The Herald News, Fall River, MA
  • Our View: Ebola in an interconnected world

  • There is a human tragedy unfolding in Africa and how we respond to it will not only define how the rest of the world sees us; it will define how we see ourselves.
    • email print
    At issue is the continuing spread of the Ebola virus, a particularly virulent pathogen with a mortality rate of upwards of 90 percent. As in the past, this particular outbreak originated in Africa, where the disease makes the jump to humans when people come in contact with infected animals. Ebola then spreads from person-to-person through exposure to bodily fluids.
    One of the most challenging aspects of the disease involves its containment; people infected with the virus can carry the disease for up to three weeks before developing any symptoms. Thus, a person carrying Ebola may be hundreds or thousands of miles away from where he was infected by the time he becomes contagious. Further, recovering patients can remain contagious for up to seven weeks after recovery.
    Couple this with the fact that there is a deep-seated and understandable distrust of government bureaucracies in the region and a well-founded fear of foreign intervention, regardless of how well-intentioned it may be, and you begin to see how Africa is particularly vulnerable to the disease.
    Compounding the horror of Ebola is the fact that medical personnel can do very little once a person is infected. In fact, the World Health Organization reports that there is no vaccination or licensed specific treatment.
    In the past, the WHO and other nonprofit organizations have worked to contain the disease to a relatively small geographic footprint. This particular outbreak, however, shows little sign of abating. It has already claimed more than 800 lives and has now been found in three countries, making it the largest Ebola outbreak in history. Some have claimed that the WHO and other nongovernmental organizations are less equipped to handle the epidemic than in the past due to reduced budgets, partially because of government funding cuts following the Great Recession.
    First and foremost, we need to understand that although the scope of the infection is considerable, the likelihood of it making an undetected transcontinental jump to the United States is relatively slim. Being cautious is wise; being paranoid is counterproductive and can lead to a dangerous isolationism that provides only a false veneer of safety.
    What the United States must instead do is support the continuing efforts of the brave medical personnel who continue to put themselves in these dangerous conditions. The risk is substantial; several doctors and nurses from the three affected countries have died due to their work, and two American medical professionals have been infected. They have since returned to the United States for whatever medical treatment can be provided.
    There are numerous reasons why we should do everything we can to support this desperate medical intervention. The outbreak cruelly demonstrates the broken medical and administrative systems in the affected countries. We have seen governments collapse under far less stress in the past few years, and further regional destabilization is not in anyone’s geopolitical interests.
    Page 2 of 2 - Even more importantly, however, is the fact that simply having the ability to help brings with it a certain moral imperative to do so. What happens to people half a world away matters if we, as a nation, can do something to help. We live in an ever-interconnected world, and how we act or do not act to this sort of situation can have a direct impact on how we look, or cannot look, at ourselves in the mirror.
Terms of Service