Ebola--5 Most Disturbing Concerns
Ebola clearly presents a number of problems for humanity in general—not just for the people of Africa or third world countries. Yes, third world countries are less well-prepared than their richer, better-equipped counterparts, but history has proven that dangerous pathogens have a funny way of ignoring socio-economic boundaries.
Although fear-mongering and journalistic sensationalism is certainly not the way to go, the public does need to be told what is at stake ultimately and why Ebola is not anything to be taken lightly. Even if we look at Ebola with calm, objective eyes—making sure that our evaluations take only facts into consideration—a few of these “facts” have to be labeled as precariously astounding. Here are some examples:
1. Viruses don’t always abide by the almighty “incubation period” rule. The best that we can say is that, in most cases, those exposed to or infected with one of the Ebola strains will most probably exhibit signs/symptoms within 21 days. Is it impossible, though, for someone to be exposed to these viruses and not succumb to a diseased state or become contagious (in spite of actually having the virus in their blood) within 21 days? In short, yes. Viruses have the peculiar ability to lay low (for lack of a better term) or, to put it more scientifically, occupy cells while in dormant, latent or non-active stages. This is seen, for example, in HIV (which causes AIDS) and some other highly-contagious pathogens. Even if such latency has not yet been identified in any of the Ebola viruses, this is no guarantee that the characteristic does not exist, especially if these viruses undergo mutation. Also, in some cases, one’s immune system can actually suppress the pathogen, especially for those who are young and in good health. Whether such persons can later become infectious/contagious is not a question anyone can presently answer with complete certainty; the fact that it actually happens in any virus (e.g., HIV) is enough to say raise legitimate concerns.
2. It is irresponsible to say that animals cannot possibly transmit Ebola viruses. The government of Spain, for example, was not entirely out of line for executing Excalibur, the dog belonging to a nurse that contracted Ebola virus disease (EVD). Dogs can carry the virus. Just because a pathway of infection has not yet been established officially is no reason to assume such a pathway is not possible—especially when referring to zoonotic diseases.
3. Experts in infectious diseases have rendered opinions about Ebola that are just as irresponsible and unproven as those offered by people labeled as (scientifically unqualified) “alarmists.” One example is the claim that Ebola is definitely not airborne at this time or that it is not likely to become airborne. To make such a claim with complete scientific certainty you would have to examine all (or a statistically significant sampling of) the individual cases of Ebola thus far; you would also have to prove conclusively that the strains that have surfaced thus far are the same strains as those seen in the 70s and 80s (which apparently were not airborne) and that they have not mutated or been tampered with genetically by, say, military bio-weapons entrepreneurs or terrorists. To say that "based on what we know about viruses and the Ebola strains studied in the past, we conclude that the current Ebola strains cannot possibly be airborne” is, simply, arrogantly presumptuous. We need more time to study these recently-surfaced pathogens in the lab and through clinical studies to make any definitive assertions. Educated guesswork (even if meant to allay people’s fears) is not good science!
4. These Ebola viruses are far more infectious than government authorities either know or are letting on. Make no mistake: one of the jobs of the CDC (from a political standpoint) is to allay the fears of the American people. In doing so, however, they have to walk a very tight rope. While they insist that Ebola is not airborne and not as dangerous as, say, the flu or tuberculosis (both of which are airborne), they nevertheless prescribe level-4 containment protocols and outerwear (or so it would seem to average folks) for those in the frontlines. Why were the outbreaks handled differently in the 70s and 80s, about which the book Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC was written? This book, written by 2 doctors with first-hand experience, describes hemorrhagic disease as being more like AIDS than the flu—in other words, they don’t depict it as being as infectious (although their contagiousness has never been in question) as these Ebola strains seem to be. Have you seen AIDS workers wearing biohazard suits? Wearing such suits in a lab with pure pathogen strains is one thing but not in the field. Clearly, something is, to put it bluntly, “fishy” here—and not just because “Ebola” was named after a river in Africa.
5. While both CDC and WHO still insist that what has been seen in Africa will most probably not occur in Europe and the US, they are quick to point out that Africa’s problems may continue to escalate. Maybe the reason we are not seen more cases in the US and Europe is because these viruses have not been given enough time to make the rounds? Clearly, if, as some experts suggest, these hemorrhagic viruses (and it’s not just about the Ebola strains but about Marburg, Lassa, etc.) continue to migrate within Africa, then only a fool would suggest that such migration will not, eventually, expand to other continents. Clearly, modern globalization and other factors will make these viruses more mobile; more importantly, until the epidemics in Africa are under full control, everyone on this planet (including the “lucky ones” in developed countries) faces almost incalculable risks—this is especially true if these viruses mutate into something totally new, become airborne or turn out to have been tampered with biogenetically (even if experts consider this to be unlikely).
Conclusion
No, there is no reason to panic at this time. It seems that, thus far, developed nations can do a better job than African countries of controlling Ebola virus disease. That’s the good news.
The bad news, however, is that circumstances may change as time goes by. If WHO, the CDC, and the government agencies (here and abroad) in charge of our public health safety do the right things (including telling people the truth--not just white-washed nonsense meant to allay people’s fears), these highly-infectious pathogens can be properly managed.
If, on the other hand, important facts are overlooked, people are lied to (which usually makes things worse) or public health protocols are not implemented (should things take a major turn for the worse), then Ebola (and the other pathogens capable
of affecting humanity in many unpredictable ways) may ultimately affect us in negative ways that we can now only imagine or hope to properly anticipate.
Copyright, 2014. Fred Fletcher. All rights reserved.
References
1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/630244/virus/32752/Latency
2. http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1064.aspx?CategoryID=200&SubCategoryID=2001
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10641023
6. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141003-ebola-questions-facts-virus-health/
8. McCormick, Joseph B & Fisher-Hoch, Susan. (1996). Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC. Turner Publishing, Inc.
Related Keywords
