US Scientists Predict Long Battle Against Ebola

An anonymous reader writes: Despite recent advances in medicine to treat Ebola, epidemiologists are not hopeful that the outbreak in west Africa will be contained any time soon. Revised models for the disease's spread expect the outbreak to last 12 to 18 months longer, likely infecting hundreds of thousands of people. "While previous outbreaks have been largely confined to rural areas, the current epidemic, the largest ever, has reached densely populated, impoverished cities — including Monrovia, the capital of Liberia — gravely complicating efforts to control the spread of the disease. ... What worries public health officials most is that the epidemic has begun to grow exponentially in Liberia. In the most recent week reported, Liberia had nearly 400 new cases, almost double the number reported the week before. Another grave concern, the W.H.O. said, is 'evidence of substantial underreporting of cases and deaths.' The organization reported on Friday that the number of Ebola cases as of Sept. 7 was 4,366, including 2,218 deaths." Scientists are urging greater public health efforts to slow the exponential trajectory of the disease and bring it back under control.

Comments

+-2000 deaths?

[nospam007]

That's about the number of deaths measles cost us every 6 days and we've had a vaccine for that for over 50 years.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[Noah Haders]

Yeah except last month it was 1000 deaths and the month before that 500 deaths and the month before that 250 deaths.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[alen]

1918 flu killed 18 million around the world. figure around 50 million with today's population.
black plague killed 1/3 of europe and 1/3 of byzantium when it struck

point is to control it before it gets that far

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's not really polite to say so that bluntly; but the difference is that measles deaths are basically optional(1st world anti-vaxxers) or just another bad thing that happens to poor people in poor and unpleasant places. By contrast, Ebola is currently just another bad thing that happens to poor people in poor and unpleasant places; but we've got basically nothing available to do about it if it spreads beyond the usual outbreak sites(yes, unlike the usual outbreak sites, we have limited supplies of high grade medical isolation gear and some interesting experimental drugs; but nobody has enough of the cool tech to deal with an outbreak of nontrivial size, especially if they want their medical and logistical systems to continue handling routine functions and care at the same time).

There are loads of places far less poor and squalid than Liberia and the other oubreak sites; but without any good options on the table it wouldn't take long to run through your supply of isolation wards and fancy positive-pressure protective suits even in the most upmarket first world locations with well regarded research hospitals and such, were the population to be affected.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[rmdingler]

Yes. Exponential doubling of mortality is a concern, especially since the virus has reached urban areas in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.

For any who are tempted by the comforting thought that this remains an African Problem, remember that the longer the virus replicates inside a host species, the more chances there are for a favorable mutation to take hold.

Favorable for the virus.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[alen]

imagine 1/3 of the USA or the first world dying? that's not only a decades long economic depression that will follow, it will mean a huge impact onto your quality of life as people who make all your stuff from the food you eat to your electricity to gasoline die, you will have to learn how to survive on your own. grow your own food, etc

Re: +-2000 deaths?

[dgatwood]

Ebola may not be easy to transmit, but it sure as heck isn't hard to transmit. It's not pedantically known to be airborne, but it is believed to be spread by droplets (e.g. sneezes). There's a very, very, very fine line between the two.

And yes, I can provide citations if you'd like, but it's not like they're very hard to find with a Google search.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[Daniel_Staal]

All it takes is a couple of people who 'aren't infected, just look' (there are a few days of little-to-no symptoms) to bribe some official to get on some plane or past a border check. We're a significantly more interconnected world today than even a hundred years ago - you don't need rats to spread things widely.

It's not a pandemic - yet. But it wouldn't take much for it to be one, and it would be major.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[pitchpipe]

... ebola could mutate into some superhero bug that gives people big erections.

Just like your mom.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[Daniel_Staal]

Possibly. But the short-term social disruption would not be something I'd like to witness.

And since the 'short-term' in this case is probably 'a generation or two', I'd have to be a witness. (Or dead.)

Re: +-2000 deaths?

[dgatwood]

Okay, here's a link to the research paper from 2012.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[gweihir]

No. Definitely not. Not by several orders of magnitude. Maybe look up some definitions before spouting BS?

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[geantvert]

There is no such thing as nuclear cauterization except in movies and video games.
A nuclear attack in a densely populated area would just destroy the medical infrastruture and would create thousands or millions of survivors most of them affected by radiations and so with a weakened immune system. The pandemic would spread very fast.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[Eunuchswear]

All it takes is a couple of people who 'aren't infected, just look' (there are a few days of little-to-no symptoms) to bribe some official to get on some plane or past a border check.

Except that's already happened.

In the middle of a hospital doctors strike in the receiving country.

And the receiving country was Nigeria, not a country with a first world health system.

And we've had 21 infected and 7 deaths so far.

So don't panic yet.

Re:+-2000 deaths?

[LordWabbit2]

Grow up, there is no way a nuclear cauterization would ever be condoned. Just because it's Africa and you don't give a fvck about it doesn't mean you can nuke it.

Good episode of Frontline

[Enry]

For those of you in the US, the PBS show Frontline had part of an episode dedicated to what's going on. While it is very hard to get, cultural problems there make it really easy (mourners touch the dead). People in remote villages are scared to tell doctors that they have symptoms since they'll be whisked off to the clinic, never to be seen again, just like almost everyone else that went to the clinic. In the larger cities, some nitwits are spreading the rumor that Ebola doesn't exist and the government is just trying to steal blood from the patients. So bands of people think that patents bleeding from every orifice needs to be rescued(!).

Re:Good episode of Frontline

[Anonymous Coward]

Exposure to a handful of virons has been observed to infect cells when the virons were released into the intercellular matrix - We may safely assume it will take more than five nanites to get through the thick, dry layer of dead cells we call skin. Only a few Ebola outbreaks have fatality rates of 90+%. Despite being of that dreaded Zaire lineage genetically, this one has a CFR of more like 50%.

This thing is scary enough (I'll tell you, I was scared the first time I saw the log-plot was a straight line) without any addition FUD.

Re:Nothing good...

[sillybilly]

Your ancestors came out of there around 200,000 years ago, when they climbed off the trees.

Re:Nothing good...

[umghhh]

exactly.

Re:Easy to contain

[Rich0]

Did you read the post you replied to. He wasn't suggesting anything that required anybody to comply with government orders. He basically advocated putting a big wall around the infection zones and mowing down anybody who tried to climb over.

Completely sidestepping the huge moral issues, I'm not convinced that could actually be done at a national level. At least, not for countries in Africa - there is just way too much area to try to patrol. You really need geographic barriers if you're going to do something like that for anything bigger than a city (and even a city would require a HUGE force/effort to lock down). If all the infection areas are surrounded by some natural barrier then you could make that your line of defense - people can't easily cross open deserts/etc without vehicles and those could be easily detected and destroyed from the air. Anybody who manages to make it through could probably be spotted for days in advance. Africa itself would be able to be geographically isolated if you cut off all air and shipping to the continent.

I don't see any of this happening, however.