Too Much of a Fuss Over Ebola?

Too Much of a Fuss over Ebola?

Unless you've been hibernating for the past few weeks, I'm sure you'll find that the news of the sudden, devastating outbreak of the disease Ebola (one that has a mortality rate of between 55 to 90%) and at the time of writing no cure, has been literally everywhere of recent. This outbreak of the virus, having started in Western Africa (Liberia being the worst affected country), has caused the WHO to have a meeting over whether there should be a red alert on global health. Since the outbreak in February, over 900 people have died, and whilst I'm not saying this isn't a terrible thing and we should be trying to stop it, the hysteria that's occurred as a result is rather disproportionate, in my opinion, with the actual problem. Why so, hopefully these three reasons will help explain my opinion.

1. Although 900 deaths is still a lot, compared to the 600,000 deaths last year due to malaria, the 1.3 million in 2012 due to tuberculosis or even the common flu, it's very insubstantial.

2. All research as of yet suggests the disease is only spreadable by direct contact of bodily fluids such as blood or urine. Ebola is not an airborne disease and thus if victims are kept in strictly closed off quarters and family members and doctors wear sufficiently protective clothing, the outbreak will be easily culled.

3. In the summer, where the house of commons for the most part is in recess and most political matters are on the low, many journalist frantically search for a story to hype up. Indeed a recent headline on the Daily Mirror spoke of how a woman had collapsed and died of Ebola at Gatwick airport on arrival from Sierra Leone. It turns out she didn't even have the disease.