[Contagion] - A fascinating film that examines a world affected by a novel, virulent virus

Melkster

So, there's this movie that came out called Contagion. I saw it on a whim last night, without seeing any previews, and I was completely blown away. This is the kind of disaster movie that I'd love to see more of: A realistic, what-if scenario that takes a clinical, scientific approach, while still retaining a strong human, emotional element. The result was one of the best films I've seen all year.

Anyone else seen it? What'd y'all think?

Eddy

I want to see it, but I feel like World War Z will be an infinitely better version of it because Brad Pitt

rndmhero

I saw it last night with a few friends, and I really enjoyed it. I appreciated that it restrained itself to the plausible and, in my mind, was much more frightening because of it.

Unfortunately several of my friends did not like it because it did not have enough action. Idiots.

Atomika

I'm leaning towards seeing this film, given it's astounding pedigree of award winners under the helm of one of today's best working directors, but can you possibly tell me (without spoilers) what separates this experience from the many other contagion-based films, like Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain, or The Signal?

Because I can't say I'm into those kinds of films. They tend to run on rails, and don't really bring anything new to the table. The idea of seeing "a really, really well-made version of Outbreak" just doesn't get me all that excited.

Melkster

Atomic Ross wrote:

I'm leaning towards seeing this film, given it's astounding pedigree of award winners under the helm of one of today's best working directors, but can you possibly tell me (without spoilers) what separates this experience from the many other contagion-based films, like Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain, or The Signal?

I haven't seen Outbreak or The Signal, but I did read the Andromeda Strain. Contagion is far more realistic than the Andromeda Strain.

And that's what really sets this movie apart from any others I've seen: imagine that an expert economist, sociologist, and epidemiologist got together over drinks and asked, "What happen to the world if a novel virus was introduced into the human population?" The movie feels as if that conversation was put into the form of story.

Invisible

I believe it was CNN that had an article interviewing a Dr from the CDC who worked as a consultant for the film. He essentially said he refused to work on it unless it had realistic science. Not perfect, like timelines for vaccines were sped up, but enough that it wasn't something that was completely implausible.

minirhyder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LppK4ZtsDdM&feature=player_embedded

minirhyder

Oops, double post

minirhyder

Triple post

emnmnme

How does this movie compare to Outbreak? That movie was jam-packed with stars: Hoffman, Sutherland, Freeman, Spacey, etc.

Neaden

Invisible wrote:

I believe it was CNN that had an article interviewing a Dr from the CDC who worked as a consultant for the film. He essentially said he refused to work on it unless it had realistic science. Not perfect, like timelines for vaccines were sped up, but enough that it wasn't something that was completely implausible.

I haven't seen the movie but from what I've read the timeline for vaccines wasn't really sped up from a scientific aspect, it is just that in the movie the virus is bad enough that they skip the trials and most of the safety testing.

Caveman Paws

These reviews are great, since based off the trailers I just figured it would be another Hollywood hack writting about a super virus with mutated nutrinos that kill everyone.

DevoutlyApathetic

This movie was very nicely done, wonderfully acted and just a bit dry. I enjoyed it but I suspect most people are going to be nonplussed by it, at best.

emnmnme wrote:

How does this movie compare to Outbreak? That movie was jam-packed with stars: Hoffman, Sutherland, Freeman, Spacey, etc.

This one features events that might actually occur. Corollary: There isn't really a single "Action Sequence" at any point.

Neaden wrote:

Invisible wrote:

I believe it was CNN that had an article interviewing a Dr from the CDC who worked as a consultant for the film. He essentially said he refused to work on it unless it had realistic science. Not perfect, like timelines for vaccines were sped up, but enough that it wasn't something that was completely implausible.

I haven't seen the movie but from what I've read the timeline for vaccines wasn't really sped up from a scientific aspect, it is just that in the movie the virus is bad enough that they skip the trials and most of the safety testing.

I've helpfully added spoiler tags. It might be a good idea when discussing plot points you heard about.

More on the above but super spoiler-y:

They had sequenced the virus within a day or two....that seems pretty unlikely. I completely admit that have no practical knowledge of this stuff but that would be pretty damn fast considering their sequencing also gave them the ability to create a 3D model of the virus. From what I know the way the proteins fold is an incredibly important thing and takes a while for even very fast computers to work out. They had tried upwards of 60 possible vaccines within 30 days of outbreak and I think they didn't even get to start such testing until week 2.

Unrelated: I kinda wanted the medical personnel who were highly trained in handing contagions who were idiots with protocol to die. They didn't, I shouldn't be surprised but it's a little annoying given how well the rest of the film was done.

B:L

emnmnme wrote:

How does this movie compare to Outbreak? That movie was jam-packed with stars: Hoffman, Sutherland, Freeman, Spacey, etc.

You forgot Cuba Gooding, Jr.

Melkster

DevoutlyApathetic wrote:

More on the above but super spoiler-y:

Unrelated: I kinda wanted the medical personnel who were highly trained in handing contagions who were idiots with protocol to die. They didn't, I shouldn't be surprised but it's a little annoying given how well the rest of the film was done.

Hmm, didn't Kate Winslet's character? Or were you thinking of someone else

Also, unrelated: Did anyone else see it this weekend? Anyone else as satisfied with it as I was?

tbloxham

Wow, does this movie actually have a real catastrophic virus style story? So, with a death rate less than 50% or other realistic characteristics like a virus which could cause a global pandemic would have? If so maybe I'll actually go see it!

I was sure from the trailer it was going to be some '100% fatality rate, 6 week infectious but not symptomatic, all possible forms of transmission and stable outside the body for 8 weeks' crap.

If they wanted me to believe it was a serious movie, they really should have said "this could kill 2/3 of us all" or something like that in the trailer.

DevoutlyApathetic

Melkster wrote:

DevoutlyApathetic wrote:

More on the above but super spoiler-y:

Unrelated: I kinda wanted the medical personnel who were highly trained in handing contagions who were idiots with protocol to die. They didn't, I shouldn't be surprised but it's a little annoying given how well the rest of the film was done.

Hmm, didn't Kate Winslet's character? Or were you thinking of someone else

I didn't remember her doing anything stupid, she was just in the same locale as the break out and incidental contact ended up getting her.

I was thinking of the San Fran guy who figured out how to grow it or the CDC leader who skipped his own vaccination (and to a lesser extent Ms "I'm my own test case!" but I forgive that for the awesome story).

tbloxham wrote:

Wow, does this movie actually have a real catastrophic virus style story? So, with a death rate less than 50% or other realistic characteristics like a virus which could cause a global pandemic would have? If so maybe I'll actually go see it!

On death rate:

The number is in the low to mid 20's. Infection to death is a couple days which is probably a little too short really. I would think it would be too likely to burn itself out.

Forar

I've been tempted to see this, but it mostly looks like Outbreak: 2011 edition.

Not that it's a bad thing, as I enjoyed Outbreak (and note, I'm saying this partially in jest; I'm aware that this takes the spread of the virus and the resulting casualties to a level Outbreak never even looked at) but I've been waiting to hear if it was any good before committing myself to seeing it.

Styrofoam Sammich

What's the premise? Super bug?

DevoutlyApathetic

Eh. Only in the same way the Spanish Flu was a super bug.

Melkster

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

What's the premise? Super bug?

No, it's not a super bug. More details on the virus, but it's spoiler-y:

It's not a super bug like weaponized smallpox or something. It's a virus that kills around 20% of it's victims within 5-10 days or so, like the Spanish Flu. Modern society and our ease of travel gave it the mobility it needed to become a global epidemic. As someone else said, this probably should have fizzled out, and likely WOULD have burned itself out a century or two ago.

Styrofoam Sammich

So its less about the disease itself and more about the panic and social damage it causes?

Melkster

Forar wrote:

I've been tempted to see this, but it mostly looks like Outbreak: 2011 edition.

Not that it's a bad thing, as I enjoyed Outbreak (and note, I'm saying this partially in jest; I'm aware that this takes the spread of the virus and the resulting casualties to a level Outbreak never even looked at) but I've been waiting to hear if it was any good before committing myself to seeing it.

It's good. Really, really good.

Styrofoam Sammich

Also this is what I first thought of when I saw the cast.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0817230/

Modern Man

As terrorism goes, a potential biological attack kind of freaks me out. It's the only type of attack that is lethal to more than just people unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But I guess the flip side is that it's also one of the tougher types of terrorism to pull off.

Melkster

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

So its less about the disease itself and more about the panic and social damage it causes?

It's about all that -- the nature of the virus, and immunology, virology, and epidemiology in general -- plus it's effect on society. There's quite a bit of education in the film. They explain what R0 pronounced "R-nought" is, for example, when one of the characters gives a little introduction at one point. We learn about how some past pandemics were dealt with.

It's a smart movie, designed for a smart, curious audience, I think.

Bobble

Styrofoam Sammich wrote:

So its less about the disease itself and more about the panic and social damage it causes?

Largely, yes. There were several moments where I said to myself "man, never thought of that, but it makes sense." Some scary stuff.

edit- and yeah, as Melk points out, the science is there too. I thought it balanced both pretty well, though the social aspect is something you might not expect if you're just thinking "epidemic movie" going in.

wandering

You guys are making this sound interesting! Also I just found out it is directed by Soderbergh.

Atomika

Just got back, and I really enjoyed it, but there was some really off things that I couldn't let go.

- First of all, when the pandemic hits, the mass-triage field hospitals conspicuously hand out blankets to all the sick patients. Even Kate Winslet's character, who is this brainy infectious-disease doctor, is frequently seen wrapped up in blankets. Now, I know this isn't common knowledge for everyone, since I see it regularly done in my line of work by people who don't know better, but the worst thing you can do for a febrile illness is wrap yourself up and get warmer. It's really simple: the warmer you make yourself, the higher your temperature gets, and the faster the illness runs its course and spreads. If you want to get well, you make yourself as cold as you can stand. Given how not-dumb the science was in this movie, a miss this big was really distracting.

- The movie takes a concerted effort to show the effect on civilization that such a pandemic would have, complete with scenes of empty businesses and streets and trash piling up everywhere. Yet everyone's cellphones kept working, everyone's power stayed on, and everyone's plumbing flushed just fine. In the interest of reality, it would have been nice to see everyone losing the contact that we take for granted these days from phones and TV, and turning their backyards into outhouses.

Melkster

Atomic Ross wrote:

Just got back, and I really enjoyed it, but there was some really off things that I couldn't let go.

- First of all, when the pandemic hits, the mass-triage field hospitals conspicuously hand out blankets to all the sick patients. Even Kate Winslet's character, who is this brainy infectious-disease doctor, is frequently seen wrapped up in blankets. Now, I know this isn't common knowledge for everyone, since I see it regularly done in my line of work by people who don't know better, but the worst thing you can do for a febrile illness is wrap yourself up and get warmer. It's really simple: the warmer you make yourself, the higher your temperature gets, and the faster the illness runs its course and spreads. If you want to get well, you make yourself as cold as you can stand. Given how not-dumb the science was in this movie, a miss this big was really distracting.

- The movie takes a concerted effort to show the effect on civilization that such a pandemic would have, complete with scenes of empty businesses and streets and trash piling up everywhere. Yet everyone's cellphones kept working, everyone's power stayed on, and everyone's plumbing flushed just fine. In the interest of reality, it would have been nice to see everyone losing the contact that we take for granted these days from phones and TV, and turning their backyards into outhouses.

The cell phone thing is something I wondered about too. That being said, the pandemic didn't kill but like, what, 20% of the people infected with it? And the government, hospital system, CDC, etc., was still working throughout the pandemic. And I wonder what kind of maintenance is really needed on cell phone systems to keep them going. I also wonder what kind of priority the government placed on keeping modern lines of communication -- cell phones, television, etc -- open. If I were the government, I'd place communication right up there with finding and distributing a vaccine. Especially seeing as how education about the disease probably saved more lives than the vaccine itself.

The blanket thing: I wasn't aware that your fever actually INCREASES the rate at which your infection takes hold of your body. That would be news to me. I looked up some stuff on the internet, and I wasn't able to find any supporting documentation for that idea.

i.e.,

"Fever is a common problem in the critically ill. Many of the questions related to treatment of fever have not been answered. The most basic question, whether or not to treat fever in critically ill patients, has not been answered. Studies in animals suggest that fever is an adaptive response to infection. Studies in humans have shown that fever increases metabolic and cardiovascular demands, but none of these have suggested conclusively that fever during infection improves the outcome of infection."
http://classic.aacn.org/AACN/jrnlajcc.nsf/0/3e9104da59c836d5882566f000834b10?OpenDocument

And this interesting discussion on another web forum about giving blankets to ferbile patients. Seems to be a matter of debate: http://allnurses.com/emergency-nursing/fever-vs-warm-410248-page2.html

Atomika

Melkster wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Just got back, and I really enjoyed it, but there was some really off things that I couldn't let go.

- First of all, when the pandemic hits, the mass-triage field hospitals conspicuously hand out blankets to all the sick patients. Even Kate Winslet's character, who is this brainy infectious-disease doctor, is frequently seen wrapped up in blankets. Now, I know this isn't common knowledge for everyone, since I see it regularly done in my line of work by people who don't know better, but the worst thing you can do for a febrile illness is wrap yourself up and get warmer. It's really simple: the warmer you make yourself, the higher your temperature gets, and the faster the illness runs its course and spreads. If you want to get well, you make yourself as cold as you can stand. Given how not-dumb the science was in this movie, a miss this big was really distracting.

- The movie takes a concerted effort to show the effect on civilization that such a pandemic would have, complete with scenes of empty businesses and streets and trash piling up everywhere. Yet everyone's cellphones kept working, everyone's power stayed on, and everyone's plumbing flushed just fine. In the interest of reality, it would have been nice to see everyone losing the contact that we take for granted these days from phones and TV, and turning their backyards into outhouses.

The cell phone thing is something I wondered about too. That being said, the pandemic didn't kill but like, what, 20% of the people infected with it? And the government, hospital system, CDC, etc., was still working throughout the pandemic. And I wonder what kind of maintenance is really needed on cell phone systems to keep them going. I also wonder what kind of priority the government placed on keeping modern lines of communication -- cell phones, television, etc -- open. If I were the government, I'd place communication right up there with finding and distributing a vaccine. Especially seeing as how education about the disease probably saved more lives than the vaccine itself.

The blanket thing: I wasn't aware that your fever actually INCREASES the rate at which your infection takes hold of your body. That would be news to me. I looked up some stuff on the internet, and I wasn't able to find any supporting documentation for that idea.

i.e.,

"Fever is a common problem in the critically ill. Many of the questions related to treatment of fever have not been answered. The most basic question, whether or not to treat fever in critically ill patients, has not been answered. Studies in animals suggest that fever is an adaptive response to infection. Studies in humans have shown that fever increases metabolic and cardiovascular demands, but none of these have suggested conclusively that fever during infection improves the outcome of infection."
http://classic.aacn.org/AACN/jrnlajcc.nsf/0/3e9104da59c836d5882566f000834b10?OpenDocument

And this interesting discussion on another web forum about giving blankets to ferbile patients. Seems to be a matter of debate: http://allnurses.com/emergency-nursing/fever-vs-warm-410248-page2.html

This is taken from the NIH website:

When trying to lower a fever:

Do NOT bundle up someone who has the chills.
Remove excess clothing or blankets. The room should be comfortable, not too hot or cool. Try one layer of lightweight clothing, and one lightweight blanket for sleep. If the room is hot or stuffy, a fan may help.

A lukewarm bath or sponge bath may help cool someone with a fever. This is especially effective after medication is given -- otherwise the temperature might bounce right back up.
Do NOT use cold baths, ice, or alcohol rubs. These cool the skin, but often make the situation worse by causing shivering, which raises the core body temperature.

Fever during an illness is generally thought to be the body's attempt at increasing vasodilation and metabolism to increase the speed and efficacy of histamine responses and antibodies to fight whatever virulence is attacking the immune system. It's why you generally never know about the hundreds of biological attacks made on your body daily, because slight alterations in temperature and bloodflow keep those systems in check. It's when your body has a particularly tough or novel strain that it gets stupid and goes, "Hey, let's just keep raising the temperature until everything gets better! That'll work!"

And then your proteins start to denature and your body liquefies from the inside out.

Etiowsa

Atomic Ross wrote:

Melkster wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Just got back, and I really enjoyed it, but there was some really off things that I couldn't let go.

- First of all, when the pandemic hits, the mass-triage field hospitals conspicuously hand out blankets to all the sick patients. Even Kate Winslet's character, who is this brainy infectious-disease doctor, is frequently seen wrapped up in blankets. Now, I know this isn't common knowledge for everyone, since I see it regularly done in my line of work by people who don't know better, but the worst thing you can do for a febrile illness is wrap yourself up and get warmer. It's really simple: the warmer you make yourself, the higher your temperature gets, and the faster the illness runs its course and spreads. If you want to get well, you make yourself as cold as you can stand. Given how not-dumb the science was in this movie, a miss this big was really distracting.

- The movie takes a concerted effort to show the effect on civilization that such a pandemic would have, complete with scenes of empty businesses and streets and trash piling up everywhere. Yet everyone's cellphones kept working, everyone's power stayed on, and everyone's plumbing flushed just fine. In the interest of reality, it would have been nice to see everyone losing the contact that we take for granted these days from phones and TV, and turning their backyards into outhouses.

The cell phone thing is something I wondered about too. That being said, the pandemic didn't kill but like, what, 20% of the people infected with it? And the government, hospital system, CDC, etc., was still working throughout the pandemic. And I wonder what kind of maintenance is really needed on cell phone systems to keep them going. I also wonder what kind of priority the government placed on keeping modern lines of communication -- cell phones, television, etc -- open. If I were the government, I'd place communication right up there with finding and distributing a vaccine. Especially seeing as how education about the disease probably saved more lives than the vaccine itself.

The blanket thing: I wasn't aware that your fever actually INCREASES the rate at which your infection takes hold of your body. That would be news to me. I looked up some stuff on the internet, and I wasn't able to find any supporting documentation for that idea.

i.e.,

"Fever is a common problem in the critically ill. Many of the questions related to treatment of fever have not been answered. The most basic question, whether or not to treat fever in critically ill patients, has not been answered. Studies in animals suggest that fever is an adaptive response to infection. Studies in humans have shown that fever increases metabolic and cardiovascular demands, but none of these have suggested conclusively that fever during infection improves the outcome of infection."
http://classic.aacn.org/AACN/jrnlajcc.nsf/0/3e9104da59c836d5882566f000834b10?OpenDocument

And this interesting discussion on another web forum about giving blankets to ferbile patients. Seems to be a matter of debate: http://allnurses.com/emergency-nursing/fever-vs-warm-410248-page2.html

This is taken from the NIH website:

When trying to lower a fever:

Do NOT bundle up someone who has the chills.
Remove excess clothing or blankets. The room should be comfortable, not too hot or cool. Try one layer of lightweight clothing, and one lightweight blanket for sleep. If the room is hot or stuffy, a fan may help.

A lukewarm bath or sponge bath may help cool someone with a fever. This is especially effective after medication is given -- otherwise the temperature might bounce right back up.
Do NOT use cold baths, ice, or alcohol rubs. These cool the skin, but often make the situation worse by causing shivering, which raises the core body temperature.

Fever during an illness is generally thought to be the body's attempt at increasing vasodilation and metabolism to increase the speed and efficacy of histamine responses and antibodies to fight whatever virulence is attacking the immune system. It's why you generally never know about the hundreds of biological attacks made on your body daily, because slight alterations in temperature and bloodflow keep those systems in check. It's when your body has a particularly tough or novel strain that it gets stupid and goes, "Hey, let's just keep raising the temperature until everything gets better! That'll work!"

And then your proteins start to denature and your body liquefies from the inside out.

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Atomika

Etiowsa wrote:

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Even then, there was a scene where a guy under several blankets asked one of the nurses for more blankets because "he was freezing" and the nurse went as fast as she could to get him more. And Kate Winslet's character was all wrapped up in blankets at her hotel room.

Winter is the ideal time to get a febrile disease. Your core temperature is your core temperature, how you "feel" has nothing to do with it. If you've got a hanger full of people with temperatures of 103 and it's the middle of a northern winter, open those doors up and turn the fans on. You have to get pretty cold internally before you start having adverse biological effects like frostbite.

SanderJK

I just saw this. Overall it's pretty impressive, a lot more realistic than I'd ever expect, and it has a lot of impact due to it. You aren't quite sure where it's leading because it isn't a hollywood story, but a projection.

Of course, everyone loves to point out mistakes, and I know a thing or two about proteins...
(exciting stuff about proteins follows!)

In the real world, you are not going to have a 3D model of a protein in 7 days. There are only two ways to get a tertiary structure currently, via 3D NMR or X-Ray spectroscopy. You can't do it from scratch with just modelling. Both methods require growing the protein in relatively high amounts, and then arduous work begins. The way they showed it, with two proteins interacting, is even harder to get. Getting the sequence isn't that difficult. Getting the approriate 3D NMRs... that takes nearly a week for the least sensitive measurements alone (and you need a series of measurements, maybe 3 weeks for a full set on the best NMRs available). That's after you somehow synthesise and purify the protein, and before you start the gigantic puzzle of turning a jumble of data into a bag distance constraints, and then run that through some supercomputer to optimize it.
I know less about Xray, but it involves making a crystal of the protein, which is timeconsuming and a bit of crapshoot. Then you have to take it to a synchroton, get a pile of data, and work your way back to the structure.

I'd say a dedicated team with loads of resources, working on a protein they don't know, but already have a path to synthesise.... maybe 2 months. (Though technology moves fast, my experience is about 5 years old and at undergrad level).

They did use a real 3D model of a protein though, which alone was pretty baffling.

The strange thing is that the whole model was a bit of dead end... it didn't seem like they used much of it in towards the vaccine.

Paladin

Atomic Ross wrote:

Etiowsa wrote:

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Even then, there was a scene where a guy under several blankets asked one of the nurses for more blankets because "he was freezing" and the nurse went as fast as she could to get him more. And Kate Winslet's character was all wrapped up in blankets at her hotel room.

Winter is the ideal time to get a febrile disease. Your core temperature is your core temperature, how you "feel" has nothing to do with it. If you've got a hanger full of people with temperatures of 103 and it's the middle of a northern winter, open those doors up and turn the fans on. You have to get pretty cold internally before you start having adverse biological effects like frostbite.

doesn't being somewhat cold decrease immune surveillance and open you up to opportunistic infections over the ones you already have? I mean, yeah you don't bake a fever, but you don't go skinny dipping either

TheGerbil

SanderJK wrote:

I just saw this. Overall it's pretty impressive, a lot more realistic than I'd ever expect, and it has a lot of impact due to it. You aren't quite sure where it's leading because it isn't a hollywood story, but a projection.

Of course, everyone loves to point out mistakes, and I know a thing or two about proteins...
(exciting stuff about proteins follows!)

In the real world, you are not going to have a 3D model of a protein in 7 days. There are only two ways to get a tertiary structure currently, via 3D NMR or X-Ray spectroscopy. You can't do it from scratch with just modelling. Both methods require growing the protein in relatively high amounts, and then arduous work begins. The way they showed it, with two proteins interacting, is even harder to get. Getting the sequence isn't that difficult. Getting the approriate 3D NMRs... that takes nearly a week for the least sensitive measurements alone (and you need a series of measurements, maybe 3 weeks for a full set on the best NMRs available). That's after you somehow synthesise and purify the protein, and before you start the gigantic puzzle of turning a jumble of data into a bag distance constraints, and then run that through some supercomputer to optimize it.
I know less about Xray, but it involves making a crystal of the protein, which is timeconsuming and a bit of crapshoot. Then you have to take it to a synchroton, get a pile of data, and work your way back to the structure.

I'd say a dedicated team with loads of resources, working on a protein they don't know, but already have a path to synthesise.... maybe 2 months. (Though technology moves fast, my experience is about 5 years old and at undergrad level).

They did use a real 3D model of a protein though, which alone was pretty baffling.

The strange thing is that the whole model was a bit of dead end... it didn't seem like they used much of it in towards the vaccine.

I work on protein expression and 3D mapping, that is what I do in the lab. We usually work on the order of months. To get a really good 3D map of a new protein would probably take a minimum of 1-2 weeks IF everything worked absolutely perfectly. Which it never does. The best bet would be to take a homologous viral protein and create a homologous model using a computer and start from there whilst you are working on actual X-ray spec or NMR. But still the speed at which they had it was a little too quick.

Atomika

Paladin wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Etiowsa wrote:

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Even then, there was a scene where a guy under several blankets asked one of the nurses for more blankets because "he was freezing" and the nurse went as fast as she could to get him more. And Kate Winslet's character was all wrapped up in blankets at her hotel room.

Winter is the ideal time to get a febrile disease. Your core temperature is your core temperature, how you "feel" has nothing to do with it. If you've got a hanger full of people with temperatures of 103 and it's the middle of a northern winter, open those doors up and turn the fans on. You have to get pretty cold internally before you start having adverse biological effects like frostbite.

doesn't being somewhat cold decrease immune surveillance and open you up to opportunistic infections over the ones you already have? I mean, yeah you don't bake a fever, but you don't go skinny dipping either

Being biologically stressed, period, decreases your immune response, but the adverse effects of a contagion on a colder body with lower metabolic rates will almost always be preferable to that of a warm body.

Extra heat = extra oxygen demand = extra stress on the body.

Salvation122

Atomic Ross wrote:

Etiowsa wrote:

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Even then, there was a scene where a guy under several blankets asked one of the nurses for more blankets because "he was freezing" and the nurse went as fast as she could to get him more.

That's not quite how I remember it:

I'm pretty sure the nurse/nun said "I'm sorry, we're out," and then he begged, and then she made consoling noises and booked it the fuck out of there because yeah. I'm certain that he didn't get another blanket from staff; Winslet kind of weakly tossed hers at him.

And Kate Winslet's character was all wrapped up in blankets at her hotel room.

Well, that scene lasted for about ten minutes after she woke up with a fever. Pretty sure I'd instinctively curl up in my little blanket-nest if I broke into a fever while I was asleep too.

Atomika

Salvation122 wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Etiowsa wrote:

The blankets make a bit more sense if you consider the fact that they were in a huge, outdoor facility in the middle of winter. I think they were just trying to keep them from freezing to death.

Even then, there was a scene where a guy under several blankets asked one of the nurses for more blankets because "he was freezing" and the nurse went as fast as she could to get him more.

That's not quite how I remember it:

I'm pretty sure the nurse/nun said "I'm sorry, we're out," and then he begged, and then she made consoling noises and booked it the fuck out of there because yeah. I'm certain that he didn't get another blanket from staff; Winslet kind of weakly tossed hers at him.

And Kate Winslet's character was all wrapped up in blankets at her hotel room.

Well, that scene lasted for about ten minutes after she woke up with a fever. Pretty sure I'd instinctively curl up in my little blanket-nest if I broke into a fever while I was asleep too.

I think the bigger issue at large is that the movie uses a febrile illness prominently, but ignores the proper basic protocols for convalescence or goes against them outright.

It's probably my one and only nitpick about this film's use of science and medicine, but it's so glaring to me that it took me out of the film. Otherwise it was a great flick.