Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gates: Large Epidemics Need a More Agile Response

Posted by Soulskill on from the looking-to-hire-The-Flash dept.

jones_supa writes: Writing in the NY Times about the recent Ebola crisis, Bill Gates says this disease has made the world realize we are not properly prepared to deal with a global epidemic. Even if we signed up lots of experts right away, few organizations are capable of moving thousands of people, some of them infected, to different locations on the globe, with a week's notice. Data is another crucial problem. During the Ebola epidemic, the database that tracks cases has not always been accurate. This is partly because the situation is chaotic, but also because much of the case reporting has been done first on paper.

There's also our failure to invest in effective medical tools like tests, drugs and vaccines. On average, it has taken an estimated one to three days for test results to come back — an eternity when you need to quarantine people. Drugs that might help stop Ebola were not tested in patients until after the epidemic had peaked, partly because the world has no clear process for expediting drug approvals. Compare all of this to the preparation that nations put into defense, which has high-quality mobile units ready to be deployed quickly.

9 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. So when's the first scrum? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    n/t

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Moving Infected People by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think infected individuals should be moved, or at least not moved far.

    The number one concern is to limit contamination, so quarantine should be as absolute as possible.

    Hard hearted? Maybe, but definitely practical.

    1. Re:Moving Infected People by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I said, not moved far.

      Take that as "moved as little as possible".

      If they are in a city, move them to the closest hospital IN THAT CITY.

      With the last ebola mess, they were flying obviously infected people all over the place.

    2. Re:Moving Infected People by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you going to quarantine an entire flight of people at once in an airport?

      Not to be a heartless dick, but it's not that hard to do if someone shows symptoms en route. The airplane is a somewhat sealed metal tube, and an airport has a lot of acreage that can park that plane out far enough away from everyone else....

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Moving Infected People by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the last ebola mess, they were flying obviously infected people all over the place.

      For a disease like ebola, that is no big deal. It is important to keep a grip on reality. There was a lot of scare-mongering over ebola, nearly all of it misplaced. Ebola can easily be stopped dead in its tracks by soap and/or hand sanitizer. It spread in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and (especially) Guinea, because those three countries have basically no health infrastructure, deep mistrust of outsiders, very low literacy, and little understanding of the germ theory of disease. Ebola was never able to gain a foothold in neighboring countries, such as Senegal, Ghana, or Nigeria, which have higher literacy and at least rudimentary health care systems. To think that ebola could spread in first world countries like America, or Europe is not realistic.

    4. Re:Moving Infected People by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on the symptoms. Are you going to quarantine an entire flight when a passenger has a fever or is throwing up ?

      No, because you are not going to know about it. What possible incentive does a stewardess have to report that illness, when she knows that she will be quarantined along with the passengers, and possibly left to die on a sealed airplane? The problem with draconian solutions is that they incentivize counter-productive behavior.

  3. ebola by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The major reason why ebola was able to grow was simply poor basic health care practices in some countries. Simple rules, like not touching dead or sick people, and washing your hands regularly would have helped a lot more than "databases" and "global warning and response systems".

  4. Re:Why should we care? by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am going to post a devil's advocate question, because there are people who will ask this:

    Why should we care about an epidemic/pandemic in some other area of the globe?

    Two words: Global Travel. Some dude wanting to flee that epidemic may have just enough resources to hop a plane ride or two, to get to safety with his relatives in the US... ...and we get to find out that even he didn't know he was infected until he landed and started spreading the love on US soil.

    It's already happened once (that we know of) during this last one.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Re:Gates? by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps because gates primary focus has been charity and philanthropy for almost as long as he was in the microcomputer game.

    Why was this flagged -1? Bill Gates is president of one of the largest organizations helping to fight disease in the world.
    He has as much validity as the president of Red Cross or any other large relief organization. This is why his opinion
    matters. He's also uniquely positioned where he can help bankroll what is needed if necessary where most other large
    relief organizations would have a much harder time changing their focus.