I'll never get the irony of the USA spending untold millions in Israel to kill thousands of Palestinians and then untold millions in Africa to try and save thousands.
I suppose ultimately it is all about greed and self-preservation.
What goes around eventually comes around ..... there is a virus around the corner with all our names on it. If this one don't get us the next one will.
If I was IS I would be sending all the overseas combatants back home from Syria via Liberia or Sierra Leone .... imagine the death toll then.

What I don't get is how the CDC can say things like "there is a low risk to anyone who was on the flight with Amber Vinson of catching the disease" I hear so much about how you need to come into direct contact with body fluids to transmit the disease, yet that doesn't seem to add up with the rapid spread of the disease. In Africa where there is a much lower standard of healthcare I can see how that would be a problem (specifically with protective gear and proper waste disposal) but here in the U.S. I don't see how a virus that isn't airborne and can't survive long outside a living host could spread on a large scale.

The Ebola flowchart in this article neatly sums up how nervous I am about Ebola:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/30/6875459/calm-down-youre-not-going-to-get-ebola

Is Ebola scary? Hell yes. Should we be spending money to find a cure? Hell yes (incidentally, China may have found one). Should we be scared for it jumping over anytime soon? Nope. But left unchecked in Africa it may become too much to handle later on.

I'm not an infectious disease expert but as I understand it, the difference between Ebola and say HIV is that 1) Ebola is present in blood, genital fluids, sweat, tears, and saliva, whereas HIV is present to an infectious level only in the first two; and 2) Ebola is a much more hearty virus and can remain infectious on fomites for a much longer period. Thus, that dude that sneezed in the bathroom and opened the lavatory door without washing his hands before you went in...

Good article MoW. I would think that it's hard to give a firm "No" to question 1 on the article flow chart, especially if you were on that flight from Dallas to Cleveland.

Yeah, that was a horrible breach of code. But still, odds are pretty good that nobody on the flight is in any danger. And even then, isolated cases != outbreak.

Again, I'm much more concerned at the sheer scale of the outbreak in Africa. The loss of life there is horrible, entire communities being devastated to the point of kicking out aid workers because 'wherever they turn up, Ebola follows'. If that pace continues, it will be impossible to contain before long.

If you ask me, that's where we need to put our resources: get it contained in Africa asap.

Where does Ebola go between outbreaks? It's having a lot of success now, and it's had it's moments in the past, but what does it get up to in its wilderness years?

I think the current theory is that fruit bats in central Africa act as a host for the virus in dormant periods, although human/bat contact is pretty rare, contact with other wild animals that have come into contact with bats (gorillas, chimps, antelope) is thought to be the primary means of transmission from animal to human.

Good article MoW. I would think that it's hard to give a firm "No" to question 1 on the article flow chart, especially if you were on that flight from Dallas to Cleveland.

Sorry about the duplicate post. Good question about the reservoir of the virus between outbreaks. Another theory is that people are continually exposed to the virus, but occasionally get exposed to a mutated strain that more readily infects the new host (in this case humans). This also may explain why outbreaks vary in intensity and scope. This particular mutation is more transmissible than previous mutations. So I'll bet the virus never "goes away" and then comes back, rather is changes and the new viral mutant causes disease.

Even if it is hard to give a firm no, there is so much awareness regarding this issue that most people will know if they potentially came in contact with the disease and they will hopefully seek treatment before they start showing symptoms. The real concern is people travelling over from Africa. I don't understand why a travel ban hasn't been put in place yet.

@thdfrance: Even in Africa, the outbreak isnt severe enough yet to need a blanket travel ban. However, this is exactly my point; at this rate it soon will be.

@2wl/OB GYN: I understood that certain West African peoples use bats for bushmeat, and that some outbreaks have been traced to that. Also, IIRC, the strain currently making the rounds is actually a strain from Congo - so as of yet not clear why/how it made the jump.

Because, let's face it, we don't know shit about the Congo.

Ebola hasn't really changed much, if at all, in its existence. There are a few identified strains of the virus, and the current "Zaire" strain is the most virile and infectious.

As far as a travel ban goes, the US could easily stop flights from Guinea and Liberia, but those people who are serious about getting to the US can simply fly out of a country without a travel ban. It makes tracking those passengers much more difficult.

"we don't know shit about the Congo."

A million +1s

@TMoW: But at what point do we consider a blanket travel ban? This question isn't ebola specific, but how much protocol is there really to protect against the spread of these diseases? Like you said, at this rate the outbreak will soon be severe, so shouldn't we look at options to insulate ourselves as soon as possible? Look at the way Bolivia turned away the possibly infected cruise ship earlier today. Article link below.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/17/dallas-lab-worker-quarantined-aboard-cruise-ship-other-passengers-stranded/

Do we know how much more transmissible it is? Is it an equal opportunities virus or does it heavily favour the weak and those with underlying conditions? Can it even survive in a European winter or in nations with European standards of personal hygiene?

I think the media response to this has been pretty poor. It seems entirely focused on counting how many have died in Africa, playing "spot the carrier" in the West, and showing as many people in biological warfare suits as possible. Actual useful information is few and far between.

@2ndWhiteLine: I didn't think about the tracking element. It is a good point, but it will depend on how effective the new screening policies prove to be.

@thdfrance: Instead of burying our head in the sand, building big walls, and hoping scary things will go away - I say we take it head on.

In fact, the virus isnt _that_ hard to contain. It just takes a lot of manpower, and very simple sanitary gear and protocols (lots of em). If for every ten OB GYNs we train on increased alertness, we sent one person over there to help solve the problem, Ebola would be contained by now, or at least steadily decreasing in severity instead of increasing.

@TheMinisterOfWar: Assisting other countries is important, but a travel ban doesn't mean U.S. officials can't ramp up aid. A travel ban simply restricts the movement of civilians between the countries and helps us protect ourselves. I'm not familiar with what (if any) aid is being sent to combat the virus overseas, but I certainly wouldn't oppose that so long as it doesn't put our aid workers in harms way.

You want to know whose fault it is that Ebola has already killed thousands? Imperialism. West Africa is destitute because of it, and Ebola has only broken out because West Africa is destitute. Incidentally imperialism is also the reason rich countries need not fear an outbreak at home: we ended up with all the toys.

And, even if you want to fight out the reason why West Africa is poor, what you can't argue with is that the only reason Ebola hasn't been contained yet it is because rich countries are too stingy to commit the necessary resources to stopping it in West Africa.

"...the only reason Ebola hasn't been contained yet it is because rich countries are too stingy to commit the necessary resources to stopping it in West Africa."

Amen Thucy. Only I wish it were just stinginess; at least greed isn't blatant racism. Too often it appears, as far as the West is concerned, the main problem with Africa is that it is full of Africans.

Well, the imperialism I mentioned was chiefly justified by inventing the lie that black people are less human. So racism and the economic inequality go hand in hand.

Thucy, I would say that people didn't realize the severity of the outbreak for months, not that they were stingy. I mean, right now the US is sending over 4,000 troops over there, MSF has maxed out their resources. Its organizations such as the WHO and World Bank who kept a lid on this crisis early on. But now they're asking for $1 billion in donations to fight it and have gotten much of that pledged already.

Also, I think its more country-specific than West Africa, Thucy. Nigeria was able to handle the outbreak just fine. Senegal has done fairly well too. Its mainly Liberia and Sierra Leone where its spreading uncontained.

MSF knew back in July that it was already out of control. They begged for more help - and what did they get? Thousands more dead. It was only when it spread to Dallas and Spain that the West began to take it seriously in any meaningful sense, and we still don't. 4,000 troops? That's it? We're going to need field historians with *tens of thousands of beds* at this point. We've waited so long that responding adequately means an astronomical response. And I've already explained why we waited so long.

"Oh, some plague in Liberia? Sucks for Liberia."

This was the attitude for months and you know it.

"Oh, some plague in Liberia? Sucks for Liberia."

More like: "Where's Liberia?"

And yeah fortunately both Senegal and Nigeria had both the warning and the slightly better health systems to allow them to contain it within their counties, for the time being.

Yeah I'm quite sure most average North Americans have almost zero clue where "Guinea" might be found, what with New Guinea and Equatorial Guinea throwing them off. I bet you would get an even spread of guesses between all three brown people continents.

July was already five months after it appeared, Thucy. It wasn't until August that the WHO and World Bank really took it seriously, either. And yeah, there's only so many tasks that the troops can do without risking that they themselves will be infected. They're soldiers, not doctors and nurses. All you really need is a semi-decent health system and you can contain it. Ebola is a very slow moving virus (and we're lucky for that). Its 7 months after it broke out and still less than 10,000 have been infected. Were this as infectious as the Spanish flu, millions would be dead and there would've been a much larger response

"Oh, some plague in Liberia? Sucks for Liberia."

Yeah, that's how the response is. Because its not ever going to leave Africa in a lasting way. Just a rudimentary travel ban requiring quarantine for people coming from West Africa is enough. Colombia, Bolivia, and a few other nations have enacted them already.

And maybe it would help if they stopped attacking health workers who are just trying to do their job.