National Geographic News
Locals watch workers with Doctors Without Borders as they disinfect after leaving a private clinic.

Doctors Without Borders volunteers use disinfectant after treating Ebola patients at a private clinic in Teldou, Guinea.

Photograph by Samuel Aranda, The New York Times/Redux

Karen Weintraub

for National Geographic

UPDATED JULY 28, 2014

A top Liberian doctor has died and two Americans have become infected in West Africa's Ebola epidemic, which has now spread to the region's most populous city, Lagos, Nigeria.

Until this epidemic, the virus, which kills up to 90 percent of those who fall ill, had struck mainly in small, rural villages. But this outbreak has covered a much broader area—and has killed more than 670 people since late last year. It has now spread to Lagos, and reports came in over the weekend that it had killed a Liberian doctor and sickened two American medical workers, who fell ill after treating patients in Liberia. Both workers are still being treated, and it's not yet clear whether they'll survive.

Public health experts say they expect the virus to reach other parts of the world, including the United States, though it's unlikely to spread widely in regions with well-funded hospitals and standard infection-control procedures. (Related "Why Is This Ebola Outbreak Spreading?")

National Geographic recently talked with W. Ian Lipkin, an expert in viral diseases and the John Snow Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, about why this outbreak is so much more widespread than previous ones.

Previous outbreaks of Ebola have been small and localized, but this one is much broader. Why the difference?

Typically, when we have an outbreak of Ebola, a team goes in, they identify the cases, they identify people who might come into contact with the cases. And as a result of isolation, we're able to contain the outbreak and it peters out fairly rapidly. Here, it's in urban areas as opposed to rural areas. There isn't enough manpower to track all these cases and make certain we educate people, and that's what's essential.

Ebola outbreaks grow

The deadly Ebola virus has been devastating parts of Africa since the first outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976. In the latest outbreak, the World Health Organization has reported 1,201 cases and 672 deaths since March of this year, in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. Last Friday, a Liberian man died after his plane landed in Lagos, Nigeria, one of the world's largest cities.
Map of Ebola virus.
Note: Suspected, probable, and confirmed cases and deaths as of July 23, 2014
MAGGIE SMITH, NG STAFF; JOEY FENING. SOURCE: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

How contagious is Ebola?

This is not a highly transmissible disease, where the number of people who can be infected by a single individual is high. You have to come into very close contact with blood, organs, or bodily fluids of infected animals, including people. If you educate people properly and isolate those who are potentially infected, it should be something you can bring under control.

Originally, this outbreak spread because of ritual burial practices that brought people into contact with fluids from dead bodies. Is that still a primary source of transmission?

It is an issue. With urbanization, you have people who are moving into urban areas who are not completely divorced from the practices they had in the rural areas. They're recent transplants and they carry with them that culture.

Is this one outbreak or have there been new introductions in the meantime?

Since the spring, it's just continued to spread. I can't tell you for certain there haven't been new point source introductions, but there seems to be no reason to think that.

What likely caused the initial infection?

What typically happens is somebody comes into contact with bush meat. Frequently, there's a harbinger of an outbreak. You [first] see deaths in great apes. When hunters handle infected chimpanzees, gorillas, or monkeys that are infected, they then become infected, chiefly through breaks in their skin or mucous membranes. They become the Trojan horse that carries the infected material back to the villages.

What does the Ebola virus do to the body?

It's a hemorrhagic fever virus. It causes an intensive inflammatory response. You wind up going into shock. You can't maintain your blood pressure. Ultimately, all your organs fail.

How long does it take to get sick once you're infected?

You may not show signs of disease for up to three weeks, but most people begin to show signs roughly a week after infection. Death comes within a few days to another week.

Kumba Conde cries as members of Red Cross arrive with the body of her sister.
Kumba Conde cries as members of the Red Cross arrive in Koundony, Guinea, with the body of her sister, Marie, 14, who died after she became infected with the Ebola virus.
Photograph by Samuel Aranda, The New York Times/Redux

Is it possible to treat Ebola, to survive infection?

It's typically a lethal infection [with up to a 90 percent fatality rate]. People can recover, but it's not common. There are no treatments. The only thing we can do is try to maintain people's blood volumes by giving them fluids.

Are treatments under development?

There are people who are trying to develop antibodies from people who've recovered from infection and have antibodies that will neutralize the virus. And others [are] trying to work on drugs that may interfere with ability of the virus to reproduce itself.

Do we need to be concerned about Ebola spreading to the U.S. or other developed countries?

Is it possible that somebody could be infected in one of these countries and fly to the U.S.? It is certainly possible. Given our health care system, it's unlikely that we would have widespread disease as a result. We would be on top of it, and we would be able to contain it. Our health care system affords people access to gloves and gowns and personal protective equipment. I don't think there's reason for panic that we're going to be hit with an outbreak of Ebola.

With other pathogens, like the Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS), there's concern about the virus mutating and becoming more dangerous. Is that a concern with Ebola infections?

They kill so quickly that I don't envision there's going to be a major shift in transmission.

Do you think the West African countries are responding well to the crisis?

These are not wealthy countries. They don't have strong health care infrastructure. They need help. They don't have the resources to handle this. (Related: "Q&A: Challenges of Containing Ebola's Spread in West Africa.")

52 comments
Rebecca Laws
Rebecca Laws


I read another report, said same thing, but death rate is 30 - 90%, usually the higher % with this Ebola strain.

I do get concerned about 'trying out' viruses, it seemed to happen quite a lot in the 60's, 70's and 80's.  Even if it did, there is nothing we can do about that.

It is true that there are too many humans on the planet, poorer countries and those with large numbers will, as pointed out, be the most effected.

It sounds terrible, but by 2020 the world is overpopulated...what are we going to do about that exactly....hope for the best?

I myself prefer the more human approach of natural selection in such times, I do not know if others do, and if they do not, they will do as they please anyhow.

Tommy Gilley
Tommy Gilley

They keep saying the mortality rate is around 60%, but I think that number may be skewed low. I''ll bet there have been enough unreported deathsin the hinterlands to get a mortality rate of 75%-85%. It's been reported that the people have a distrust of the healthcare workers, and to expect accurate data from a distrustful population is folly

cc T
cc T

 What about breast milk? I know when I catch the flu (virus) the docs tell me to continue to breastfeed my baby and the effects  are not as bad. I know the virus lingers in breast milk but how long? Once it is out could this be a cost effective way to lessen the effects of the virus? I am not a researcher this is common sense but I do hope researchers are on it. I know we live in a man's worlds so I don't know if this would even be considered. I know that there was news of a pregnant lady who just recovered from the virus. I wonder if she would help with a study such as this one. Or better yet a woman who has recovered could be given natural medication to induce lactation. These are poor countries and breast milk is free

Mark Carter
Mark Carter

stop people goon to the infected area and stop people coming out of the infected area

Lyn Rains
Lyn Rains

IMO who the heck would risk their life for this?  I agree: with Kim Ramos - she said:

 "I do not like the idea of people dieing. However, in order to stop the disease from spreading, I believe that all those who are sick and infected should be contained in one area and killed off in order to prevent it from becoming widely spread. The ones who were exposed to others infected or came in contact, should be contained in another area until the time ending that the symptoms should occur in order to be sure of them not being infected and to stop the spread. All transportation should be stopped to and from the infected countries."


As far as America's health care system, it WAS good but now with the Usurper messing it up. . .not sure our health care system could do squat.  What a shame!

Carl D.
Carl D.

My daughter was helping out in a hospital in western Sierra Leone for the month of June. They were all on high alert for people showing signs of ebola. One of the biggest problems there is the lack of doctors, nurses and medical supplies. We are worried that as ebola spreads, many of the qualified doctors and nurses from outside the area will leave. I saw a statistic that there is only 2 doctors for every 150,000 people in Sierra Leone.

Ru Con
Ru Con

Just to let yall know... anti-bacterial soaps are just that... anti-bacterial... so they are useless to kill viruses like the flu... or ebola. Hence why there are instructions on how to properly wash your hands, because your best hope is to simply scrub and wash off the virus. Although if I'm correct alcohols kill viruses so washing your hands in cheap vodka would be a better idea than those fancy-shmancy 'Kills 99.9% of bacteria' soaps.

Katya Duhamel
Katya Duhamel

When is this disease communicable? In the incubation phase or once symptoms are seen?

Brad Arnold
Brad Arnold

I foresee more examples of hysteria based upon the false belief that this novel virus is spread by Western doctors.  Furthermore, that same hysteria will inevitably cause it's spread, due to fleeing outbreak zones (the virus apparently has a three week incubation period).  I mean, HIV/AIDS, which is even more difficult to spread, since it requires intimate contact, took out whole villages there, but then the carriers survived for quite some time, spreading the disease.

Kimberly Ramos
Kimberly Ramos

I do not like the idea of people dieing. However, in order to stop the disease from spreading, I believe that all those who are sick and infected should be contained in one area and killed off in order to prevent it from becoming widely spread. The ones who were exposed to others infected or came in contact, should be contained in another area until the time ending that the symptoms should occur in order to be sure of them not being infected and to stop the spread. All transportation should be stopped to and from the infected countries.

Matthew Rounseville
Matthew Rounseville

How contagious is Ebola? 


"This is not a highly transmissible disease..."

 If the Ebola Virus is not especially contagious why then are doctors and other healthcare workers becoming infected. I know they come in close contact with infected patients but they also know better than anyone else how to protect themselves by wearing gloves, gowns, masks, booties, goggles, etc and by decontaminating themselves, instruments, and the surrounding environment.  Even with the knowledge they have and all the precautions they take doctors and nurses are still getting infected with Ebola. I think this would count as highly contagious, far more contagious than HIV/AIDS where you have to have sex or share contaminated needles to become infected.


  Also since the incubation time can be two or three weeks before symptoms appear and we are a highly mobile society I think it could spread throughout Europe and the Americas rather easily.  And since symptoms like fever, chills, body aches are very much like cold or flu people may wait for days, and infect others, before seeking medical treatment and being isolated.


 I think the potential danger is far greater and more immediate than this interview suggests.

TS MacLiam
TS MacLiam

@Tommy Gilley

The number will always be skewed low and the worse the outbreaks gets the lower that number will get ! If and when this disease hits Europe or the US you'll see figures like 20 - 30 % mortality. 

The whole idea is to minimise mass panic within the population which could result in the breakdown of social order.

Ironically, this is part of the plan which has long been in place by world governments in the event of a global pandemic.

So when they say that Ebola is no worse than a bad dose of the flu it's time to run for the hills !

I wish I could say that this is funny - but it's true.

Dave de la Fuente
Dave de la Fuente

@Mark Carter That's the problem here. Those countries does not have the $$ and manpower to do so which is why the virus is spreading.

Jacqueline Nell
Jacqueline Nell

@Lyn Rains I was so shocked after reading your comment!!! Those are people you are talking about not animals. How can anyone think like you do! Imagine it is your family members how would you feel! Think before you make a comment about killing off humans! deeply saddened and shocked!!!!!!!! 

Seer Clearly
Seer Clearly

@Lyn Rains It's really a shame that people like you confuse politics with medical policy, or science in general.  Politics says that Bush II got into the white house by *twice* getting court rulings that handed him the election.  That's the definition of "Usurper."  A black man in the White House is only a usurper to dyed-in-the-wool racists who don't believe in election results if they confirm a black man.


When it comes to public health policies, nothing that Obamacare has done has made any changes to either the policies or to the instruments used to implement them.   You really should get your information from unbiased sources, which will tell you that at least 7 million more people have health insurance now than did before Obamacare (which of course is nearly word-for-word Romneycare.)   Having that many more people able to go see their doctors in general will reduce the likelihood of any disease going uncontrolled.

Carl D.
Carl D.

@Lyn Rains I heard there have been at least 4 cases of the plague in Denver in the last 2 weeks. I haven't seen anything about shutting down the airport there. Anyone who is diagnosed there are not allowed to come in contact with others. These people need supplies, education and trained people to go there. Shutting off transportation isn't the answer. 

David Matthews
David Matthews

@Lyn Rains What an ignorant thing to say. Right now this epidemic has between a 50 and 60% mortality rate. Take 10 people in your family, all of whom are sick and isolated from the rest of the healthy people in your family. As long as you don't pull a jail break, they're not going to infect anyone else.


Now imagine authorities arrive and say "Well, three of your cousins, your aunt and your uncle are dead. Just to be safe, we're going to kill your parents, your sister, and her two children."


That's essentially what you're encouraging. Think before you say things like that.

Ari Magedoff
Ari Magedoff

@Ru Con anti-bacterial soaps are still soaps... so should kill viruses as well as any other soap.  So your statement is incorrect.  

Seer Clearly
Seer Clearly

@Ru Con Antibacterial soaps breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can't be treated.

Micheal Timmons
Micheal Timmons

@Katya Duhamel Once symptoms are seen. Even then, much more so in the later stages.

Ru Con
Ru Con

@Brad Arnold But the difference between HIV/AIDS and Ebola is the period it takes the disease to kill. HIV/AIDS can be carried for years without the person knowing they are infected. Incubation periods are the worst for spreading the disease around and with AIDS/HIV, even though I don't for how long it's technically an 'incubation period', the period without noticeable symptoms can be quite long. While Ebola runs its course within months of infection. I think what makes it so scary is also what will help limit it. We deal with it correctly then it will kill faster than it can spread.

David Matthews
David Matthews

@Kimberly Ramos Aside from being an utterly selfish and inhumane thing to say, you also need to remember that those who survive have the potential to carry replicable antibodies to the virus. This is one potential route to a vaccine.


What you're suggesting is tantamount to the mass murder (so far) around 600 innocent people.

Phil M.
Phil M.

@Kimberly Ramos Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a country where the leadership has the power to do just what you suggest.  Assuming you're in the U.S., you're certainly not living in such a society at present.  Might I suggest Russia?

R J
R J

@Kimberly Ramos Killed off?  I hope you are not in a position of influence or the medical industry. What would you recommend as a humane way of killing? Nevermind, I care not.

Micheal Timmons
Micheal Timmons

@Kimberly Ramos Or, you know, maybe we can contain them and *not* immediately kill them. I'm just saying, although the survival rate is terrible, something like 40% for this particular outbreak, that's still enough survivors that you're going to kill off a lot more people that would have lived by just killing them off immediately as compared to those that would possibly die by transmission if they are treated in isolation.

Jessica Rothschild
Jessica Rothschild

@Matthew Rounseville

It is classified as a Bio Safety Level 4 virus. This means, that to go in and out of a room containing the virus, you have to wear a full body suit with an independent oxygen tank, but sprayed down several times, and use UV to decontaminate the suit. with a negative pressure room. Please tell me how this is NOT highly contagious? Not to mention the virus can live for several days outside of the host. Like on an object, a shoe, a pencil, etc.

Phil M.
Phil M.

@Matthew Rounseville Excellent points.  It appears that the interviewee is trying to prevent panic around the globe and is downplaying the threat of the virus.  My first reaction when I read the article was "Holy Crap!"  I'm glad I live in a rural area.

j. williams
j. williams

@Matthew Rounseville I agree with this completely!!!!! 

"Originally, this outbreak spread because of ritual burial practices that brought people into contact with fluids from dead bodies. Is that still a primary source of transmission?

It is an issue. With urbanization, you have people who are moving into urban areas who are not completely divorced from the practices they had in the rural areas. They're recent transplants and they carry with them that culture."

So, with these "educated" doctors, why would they contract this disease if they are taking precautions?  Obviously, it's not being spread now by "ritual burial practices".

Filipe Fan
Filipe Fan

@Matthew Rounseville Very smart I like your logic. That's the most intelligent thing I've seen written on ebola so far.


YES it is very contagious otherwise healthcare workers who take massive precautions wouldn't be getting it. In 2012 a Ugandan thief got it from the thumb print on a stolen mobile phone.


And YES it could easily spread via people who work on planes/baggage handlers to the West because if baggage handlers or ticket and passport stampers get infected they can spread it to travellers flying internationally

Micheal Timmons
Micheal Timmons

@Matthew Rounseville First of all, your metric of contagion in which you compare it with HIV/AIDS is unfair, because although, say, in the course of a day, a person with HIV is less likely to make someone else HIV positive, the person with HIV is going to be alive most likely for a lot more days, or at least have the disease for a lot more days. Second of all, despite it not being especially contagious, it is contagious in very particular ways that make it dangerous for those that treat it, because it spreads by bodily fluids. If a victim vomits, for instance, on a doctor, unless the doctor's gear is adequate and used correctly, the doctor is likely to get sick. Third of all, this virus is unusual in that it doesn't spread at all during its incubation time. Sure, people can move around, and sure, at first people might have coldlike symptoms, but it isn't very contagious during those coldlike symptoms as again, it spreads by non-aerosolized body fluids (the one exception to this would be Ebola Reston, but it doesn't even infect humans). It can spread during this time, certainly, but it is highly unlikely. Also, considering the amount of cases spread across countries with millions of people, most of which are in poorer areas, the odds of even one of them getting on an international plane aren't actually very high (though high enough that admittedly, it can happen, note the Nigeria example, but also note that the person was immediately isolated). The odds of them doing this and not getting noticed as soon as symptoms appear are almost nil. Hence, the odds of it crossing seas are also almost nil. I've noticed that a lot of individuals seem to promote the idea that this is the world's next big pandemic, and I simply do not believe it to be the case because of its reliance on non-aerosolized body fluids to spread, the incubation period not being contagious, and the virus killing the victim too quick, cutting off its own most effective contagion time. On a side note, you state that it *can* have a two to three week incubation time, but that's like saying I can accidentally trip on a cabbage someone left on the ground - sure, it's probably happened to someone before, but it isn't the normal occurrence - the normal incubation time is generally much smaller. Statements like this, or it "it can have a 90% fatality rate" (referring to, of course, a completely different Ebola epidemic in the 1970's without mentioning that they're referring to a different epidemic, and not actually providing the actual statistics for this one in order to have scarier statistics), I think leads to an elevated giant pandemic paranoia that is representative of something that really isn't likely. I'm not saying this disease isn't bad - those researching it and treating it in the site of the epidemic are truly heroes, and I honestly couldn't come up with much more of a scary way to die, I just don't think it's likely to really reach the level of infection that it has gained in west Africa in the US nor Europe if it were to spread there.

Jessica Rothschild
Jessica Rothschild

@TS MacLiam @Tommy Gilley

It was always 90-96% All of a sudden it's lower? Even though the "treatment" is the same? I agree... it's to lessen the fear factor. Even a magical number of 60% is insanely high mortality 

Alhad Kotháre
Alhad Kotháre

@Jessica Rothschild @cc T Not only the bodily fluids but the insects, rodents & domestic animals could spread the virus - gradually but surely; unfortunately.

Jessica Rothschild
Jessica Rothschild

@Carl D. @Lyn Rains

There has always been lingering cases of plague in the southwest. I used to live in New Mexico and there were always a couple cases a year. This virus is far worse than the plague.

Bill  hughes
Bill hughes

I'd rather spare my loved ones weeks of a agonizing, horrific death. Are you so selfish that you would let people suffer because YOU love them and YOU will miss them? Let them cry blood, literally defecate the lining of the stomach and intestines out, have the brain slowly deprived of oxygen creating slow but massive brain damage as exploded cells clog arteries. There is no hugging and kissing them goodbye. There is no funeral. There is only disposal.

If I were to get it, I would demand more than enough pharmaceuticals to shut me off permanently. At least that way, I choose when and how I go instead of waiting for every tissue except bone to completely liquify.

But that's just me.

Frankie Sunshine
Frankie Sunshine

Seriously. And humans aren't even the source - the disease comes from bush meat (from bats, primates, and even certain insects) and is actually difficult to spread from human to human. Killing all the infected people wouldn't stop it because it's the animals that are spreading it. By that logic, let's just kill every animal.

Ru Con
Ru Con

@R J @Kimberly Ramos She's obviously not in the medical industry... there is no money to be made from killing off sick people. 

Although, I for one am investing in crematoriums in Guinea. I'm sure once this disease progresses people maybe more willing to drop old habits and instead chuck their deceased loved-ones into ovens.

Seer Clearly
Seer Clearly

@Filipe Fan @Matthew Rounseville Filipe, there are many more things to be afraid of than Ebola, if you live in a westernized country with adequate healthcare.   The reason professionals are being exposed and dying is because of the sheer numbers of patients they are forced to treat, and because of the lack of adequate supplies and assistance (most of the people in these countries are as afraid and uniformed as you or more so, so the doctors have little help.)    Because the virus must be spread by physical contact with body fluids, standard healthcare practices in westernized countries prevent its transmission.  A virus outbreak that can't be transmitted AND rapidly kills its hosts is an outbreak that will not last long or infect many people unless the conditions are right.

David Matthews
David Matthews

@Filipe Fan @Matthew Rounseville   I'm sorry, but you are wrong and your logic is flawed. The biggest reason healthcare workers are becoming infected is the sheer number of highly contagious patients they're treating. And it's not like they're immediately becoming infected. These people have been working in this environment for weeks or even months. 


The protective gear can never be 100% effective. Absolutes like that just don't exist in the real world. Let's say, for arguments sake, they're 99.9% effective. That makes them pretty darn effective. What this means, though, is that out of 1000 potential OPPORTUNITIES for infection, 1 will present itself as a threat. That doesn't ensure infection, but it's not like you can see a virus. There may have been some minuscule amount of infective matter on a seam in the armpit of the protective suit that happened to make it through decontamination and came into contact with an abrasion while unsuiting.


All I'm getting at is if you're treating tens or hundreds of infected individuals, there is no 100% guarantee you won't become infected, even if it is only spread by close contact with bodily fluids. 

Filipe Fan
Filipe Fan

@Micheal Timmons @Matthew Rounseville Mr Timmons you are wrong and your logic is flawed.


Mr Rounseville, you are highly intelligent and right.


IF you read up on it Mr Timmons you would see the 90% fatality rate was for the same Zaire strain of ebola that is now doing the rounds in West Africa. 

Brenden Crutchfield
Brenden Crutchfield

@Jessica Rothschild @TS MacLiam @Tommy Gilley

Entirely untrue. There are multiple variants of the Ebola virus, each one carries with it a different mortality rate, such as Ebola Zaire, with a rate of about 90%. Do a little research. If you're REALLY interested in the virus, read "The Hot Zone." Excellent read, for those of you into virology and such.

Jessica Rothschild
Jessica Rothschild

@Frankie Sunshine

It's transmitted from primate to primate. If they eat or encounter a monkey and one human gets it, than it goes to humans. It's not like mad cow where it's about eating some meat. The corpses are contaminated long after the host is dead. It's like rabies. It's related to rabies too.

Venla Lintunen
Venla Lintunen

@David Matthews @Filipe Fan @Matthew Rounseville 

Dear mr Matthews, Fan and Rounseville, you all have got some good points. I do believe that in some countries in Europe it is higly possible the ebola to spread quite fast. I'm from Finland, Northern Europe, and having travelled in all around in the Europe side of Mediterranean I would NOT be surprised if tsome bigger epidemics would strike. It is so warm there and now there are so many illegual African immigrants travelling via Africa and Mediterranean sea that there is not for enough people to notice them all. This summer, especially, I've heard. 

Because of the European Union free movement it is easy for them to travel in here by public transportation. Not planes, but trains, cars, buses. as illegual immigrants from the south come even as far as in Finland - and they certainly don't travel here via Sweden or Russia, but they come from Estonia, and to there they've come from Gibraltar or via Turkey and Greece. Also, for example Turkey and Russia, that are partly in Euripe and partly in Europe have not got that high hygienic standards in the Asia and rural sides. Even Greece, some Italian islands, Spain, Portugal, France and the other southern countries in Europe are not alway that hygienic. They have probably been more hygienic in history, but now because of the bad economic situation and corruption after the 2nd world war they are definitely a big risk area. 

Northern countries like Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and even Great Britain do support them - even the ones of us who once where some of the poorest and coldest places in earth and were highly struck by the big European wars since 1500s to 2nd world war. Even Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and other countries that only have been separated from Soviet union/Russia are nowadays much more hygienic and save than some of the Old and Mighty countries who really didn't bother to help these areas when it was hard there and are now pegging for money, and sometimes even threatening. Finland, being a neigbour to Russia, would be save but there is always the risk that "Putler" gets some crazy idea and attacks to Estonia or Finland and tries to get the old Soviet/Russia areas back. If there was a war to come to Europe, ebola would really strike here hard because the African immigrants would see their moment come and would arrive to some saver areas... or the older illegual and legual immigrants in Spain, France, Greece who are unhappy with their situation could turn to the Putler side... 


All of these things are highly unlikely, BUT I do think that it is alway better to be more careful than just trust highly to the old powerful and might countries. All of the European countries have sometimes been part of some big imperium, and in every country there is a nationalistic popularistic party rising, who might end up copying some previous thoughts from the 20th century wars - or even from the earlier centuries. I've heard that the Greek almost nazies youth parties look back to the ideals from Ancient Greece, even. Also, it's not only Europe but also the Americas where western and eastern cultures are colliding and immigrants (as well as locals) are unhappy. 


So, I do think that none of the things above will happen, but some of it might - and if it does, then, well, then ebola will spread like the first and second wrold war diseases. There has already been smaller epidemics of other old sicknesses in the areas where parents didn't want to vaccinate their kids (the H1N1-vaccination causes some serious symptoms in this area for some reason, and especially to kids, so people rather take the risk of getting a sickness than getting a permanet medical condition).


I am not a doctor, but having used to northern hygienic standards since pre-school and also in home, I just don't trust the warmer countries' systems that much... especially the big and mighty ones are dangerous countries, as a big part of the population there does seriously believe that they have got the best system, best language and every one else is worthless or  speaks in a funny way or is stupid and has nothing good to learn for. I'd mention Russia, USA, Britain, Spain, France, India, China and other big and mighty ones who don't really care about their citizens that much, because they do have so many of them. It is easy to sacrifice masses if there are tens of millions of citizens from who to pick from... smaller countries cannot afford to lose 60 % of the population. We alredy did that here in 1890s....

Micheal Timmons
Micheal Timmons

@Filipe Fan @Micheal Timmons @Matthew Rounseville


Yes, both were Ebola Zaire. Note that nowhere did I deny that. The difference is that the infamous 1970's outbreak with the ~90% fatality rate occurred when the virus was just discovered along with the modes of transmission, and this one is several years later, not to mention under different geopolitical conditions. 


Venla Lintunen
Venla Lintunen

Ah, too many typing mistakes in my previous message to correct them all. Sorry, foreign language and too much to say. Please comment only the subject, not the mistakes, because it will seriously risk your point. I mean, it will show us only that you are a nationalist language freak whose only languages are English and/or some of the BIG and MIGHTY imperium languages that I mentioned above :D. Some other commenters have already used "Russian". "Indian" and "American" as bad words in this conversation....


But at least always*, and partly Europe, partly Asia* were some that I noticed and cannot correct anymore....

Share

Feed the World

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »