Monday, December 5, 2016

The rapid spread of Ebola and the not so rapid response

The Ebola virus disease formally known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever is often fatal for humans. It is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads within the human population based on human-to human transmission. The first Ebola outbreak was reported in 1976 with 2 outbreaks, one in Sudan and the other in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2014 there was an outbreak in West Africa labeled the “largest and most complex Ebola outbreak since the Ebola virus was first discovered in 1976”. Various countries were affected by this outbreak including Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, all of which have very weak health systems, lack human and infrastructural resources and have only recently surfaced from long periods of conflict and instability.
The World Health Organization is part of the United Nations and has a mandate to help governments coordinate their response to outbreaks. The WHO states on its website that it aims to prevent Ebola outbreaks by maintaining surveillance of the virus and supporting at risk countries in preparedness plans, however, in the 2014 outbreak there was a global failure to stop it. The WHO left the response coordination in the hands of its Guinea officials who had no experience with Ebola. The only way to contain Ebola as stated in Outbreak is to isolate the infected, monitor anyone who had contact with the sick and safely burry the deceased. It required a level of manpower and coordination beyond the resources of Doctors without Borders. This scarcity of workers who were willing to treat victims with Ebola made for a small team willing to do the work and therefore resulted in more work to do for those select few.
Daily meetings were held and organized, but they were ineffective and a waste of time because no decisions were reached. The WHO eventually declared Ebola as an international crisis for fear it could spread globally. Ebola represented a dangerous pathogen growing at an exponential rate over a vast area. The WHO had no budget or standing army to combat this problem and had to rely on other wealthy countries to send people who could help, which took a very long time.
In my opinion, a disease of this magnitude automatically becomes a national security issue if it is transcending borders. The fact that the WHO declared Ebola an international crisis highlights just how difficult it was to contain the disease and how quickly it was spreading. In a case like this protecting just within one’s borders is not an option. When a disease is spreading quickly into several different regions it must be stopped altogether or else it will keep spreading. After watching Outbreak it is difficult to comprehend how some sort of plan isn’t in place to prevent a worldwide outbreak of a disease. Diseases are certainly not a new concept and so one would imagine there would be measures in place in case a large epidemic had to be stopped. Though each disease must be treated slightly differently it is important to have a model to go by in case an outbreak needs to be contained.

Sources:

“Ebola Virus Disease.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

"FRONTLINE." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016.

Post by: Hedvig Blanco

  

5 comments:

  1. I like your argument that a disease should be considered a national security issue if it transcends borders. I am curious what you think would be a good model to have in place in cases of a disease outbreak. I think maybe the reason there isn't one is because of all the obstacles in dealing with so many nations regarding the same issue. Each country is going to want different things and I think that is what complicates the issue and why there isn't a set plan, however, I agree with you that there should be one.

    Brianna Arnold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know what kind of model I would set up in order to have better control over a disease outbreak, but I would try to set up some sort of disease surveillance system whether within the WHO or another organization that provides early detection of infectious diseases. To address the challenge there after some sort of committee that establishes protocols for dealing with isolating or treating people would have to be set up. An international fund for events like this could be another option, however, a committee would have to be established to determine distribution of funds. In retrospect, it seems very difficult to set up some plan without having an unhappy party, given that some countries have more vulnerability to diseases and others have a more significant amount of funds at their finger tips. While setting a plan may be a difficult task to come up with and deliberate over it is something I think is necessary given the number of tragedies and panic that result from not having one in place.

      Post by Hedvig Blanco

      Delete
  2. I like how you argued that this should be a national security. I think it is important to note that WHO did not do much in order to prevent Ebola from spreading. This is also a major threat to human security.

    Chirusha de Mel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that human security is also of concern in regards to the Ebola case. The lack of resources of food, water, sanitation and doctors to the people who were sick are things of major concern. In addition, lack of medicine and room for all the people that needed to be treated shows that the response to Ebola was one they were not prepared for as many people were left to die because they couldn't receive proper attention.

      Post by Hedvig Blanco

      Delete
  3. I like the argument you presented in this piece. I do feel that it should be a national security issue. This is not only because of what you said, but also because of how immediate it was. It was spreading exponentially, and the world had to do something about it.

    -Dom Dellamano

    ReplyDelete