16 Oct '14 01:24>
This has been discussed, although not very rationally, over in debates - I felt we could look at the problem more scientifically. My feeling is that this disease is a serious worry. It has a huge mortality rate - I've heard measles described as a real killer and the mortality rate is 0.3% [1] - this has a mortality rate of over 50%. I think it's been demonstrated that it is easily spread and the problems they've had in Texas and Spain show that first world medical services can be caught off guard and struggle with it.
One issue is what is the correct response to an affected region. Closing borders has made things worse. It has meant that aid workers cannot gain access, so the disease entrenches itself more. Also cross border trade collapsed in the affected countries driving food prices through the roof. There was an interesting article on the BBC website [2] about how mobile phone use data has given a picture of people's movement, giving the medical services information about where to intervene and control the potential transmission of the disease.
The big worry with this disease is that it evolves rather fast. They are RNA viruses which do not copy themselves very precisely. The nightmare scenario is that the virus could become airborne [3][4], at which point disease transmission will be very difficult to stop. From what I've read this is regarded as highly unlikely, there are no documented cases in any viral disease, but not impossible. Other bad scenarios include the disease reaching and becoming endemic within a mega-city like Lagos or Kinshasa.
I think there are two basic angles of attack. One is systems - had the WHO had the authority and funding to step in earlier the initial spread of the disease could have been prevented. The local hospitals seem to have quickly become overwhelmed, so possibly a better approach would be for temporary WHO hospitals to cope with ebola and the local medical services to do their usual work.
The other angle is medical technology, and a vaccine. There is an untested one, which is encouraging, but if there were a reliable one then the whole situation would be perfectly controllable. So the big question is should they try pre-emptive vaccination of the population in the affected regions - assuming there is enough vaccine. There are two dangers, one is that it is ineffective which is only a problem if it leads to complacency. The other, more serious problem is that the vaccine could come with adverse effects.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Epidemiology
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29617831
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/
[4] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/13/read-this-to-get-a-better-understanding-of-how-ebola-spreads/
I recommend the reuters article. It explains what is meant by airborne and what the evidence is quite well without melodrama.
One issue is what is the correct response to an affected region. Closing borders has made things worse. It has meant that aid workers cannot gain access, so the disease entrenches itself more. Also cross border trade collapsed in the affected countries driving food prices through the roof. There was an interesting article on the BBC website [2] about how mobile phone use data has given a picture of people's movement, giving the medical services information about where to intervene and control the potential transmission of the disease.
The big worry with this disease is that it evolves rather fast. They are RNA viruses which do not copy themselves very precisely. The nightmare scenario is that the virus could become airborne [3][4], at which point disease transmission will be very difficult to stop. From what I've read this is regarded as highly unlikely, there are no documented cases in any viral disease, but not impossible. Other bad scenarios include the disease reaching and becoming endemic within a mega-city like Lagos or Kinshasa.
I think there are two basic angles of attack. One is systems - had the WHO had the authority and funding to step in earlier the initial spread of the disease could have been prevented. The local hospitals seem to have quickly become overwhelmed, so possibly a better approach would be for temporary WHO hospitals to cope with ebola and the local medical services to do their usual work.
The other angle is medical technology, and a vaccine. There is an untested one, which is encouraging, but if there were a reliable one then the whole situation would be perfectly controllable. So the big question is should they try pre-emptive vaccination of the population in the affected regions - assuming there is enough vaccine. There are two dangers, one is that it is ineffective which is only a problem if it leads to complacency. The other, more serious problem is that the vaccine could come with adverse effects.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Epidemiology
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29617831
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/12/health/ebola-airborne/
[4] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/13/read-this-to-get-a-better-understanding-of-how-ebola-spreads/
I recommend the reuters article. It explains what is meant by airborne and what the evidence is quite well without melodrama.