Man Tested For Ebola In Birmingham As Fears Grow That Virus Could Spread Across Continents

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:54 pm

[ltr]The British government views Ebola as a "very serious threat", Philip Hammond said today, as it emerged that man has been tested at a hospital in Birmingham suspected of carrying the deadly virus into the UK, after travelling from Nigeria via Paris.[/ltr]
[ltr]The unidentified man has since tested negative for the virus, the Daily Mail reported, but health professionals are being urged to keep vigilant for signs of the deadly ebola virus amid fears that it could spread to the UK.[/ltr]
[ltr]Another man visited Charing Cross Hospital in west London over fears he had the virus, but doctors ruled out the need for an Ebola test.[/ltr]
[ltr]Public Health England has briefed border officials and airport staff on the symptoms and issued an urgent warning to doctors after an infected man was able to make multiple flights from Liberia to Nigeria, where he died.[/ltr]

[ltr]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/30/ebola-birmingham-virus_n_5632718.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/ltr]

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:32 pm

This is very scary and I hope it doesn't make it's way here.

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:45 pm

eddie wrote:This is very scary and I hope it doesn't make it's way here.

Sad to say Eddie, something like this is near impossible to contain, once it has started to spread.

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:17 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:This is very scary and I hope it doesn't make it's way here.

Sad to say Eddie, something like this is near impossible to contain, once it has started to spread.

And incurable.
Very worrying didge.

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:21 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sad to say Eddie, something like this is near impossible to contain, once it has started to spread.

And incurable.
Very worrying didge.

The only hope is when someone can fight it off and thus survives, they will be the key to a cure.

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:26 pm

They should test out the disease and any cures on convicted paedos and child murderers.

Ready made Human guinea pigs.

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:28 pm

eddie wrote:They should test out the disease and any cures on convicted paedos and child murderers.

Ready made Human guinea pigs.

No argument from me on that.
Sounds like a plan and will save prison costs.

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:03 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:They should test out the disease and any cures on convicted paedos and child murderers.

Ready made Human guinea pigs.

No argument from me on that.
Sounds like a plan and will save prison costs.

Too flippin' right!
I'd rather let them suffer than an innocent lab rat

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:27 pm

Yes it is possible to contain it...In a civilised country...

it is ONLY spread by physical contact and contact with body fluids...

first thing should be a ban on incomming foreign national passengers whether by ship or plance from any likely infected area....and any of our own nationals returning should be subject to 3 weeks quarrantine and observation....

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:29 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes it is possible to contain it...In a civilised country...

it is ONLY spread by physical contact and contact with body fluids...

first thing should be a ban on incomming foreign national passengers whether by ship or plance from any likely infected area....and any of our own nationals returning should be subject to 3 weeks quarrantine and observation....

Too late for that, it has passed the point of too many people may already be infected and even here it would be impossible to contain, all it takes is one person through an airport and many will infected

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:32 pm

Just saw on the news that a boy has survived Ebola in Guana after receiving treatment very early on.

So it is treatable, if caught early.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:40 pm

I agree with victor.

A ban on travel to and from any infected area or surrounding area.

Effort should be on stopping the spread and preventing virus from getting here.

Taking action after it arrives is definately a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:40 pm

eddie wrote:Just saw on the news that a boy has survived Ebola in Guana after receiving treatment very early on.

So it is treatable, if caught early.

Interesting Eddie, is there a link or was just on the news?

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I agree with victor.

A ban on travel to and from any infected area or surrounding area.

Effort should be on stopping the spread and preventing virus from getting here.

Taking action after it arrives is definately a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Still would not be good enough as you would need every country to comply and even then it could be too late if affected people have passed onto people abroad already

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:45 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:Yes it is possible to contain it...In a civilised country...

it is ONLY spread by physical contact and contact with body fluids...

first thing should be a ban on incomming foreign national passengers whether by ship or plance from any likely infected area....and any of our own nationals returning should be subject to 3 weeks quarrantine and observation....

Too late for that, it has passed the point of too many people may already be infected and even here it would be impossible to contain, all it takes is one person through an airport and many will infected

rubbish...its ebola ...not flu....

even if others were infected they could be traced...

it has to be CONTACT not mere presence.....

it is relatively slow moving ...

there is however a danger that a localised out break could occur.... but again isolation is possible....

THERE IS NO DANGER of this becoming an epidemic here......

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:46 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Too late for that, it has passed the point of too many people may already be infected and even here it would be impossible to contain, all it takes is one person through an airport and many will infected

rubbish...its ebola ...not flu....

even if others were infected they could be traced...

it has to be CONTACT not mere presence.....

it is relatively slow moving ...

there is however a danger that a localised out break could occur.... but again isolation is possible....

THERE IS NO DANGER of this becoming an epidemic here......

Yes contact, which it seems you do not realize how easy that can spread, and there is a very real threat of it becoming a problem here, I suppose experts meeting today on this know less than you I guess

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:51 pm

No but I bet you think YOU do....

read what the experts say...

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:52 pm

If it spreads THAT easily why havnt there been 10,000 cases in the affected areas instead of only a few hundred??

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:52 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:No but I bet you think YOU do....

read what the experts say...

I am no expert never claimed to be, what you are saying though is naive, being as people can be affected for 3 weeks without have any symptoms, it thus could be a problem

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:53 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:If it spreads THAT easily why havnt there been 10,000 cases in the affected areas instead of only a few hundred??

You do not think hundreds is a problem, wow, I do

by eddie Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:54 pm

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:Just saw on the news that a boy has survived Ebola in Guana after receiving treatment very early on.

So it is treatable, if caught early.

Interesting Eddie, is there a link or was just on the news?

On the news didge BBC 24 hour news

Here didge found this

http://www.afro.who.int/en/uganda/press-materials/item/5029-a-tale-and-plight-of-three-ebola-survivors-in-kibaale-district.html

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:57 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Interesting Eddie, is there a link or was just on the news?

On the news didge BBC 24 hour news

Here didge found this

http://www.afro.who.int/en/uganda/press-materials/item/5029-a-tale-and-plight-of-three-ebola-survivors-in-kibaale-district.html

Thanks

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:58 pm

Cases/Deaths in the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak

Centers for Disease Control and Preven

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:59 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:If it spreads THAT easily why havnt there been 10,000 cases in the affected areas instead of only a few hundred??

You do not think hundreds is a problem, wow, I do

sod off didge...i aint playing "straw man" with you

I DID NOT say hundreds were NOT a problem

I DID SAY that if it was that infectious there would have been thousands by now.....

totally different arguments and one nothing to do with the other.....

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:02 pm

Didge wrote:

According to the World Heath Organisation, 108 new cases and 12 deaths were reported in West Africa between 21st and 23rd of July.

Cases/Deaths in the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak

Centers for Disease Control and Preven

yep NOW GO AND READ and understand WHY there is a problem in west africa.....

clue....it is only partly due to ebolas virulence (as opposed to infectivness)
clue 2 we dont have the same funery practices

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:03 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

You do not think hundreds is a problem, wow, I do

sod off didge...i aint playing "straw man" with you

I DID NOT say hundreds were NOT a problem

I DID SAY that if it was that infectious there would have been thousands by now.....

totally different arguments and one nothing to do with the other.....

You do not even know what straw man argument is.

Well it has been going since March and has spread to many areas in a short space of time and the numbers are going up, as seen 100 in the last couple of days and this is a problem even if you wish to down play this, especially if people are active sexually.
If symptoms can take up to 3 weeks it has chances to spread

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:57 pm

Can....take up to 21 days....more normally 4-9 days

patient is infectious from the point the virus is in the blood stream

what is more concerning is IF...and its a VERY BIG if.....this virus became persistantly air borne...spread by coughing and such....
THEN you would have a mighty BIG problem...
untill then however this is low down my "list of things likely to give me nightmares"

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:17 pm

AND...just to calm you down...

Since its discovery in 1976, 14 confirmed outbreaks of Ebola haemorrhagic fever (EHF) have been reported [1–10], seven of which have occurred since 2000 (see Table 1) [1–8]. Very little is known about the virus: natural reservoirs are poorly identified but may include fruit bats; vaccine and therapeutic strategies are under development [11–16]. The typical natural history of the disease begins with an average incubation period of 1–2 weeks. Patients present most frequently with fever, asthenia, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, sore throat, dysphagia, and conjunctivitis [1, 2, 8, 17–19]. One week after the onset of symptoms a rash often appears followed by haemorrhagic complications, leading to death after an average of 10 days in 50–90% of infections. Survivors may experience severe asthenia, hearing loss, ocular signs and recovery usually occurs in 2 weeks to 2 months after the onset of symptoms. Most individuals acquire infection after direct contact with blood, bodily secretions and tissues of infected ill or dead humans and non-human primates [2, 20–22]. There is evidence that individuals (health-care workers, relatives) may become infected following contacts with patients' body fluids or direct contact with patients during a visit at the hospital or participation in traditional burial ceremonies [20, 23, 24]. Ebola is unlikely be transmitted during the incubation period and transmissibility increases with duration of disease and direct contact with infected individuals during the late stages of illness [20, 21]. During the 1976 outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, formerly Zaire), 86 (26·7%) of the 318 cases were infected either from a contaminated syringe or through needle-stick injury [2]. However, for epidemics that occurred after 1990, infection from contaminated syringes or through needle-stick injuries has not been documented. Although there is evidence of asymptomatic carriers, the very low levels of virus detected in these individuals suggest they do not pose a significant source of transmission [25, 26].

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870608/

and this is the article refered to at 20,

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S87.full.pdf+html

S87
Transmission of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever: A Study of Risk Factors in Family
Members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995
Scott F. Dowell, Rose Mukunu, Thomas G. Ksiazek,
Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Kikwit General Hospital, Kikwit,
Ali S. Khan, Pierre E. Rollin, and C. J. Peters,
Democratic Republic of the Congo
for the Commission de Lutte contre les Epide
́
mies
a
`
Kikwit
The surviving members of 27 households in which someone had been infected with Ebola virus
were interviewed in order to define the modes of transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF).
Of 173 household contacts of the primary cases, 28 (16%) developed EHF. All secondary cases had
direct physical contact with the ill person (rate ratio [RR], undefined;
P
õ
.001), and among those
with direct contact, exposure to body fluids conferred additional risk (RR, 3.6; 95% confidence
interval [CI], 1.9 – 6. Cool

. After adjusting for direct contact and exposure to body fluids, adult family
members, those who touched the cadaver, and those who were exposed during the late hospital
phase were at additional risk. None of the 78 household members who had no physical contact with
the case during the clinical illness were infected (upper 95% CI, 4%). EHF is transmitted principally
by direct physical contact with an ill person or their body fluids during the later stages of illness

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:19 pm

The above of course is not to say that things couldnt change...... ::rfth::

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:24 pm

More proof of the lack of infectivity DURING incubation... i.e the patient having the bug but not yet showing it.....

http://math.lanl.gov/~mac/papers/bio/CHCFH05.pdf
"Individuals exposed to the virus who become
infectious do so after a mean incubation period of 6 days (1–21 days) "

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:27 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:More proof of the lack of infectivity DURING incubation... i.e the patient having the bug but not yet showing it.....

http://math.lanl.gov/~mac/papers/bio/CHCFH05.pdf
"Individuals exposed to the virus who become
infectious do so after a mean incubation period of 6 days (1–21 days) "

Like I said up to 3 weeks

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:33 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:More proof of the lack of infectivity DURING incubation... i.e the patient having the bug but not yet showing it.....

http://math.lanl.gov/~mac/papers/bio/CHCFH05.pdf
"Individuals exposed to the virus who become
infectious do so after a mean incubation period of 6 days (1–21 days) "

Like I said up to 3 weeks

during which the person IS NOT infectious.... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:34 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Like I said up to 3 weeks
during which the person IS NOT infectious....

Yes but they can have traveled here and into the country or has this escaped you?

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:52 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:
during which the person IS NOT infectious....

Yes but they can have traveled here and into the country or has this escaped you?

it has not, but they are not anywhere near as much risk as say a carrier of H5N1, since they are only then likely to infect CLOSE contacts...which can be traced...and with our health service the focus of infection can be controlled...it is unlikely that any such person would be the focus of a significant outbreak....

However didge, I will conceed you one very serious point....

those figures you gave showing the increas over just a couple of days is potentially scary.....Its early days yet...BUT that could indicat the virus has changed...probably becoming air borne...

keep an eye on those figures...if they start to increase exponentially, indicating ONE infected victim is easily infecting multiple others, each of which then infect multiple others, THEN wwe may be in the smelly stuff.....

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:56 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Yes but they can have traveled here and into the country or has this escaped you?
it has not, but they are not anywhere near as much risk as say a carrier of H5N1, since they are only then likely to infect CLOSE contacts...which can be traced...and with our health service the focus of infection can be controlled...it is unlikely that any such person would be the focus of a significant outbreak....

However didge, I will conceed you one very serious point....

those figures you gave showing the increas over just a couple of days is potentially scary.....Its early days yet...BUT that could indicat the virus has changed...probably becoming air borne...

keep an eye on those figures...if they start to increase exponentially, indicating ONE infected victim is easily infecting multiple others, each of which then infect multiple others, THEN wwe may be in the smelly stuff.....

Actually I hope you are right that this will be contained and I am wrong, but I have just read this also:

Ebola Cure May Have Already Been Discovered - So Why Are People Still Dying?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/30/ebola_0_n_5633405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:09 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:
it has not, but they are not anywhere near as much risk as say a carrier of H5N1, since they are only then likely to infect CLOSE contacts...which can be traced...and with our health service the focus of infection can be controlled...it is unlikely that any such person would be the focus of a significant outbreak....

However didge, I will conceed you one very serious point....

those figures you gave showing the increas over just a couple of days is potentially scary.....Its early days yet...BUT that could indicat the virus has changed...probably becoming air borne...

keep an eye on those figures...if they start to increase exponentially, indicating ONE infected victim is easily infecting multiple others, each of which then infect multiple others, THEN wwe may be in the smelly stuff.....

Actually I hope you are right that this will be contained and I am wrong, but I have just read this also:

Ebola Cure May Have Already Been Discovered - So Why Are People Still Dying?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/30/ebola_0_n_5633405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Yep, but I can see both sides....none of the drugs have been tested, let alone licenced....

what happens when one of em kills more than it cures?

No pharma is going to be willing to take the risk of being sued out of business when the patients grow another head...or something....

no govt is going to take that risk either when the "natives " turn on the west (yet again) for "trying to help"

If they havnt been tested then thats it......

unfortunately its going to be almost impossible to get across the idea of "at your own risk" to these people, most of whom of course are uneducated superstitious "villagers"

Here at least it would at a pinch be possible to inform people of the risks and gain valid waivers....

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:16 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Actually I hope you are right that this will be contained and I am wrong, but I have just read this also:

Ebola Cure May Have Already Been Discovered - So Why Are People Still Dying?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/30/ebola_0_n_5633405.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Yep, but I can see both sides....none of the drugs have been tested, let alone licenced....

what happens when one of em kills more than it cures?

No pharma is going to be willing to take the risk of being sued out of business when the patients grow another head...or something....

no govt is going to take that risk either when the "natives " turn on the west (yet again) for "trying to help"

If they havnt been tested then thats it......

unfortunately its going to be almost impossible to get across the idea of "at your own risk" to these people, most of whom of course are uneducated superstitious "villagers"

Here at least it would at a pinch be possible to inform people of the risks and gain valid waivers....

Well no is the time do you not think!

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:21 pm

trouble is didge...trials take years...through computer modeling, animal trials and only THEN can you do human volunteer trials...AND they cost a fortune....as in 10', 100's millions of pounds....what pharma is going to put THAT money out there on a drug that may only sell a few thousand units a year?? they'd go bust....

and there is the problem of "blind trials"...where some get the drug and others the placebo....kinda unethical in this situation really....

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:23 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:trouble is didge...trials take years...through computer modeling, animal trials and only THEN can you do human volunteer trials...AND they cost a fortune....as in 10', 100's millions of pounds....what pharma is going to put THAT money out there on a drug that may only sell a few thousand units a year?? they'd go bust....

and there is the problem of "blind trials"...where some get the drug and others the placebo....kinda unethical in this situation really....

The problem is Victor, now could be the time it is needed and to be honest being as 90% die I would take risk of a trial drug as I am sure you would, what I mean is money is more an incentive than an actual cure is

by Guest Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:40 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:trouble is didge...trials take years...through computer modeling, animal trials and only THEN can you do human volunteer trials...AND they cost a fortune....as in 10', 100's millions of pounds....what pharma is going to put THAT money out there on a drug that may only sell a few thousand units a year?? they'd go bust....

and there is the problem of "blind trials"...where some get the drug and others the placebo....kinda unethical in this situation really....

The problem is Victor, now could be the time it is needed and to be honest being as 90% die I would take risk of a trial drug as I am sure you would, what I mean is money is more an incentive than an actual cure is

agreed...but who's going to find the money to fund it??
not the pharmas...
our govt???
the states?

look up "orphan drugs"

by gerber Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:21 am

Where are HF and VOD when help is needed..... ::rfth::

by stardesk Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:16 pm

Concerning contact. I often wonder how many germs we pick up when getting a shop trolley or basket. Quite a few I should think. But fortunately we in the West are more hygenic than Africa, and, apart from actual physical touching-contact with an ebolared person, we should be okay.

But, as I've said before in other topics, one day there will be an outbreak, an epidemic or even a pandemic, for which we have no cures. Dear old Mother Nature will kick us where it hurts, and who can blame her, considering the harm we have done to this once beautiful world, and the way in which we treat our own species.

Forgive me for this negative response but I feel like a grumpy old fart today.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I agree with victor.
A ban on travel to and from any infected area or surrounding area.
Effort should be on stopping the spread and preventing virus from getting here.
Taking action after it arrives is definately a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Still would not be good enough as you would need every country to comply and even then it could be too late if affected people have passed onto people abroad already

Not quite, we can impose restrictions on anybody traveling to or from the affected areas.

And refuse anybody traveling here from elsewhere who may have been in affected areas too.

This would protect the national security of this country and the health of UK citizens which is our govts prime purpose.

This is a disease that could easily be prevented from arriving here, and which could spread rapidly through our densely populated areas.

by Guest Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
Still would not be good enough as you would need every country to comply and even then it could be too late if affected people have passed onto people abroad already

Not quite, we can impose restrictions on anybody traveling to or from the affected areas.

And refuse anybody traveling here from elsewhere who may have been in affected areas too.

This would protect the national security of this country and the health of UK citizens which is our govts prime purpose.

This is a disease that could easily be prevented from arriving here, and which could spread rapidly through our densely populated areas.

Still not grasping this are you, as you would need every country to do the same, as all that would happen is people still infected could travel to other nations, more get infected there and there is no restriction on these countries.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:28 pm

You're still not grasping this, I'm saying WE can refuse people who have been in affected areas.

Wherever they might be trying to get here from.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:36 pm

stardesk wrote:Concerning contact. I often wonder how many germs we pick up when getting a shop trolley or basket. Quite a few I should think. But fortunately we in the West are more hygenic than Africa, and, apart from actual physical touching-contact with an ebolared person, we should be okay.

Forgive me for this negative response but I feel like a grumpy old fart today.

I know what you mean. Safeway Stores now have free hand-wipes that are treated with disinfectant at every entrance. People commonly use them to wipe the shopping cart handles, as well as their hands. I know I do.

by Guest Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
stardesk wrote:Concerning contact. I often wonder how many germs we pick up when getting a shop trolley or basket. Quite a few I should think. But fortunately we in the West are more hygenic than Africa, and, apart from actual physical touching-contact with an ebolared person, we should be okay.

Forgive me for this negative response but I feel like a grumpy old fart today.

I know what you mean. Safeway Stores now have free hand-wipes that are treated with disinfectant at every entrance. People commonly use them to wipe the shopping cart handles, as well as their hands. I know I do.

thats just paranoia....

by Guest Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
Still would not be good enough as you would need every country to comply and even then it could be too late if affected people have passed onto people abroad already

Not quite, we can impose restrictions on anybody traveling to or from the affected areas.

And refuse anybody traveling here from elsewhere who may have been in affected areas too.

This would protect the national security of this country and the health of UK citizens which is our govts prime purpose.

This is a disease that could easily be prevented from arriving here, and which could spread rapidly through our densely populated areas.

Take a deep breath,,,,,,now.......

it is unlikely in the exteme, unless it mutates to become airborne, to "spread rapidly" over any great area......

by Original Quill Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:08 pm

One of the nice things about extremely deadly microbes is they kill the host before they have time to spread.

However, I understand ebola has a 2-3 week incubation period.

by Guest Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:One of the nice things about extremely deadly microbes is they kill the host before they have time to spread.

However, I understand ebola has a 2-3 week incubation period.

during which time the victim is NOT infectious.....

by Sponsored content