of a
misunderstanding of terms.

Very well, I will redefine my term from airborne to no-touch transmission.
Then the projectile-barf scenario, the boxer-head-shot spraying sweat, the
sneeze scenario, are all examples not of airborne transmission but rather
no-touch transmission.  We can ignore the boxer-head-shot scenario, since a
sick person would likely eschew that particular activity especially on
public transportation, which leaves us the projectile barfing and uncovered
sneezing, both of which are perfectly reasonable to assume could happen on
an airplane.

Very well then, is it not perfectly reasonable to suspect that USA political
leaders did exactly the same thing that Adrian and I did?  Could not they
hear from medical experts that ebola cannot be airborne, then conclude that
the term means it is safe to sit next to an ebola patient on an airplane?
The term as used by the medical establishment has a more specific meaning
than I interpreted: that the virus can live after desiccation.  But this
term may be misleading to the politicians and public.  I agree ebola patient
in seat 23b cannot infect passengers in seats 37f or 15d.  But I would be
highly concerned for the passengers in seats 23a and 23c, as well as perhaps
those in row 22.

My point: even if we agree that ebola is not airborne by the definition the
medics are using, it still isn't safe to fly with one because of the risk of
no-touch transmission.

Could not our political leaders have failed to recognize the technical
difference between airborne and no-touch?  Could not they too have concluded
from the scientist's comments on airborne transmission that there was
insufficient justification to stop flights from Liberia when there is
significant risk introduced by flights from the hot zone?  Perhaps even the
infected nurses in Texas misunderstood the risk?

It is difficult to even estimate the potential damage to the airline
industry and the US economy from even one suspected aircraft-related

Conclusion: flights from the hot zone should be stopped forthwith.
Alternative: passengers should be given a quarantined and controlled exit.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list