CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months 280
mdsolar sends this report from the NY Times:
Yet another set of ominous projections about the Ebola epidemic in West Africa was released Tuesday, in a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that gave worst- and best-case estimates for Liberia and Sierra Leone based on computer modeling. In the worst-case scenario, Liberia and Sierra Leone could have 21,000 cases of Ebola by Sept. 30 and 1.4 million cases by Jan. 20 if the disease keeps spreading without effective methods to contain it. These figures take into account the fact that many cases go undetected, and estimate that there are actually 2.5 times as many as reported. ... In the best-case model — which assumes that the dead are buried safely and that 70 percent of patients are treated in settings that reduce the risk of transmission — the epidemic in both countries would be 'almost ended' by Jan. 20, the report said.
Black pest 2.0 (Score:2)
Some Hollywood-style end of world scenario right here.
Re: (Score:3)
Send in Brad Pitt!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Black pest 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there's some disturbing parallels to the zombie/ebola outbreak scenario.
The movie "Contagion", while kind of lame, sort of came close to delivering it. 28 Days Later wasn't bad, either, but a little too zombie-like to be "realistic."
It's not hard to imagine a real pandemic where there's a disease with a very high mortality rate, a long incubation period before debilitating symptoms occur but a very short period before obvious but benign symptoms occur that make the infected easy to identify.
I could see a situation like that being a lot like a zombie outbreak -- the infected know they are infected and likely to die but have several weeks without symptoms that make them unable to cause havoc. At some point those infected would probably start to react/strike back at the uninfected as the uninfected pulled back and stopped wanting to have anything to do with them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's some disturbing parallels to the zombie/ebola outbreak scenario.
A lot of people laughed when the CDC put out their "Zombie Survival Guide", but this is why it wasn't just some big joke. The CDC published what is really just a guide for handling an outbreak of a major contagious disease, like Ebola, and just called the disease "Zombie" for fun.
eyebrows raised. (Score:4, Interesting)
In the worst-case scenario, Liberia and Sierra Leone could have 21,000 cases of Ebola by Sept. 30 and 1.4 million cases by Jan. 20
ok, so considering that Sep 30 is one week away, I think it's unlikely that the disease will spread four-fold in that tiem.
Re:eyebrows raised. (Score:5, Informative)
They're assuming cases are underreported by a factor of 2.5.
Re:eyebrows raised. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's likely a lot of data behind the under reporting statistic. I'm not familiar enough with this particular data set, but for other diseases, after the fact, we can find out how many people died and we can survey to find out how many became sick. Once the scare is gone, this data is much easier to collect. The result is that we can back trace to figure out the under reporting originally. Then you can use that figure to make a better estimate the next time.
As I say, I don't know enough about this data se
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't an unreasonable projection. The growth rate of the number of cases has been exponential so far.
Wikipedia chart [wikipedia.org]
Re:eyebrows raised. (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some better interactive versions of the Wikipedia charts:
Ebola Outbreak Tracker [tickermadness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:eyebrows raised. (Score:4, Informative)
>has been doubling every 30 days
365/30 = 12.16 ish
2^12.16 = 4597 ish
2^24.33 = 21,137,967 ish
2^36. = 95,846,054,932 ish
It's the third year you need to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit! Mod parent up!
+1 scary
The good news is human fertility rate is about to skyrocket before that happens!
Endemic would be really bad.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that this is the outbreak that will break out of sub-Saharan Africa. Rich countries probably have the infrastructure to control it when it reaches their shores, but the rest of the world may be stuck with a pandemic.
Re:Endemic would be really bad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even really about infrastructure, just basic sanitation.
If you have the resources to wash your hands - which much of Africa does not - then you'll probably be able to contain an Ebola outbreak without much trouble.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even resources, so much, as custom.
Western societies generally don't touch the dead, unless required to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except one of the reasons AIDS could go pandemic was that it was a slow killer.
People just need to wash their hands for a good month or two and the thing will die off...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the CDC says it's possible, and I trust their judgement more than my own.
But, in spite of that, I have a question: How can something with a 90% fatality rate really become endemic? It'd imply a near complete depopulation of the affected areas.
Epidemic makes sense. People hide out, move around, spread the disease, huge, rapid expansion into new populations occurs. I don't know how they'd model a endemic ebola.
Re:Endemic would be really bad.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the CDC says it's possible, and I trust their judgement more than my own.
But, in spite of that, I have a question: How can something with a 90% fatality rate really become endemic? It'd imply a near complete depopulation of the affected areas.
Epidemic makes sense. People hide out, move around, spread the disease, huge, rapid expansion into new populations occurs. I don't know how they'd model a endemic ebola.
Because it doesn't just kill you in a day. It takes a while. Symptoms don't appear from 2-21 days; once the symptoms appear you're contagious. Granted that's a wide margin of error.
In the meantime, you have people that try to "get away" because they either don't realize they're already infected or are simply in denial. Said person just has to cross a certain threshold and now it's in a whole other region. You can get pretty far in 21 days, and depending on our knowledge of the area and motivation, it's "possible" to get somewhere else. After all, you might have weeks until you start to show.
That's not counting the doctors / nurses / guards / etc. that can accidentally get exposed and unknowingly pass it on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fatality rate has been reported to be around 60% for this strain, though that might only be for those that get some amount of medical care. Not sure.
No, "The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks. [who.int]"
Regarding the current outbreak in West Africa: Early WHO reports suggested an overall case fatality rate (CFR) estimate of 53%,[10] considerably lower than an average of the rates reported from previous outbreaks,[11] but on 23 September, they released a revised overall CFR estimate of 70% derived using data from patients with definitive clinical outcomes.[12] [wikipedia.org]
Now, that 70% figure is bas
Ebola doctors attacked and killed (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who don't want to listen to experts die off, those who are too panicked to touch the dead bodies live, and things work themselves out.
Cruel? Maybe. But when you're already putting your life on the line trying to help people and those people attack and kill you, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to let nature take its course.
Too be fair... (Score:3)
At lot of the mistrust of outside people in those regions is very, very well deserved. Even when it's their own "government".
And your sentiment isn't really a new idea it's pretty much how the world has treated most of Africa for a really long time, the same Africa most of the world has exploited for long periods at one time or another.
Re:Too be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, I guess the decision to be uneducated and ignorant will serve them well when their carcasses are being zipped up in a double-lined black bag and tossed into a common grave.
Yes, many, many injustices have been perpetrated against the African continent and its peoples, but when your people are dying and people are coming in, risking their own lives to try and help you, and your response is to attack and kill them, trying to use the injustices of the past to justify the mass deaths of the present won't win you any friends, will it?
Re: (Score:2)
I it all depends on the context, really. Was it a large majority of the populace that acted or felt that way or was it a bunch of local thugs? Did they announce their intent beforehand or just show up unannounced so the people had no idea what the intent was?
I guess my point is that I'm not going to write off whole populations of people because the actions of a few. There are and always will be risks in dealing in tribal areas that have been used and abuse for centuries. Maybe better organization and se
Re: (Score:2)
when your people are dying and people are coming in, risking their own lives to try and help you, and your response is to attack and kill them, trying to use the injustices of the past to justify the mass deaths of the present won't win you any friends
This isn't about justifying deaths or winning friends. This is about if you want to try to help people, you have to craft your message in a way that they are ready to receive.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
BS (Score:3)
1.2 million? I call BS. When things start to look really bad people will voluntarily stay at home, dramatically reducing transmission. And this is before we consider government action. This already happened during the swine flu scare in Mexico where everyone stayed home for a week and then on top of that the government ordered restaurants, schools and other businesses closed.
Re:BS (Score:4, Informative)
Ebola is not spreading from contact in restaurants, schools, or businesses. It is precisely from staying home (which is a sentence of death by starvation in the countryside), in contact with an infected family member, and/or handling the infected corpse without a bunny suit, gloves, and a face shield, none of which are in stock at the (non-existent) local CVS / Home Depot / Target, that the pandemic is spreading.
Re: (Score:2)
...and you think people are going to be handling corpses once the dead toll exceeds the tens of thousands?
Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)
Probably. Funerary practices in that part of the world are very home-centered, generally administered by the grieving family. That's a major current transmission route, and its emotional and traditional base gives it resistance to quarantine pressures. No one is just going to pile corpses outside waiting for the body cart, if they've spent weeks locked away caring for their dying loved one.
Dealing with the dead is a big part of epidemic management, and "doing it right" (to minimize infectiousness) is expensive, as well as insensitive to the survivors. So yeah, the dead will continue to infect the living, until it burns itself out, or until someone imposes draconian responses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, people Bunny Suits will pick them up, put them in trucks and bury them. So now instead of requiring the entire population to be in bunny suits you only need the funeral brigade to do so.
Re:BS (Score:4, Informative)
1.2 million? I call BS. When things start to look really bad people will voluntarily stay at home, dramatically reducing transmission. And this is before we consider government action. This already happened during the swine flu scare in Mexico where everyone stayed home for a week and then on top of that the government ordered restaurants, schools and other businesses closed.
Despite the drug wars, Mexico at least has a functioning government. Sierra Leone and Liberia? They're at the bottom of the barrel. Their Human Development Index sits at 175st and 183rd> on the planet respectively. In terms of per capita income, they rank [wikipedia.org]180th and 181st [wikipedia.org].
Sierra Leone has already gone through the process of being a failed nation-state, and will be right back there if ebola continues to spread. Liberia has already admitted they could just cease to exist.
Besides, the H1N1 virus had a death rate of just 0.02 percent not the eye-popping 50% to 90% of ebola.
Re: (Score:3)
A high mortality rate works against the spread of the disease. Most lethal diseases in terms of epidemics have a long incubation period and a mortality rate below 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
With a disease with a high infection rate, even if more than half die within a month, you still have this huge pool of newly infected people to draw from. Thus, you can have both an increase in the number of carriers and an increase in the number of dead month-over-month, until you simply run out of people.
You are also continually playing "catch-up", as both the number of cases and the number of deaths continues to ramp up faster than your response.
Now throw in mistrust of western medicine, lack of treat
CDC "Estimates" (Score:3)
From my experience, CDC estimates should be taken with a grain of salt, as they often seem dubious at best.
Then again, I suppose that should apply to any estimate, especially when the estimator is using ceteris paribus in order to reach a certain conclusion...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC lost a lot of street cred with me once I found out how their SAMMEC algorithm determines "smoking-related deaths:" basically, if a person dies, and their medical history shows that they smoked at any point during life, the system calls it a "smoking death." Doesn't matter that the person was morbidly obese and died of a heart attack, he smoked when he was 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but how do you separate smoking deaths from non-smoking deaths?
"Smoker diseases" like lung cancer afflict non smokers as well. For instance, 10-15% of lung cancers come from non-smokers:
http://lungcancer.about.com/od... [about.com]
When you consider cancer is often caused by mutations, and smoking encourages gene mutations, this makes sense.
So really, smoking makes it more likely to die early, not that you are shooting yourself with a gun.
Thus the reason why you might assume anyone who actively has smoked above a
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience, CDC estimates should be taken with a grain of salt, as they often seem dubious at best.
They're not the least bit dubious, or hard to understand. CDC estimates, like all their actions, are designed o get them more tax dollars to play with. They're reasonably good at it, and never ones to miss an opportunity to profit from public hysteria.
More people die in Africa every month from dysentery than have died from ebola ever. But there's no public hysteria, and thus no tax dollars, in that.
The best-case scenario is out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming that the dead are buried safely just isn't going to happen. When you have that many people dying, nobody's going to be in a rush to join them by burying them. "Let someone else do it." And eventually, there just won't be enough people to bury all the dead even if they were willing. They'd be spending way too much time meeting their own basic survival needs in countries that are falling apart.
Nobody's going to be running to the local clinic for examination when they know that they can't even be fed there if it's confirmed they have the disease - and that's already happening [sky.com].
The patient escaped from Monrovia's Elwa hospital, which last month was so crowded with cases of the deadly disease that it had to turn people away.
One woman at the scene said: "The patients are hungry, they are starving. No food, no water.
More and more, it appears the "best-case" scenario is that the disease burns itself out while being contained to only a few countries. And please keep in mind, even the UN agrees that we're going to see more of this once more diseases gain antibiotic resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we're somewhat fortunate that this virus doesn't stay viable long outside of a host.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you would be wrong on that account. There a a couple of viruses that are vulnerable to antibiotics. It is however the exception that proves the rule, and they are not disease causing viruses anyway from memory.
Ebola Vaccine At Least 50 White People Away (Score:5, Funny)
From The Onion, America's Finest News Source:
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Replace "white people" with active and retired military servicemen and women, and it's pretty much reality.
They do a lot of infectious disease combat testing on our troops. It probably started out of necessity, and that's still the excuse, but it evolved into just treating our soldiers as an easy supply of ideal human test subjects. Makes you wonder if those troops they're sending over were exactly for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Onion articles are funny, generally speaking, when the satire is a little too close for comfort.
If Ebola had been ravaging New Zealand or Finland, we'd have been all over it - but it's in Africa, so nobody cares. If Quebecois had spent the 90's slaughtering English-speaking Canadians, instead of Hutu's killing Tutsi's in Rwanda, we'd have been all over that too. Instead, "Laughing at the mere mention of Hutus and Tutsis" is just a Cards against Humanity card that confuses people.
We're all just a bunc
Re: (Score:2)
bonus apostrophes! meh.
1.4 million is best case, in many ways. (Score:2)
Ebola is young in humans. There is no immunity to it like we have some immunity to Flu and various other diseases.
It being young is scary in other ways.
Before now, the virus had about 500 hosts in which to evolve a more spreadable version, and did not.
Even if it mutates to a version that 'only' kills 10% of the population, the truly scary thing is not global Ebola.
In western countries, Ebola in its current form would be a few cases per 'patient zero' coming from outside.
The scary thing is if it evolves, and
The Case for Contamination (Score:2)
The New York Times Opines [nytimes.com]:
Here we go again... (Score:2)
And before someone points it out, yes, I'm aware the mortality rate from Ebola isn't comparable to the flu, but the overblown hype about it stands.
Ebola could reach a billion victims in one month (Score:2)
If we started air-dropping Ebola victims over Chinese cities.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please send aid money to Africa where Africans (not foreigners) can deal with it themselves."
Hell no.
You want our help/money? We control how it gets spent.
You want control? Earn the money yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your concern for micromanagement by your own country's unelected bureaucrats is more important to you than the lives of literally millions of people.
I don't care how justified you think you are, but right now you're getting up there with "voting national socialist in 1935" levels of awful.
Nah, he's merely pointing out that Africans who "know how African diseases work" is obviously not working, and that throwing money at a solution that doesn't work will not turn it into one that does.
Re: (Score:2)
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe Liberia, but I've never heard of Guinea having that problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Rampant corruption and poverty is only part of the problem.
Botswana is widely considered the least corrupt country in Africa, and the most prosperous sub-Saharan country.
But they have been completely unable to control the AIDS epidemic, with up to a quarter of the country infected.
Botswana has gone from having one of the highest sub-Saharan life expectancies to one of the lowest.
Unhealthy habits can be very hard to change, even in a relatively prosperous and well-governed country.
Given the sad history of AI
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Your concern for micromanagement by your own country's unelected bureaucrats is more important to you than the lives of literally millions of people.
Sierra Leone, Liberia, and some other West African countries have not proved to be reliable to apply aid money where it's intended.
There are, indeed, African countries to be trusted, even in West Africa, but last time I checked Ebola had not spread to Cape Verde.
Re: (Score:3)
Your concern for micromanagement by your own country's unelected bureaucrats is more important to you than the lives of literally millions of people.
Sierra Leone, Liberia, and some other West African countries have not proved to be reliable to apply aid money where it's intended.
There are, indeed, African countries to be trusted, even in West Africa, but last time I checked Ebola had not spread to Cape Verde.
Oh, as opposed to the Iraqi and Afghan ass clowns that were given billions and get military and economic aid from the U.S., still!?!?! Maybe if there were terrorists in these African nations they'd get some aid, is that what you're going for, or is it even more racist than that?
Re: (Score:2)
As you note, the US has some experience with corrupt government embezzling aid money. Once bitten, twice shy, and all.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Your assumption that the unelected bureaucrats in an African kleptocracy are more responsive to the needs of millions of people (who aren't related to them) is...amusing.
And I don't care how justified you think you are....
Re: (Score:2)
p>I don't care how justified you think you are, but right now you're getting up there with "voting national socialist in 1935" levels of awful.
And I don't care how you think Americans should spend their money, especially when you resort to namecalling and are too ignorant to recognize Godwin's Law, even when it's humping your pantleg.
Maybe we should contact the government of Nigeria and offer them millions in aid, but we need a little seed money to free it up from the bank account it's currently in.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Funny)
Please write to your governments and have these sorts of people punished. Please send aid money to Africa where Africans (not foreigners) can deal with it themselves.
Wait, are you a Prince? Do you need my help to reclaim your inheritance?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of quarantines, we need to treat it at a regular hospital and treat the people with respect.
There's a great idea, let's put a highly infectious virus with a 50% kill rate into a hospital and not quarantine those known to be infected.
That's simply insane.
Yes, the whole situation on the ground is fucked up, but not recognizing that the ONLY way to contain Ebola is by quarantine is going to make things worse not better.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a great idea, let's put a highly infectious virus with a 50% kill rate into a hospital and not quarantine those known to be infected.
And note that even in the US, about 75,000 people a year die from infections they acquire in hospitals [cnn.com], and that's just pneumonia, C. difficile, MRSA, and other things much less scary that Ebola, which you can get from touching something with just a few virus particles in it. I think the people who are claiming Ebola is only a problem in Africa due to ignorance and substandard medical care are fooling themselves: if it gets to the U.S., the hospitals here are unlikely to perform up to the standards required.
Plus, every new infection means more chances for Ebola to mutate, possibly into an airborne form.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, every new infection means more chances for Ebola to mutate, possibly into an airborne form.
But then we could start using fuel-air bombs on civilians [wikipedia.org]! Hours of fun for the whole family.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how many people in the U.S. acquire HIV or AIDS in a hospital setting? That's a much better comparison for how Ebola is transmitted.
Not at all. HIV is relatively hard to catch for various reasons. Ebola you can get from a cough or sneeze from an infected person (a small bit of saliva doesn't count as "airborne," apparently), or by touching something an infected person sweated on. It only takes a few virus particles. I read about reporters given a tour of a hospital in one infected country, and they were told "Don't touch the walls!"
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of quarantines, we need to treat it at a regular hospital and treat the people with respect.
There's a great idea, let's put a highly infectious virus with a 50% kill rate into a hospital and not quarantine those known to be infected.
That's simply insane.
Yes, the whole situation on the ground is fucked up, but not recognizing that the ONLY way to contain Ebola is by quarantine is going to make things worse not better.
What other way do you propose?
The problem is, quarantine is the only effective way we know to limit the spread of the disease. Even Genocide does not work as you cant kill everyone at once. A few will get away and infect a new population centre. Knowing they're going to be shot instead of treated is going to be a huge incentive for them to hide rather than seek help and they will hide in a well populated area.
Another poster foolishly linked to an fear mongering article how infections in hospitals ki
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)
The callousness here is more than I can deal with, so I will deal with trivia. Look up the death of Arias, IIRC, or the plague of Athens. Ebola, like AIDS, existed long ago (AIDS cite: The Tipping Point, note about research showing AIDS-type deaths in Napoleonic era)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually in the novels the surrounding areas/states/countries block the roads and shoot anyone trying to escape a contaminated area.
I wonder if these kinds of deaths are included in the model.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 1.5M infected (not deaths) in Liberia and Sierra Leone, which have a combined population of 10 million. (So far, the death toll is about half the infected population, although that's not accounting for possible misreporting.)
Death Toll (Score:5, Informative)
The death toll of the disease is 80% of all persons infected.
While the disease increases exponentially, the ratio of infected / dead is around 55% currently. But that still means that 80% will be dead three weeks later.
Source: http://healthmap.org/site/dise... [healthmap.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's the death rate. As we both agree, the death toll is about 50% of the infected population.
Limited Excel Model (Score:5, Interesting)
I just read the Excel model that you can download as part of the article:
- It uses the parameters of previous Ebola outbreaks as a base.
These outbreaks happened in remote and sparsely populated regions. In contrast, the outbreak in Monrovia has hit slum like neighborhoods. This is a completely different base.
- The Excel model uses a "flat" model of population that doesn't take into account geographical distribution.
Infectiousness in slums will be a lot higher than in previous outbreaks because of the density of population.
- The model talks about keeping 70% of the infected population at home or in hospitals in order to reduce the infection rate. This way, the epidemic will slowly decrease.
However, there is widespread fear of hospitalization and the mortality rate of Ebola (80%) basically means that people will distrust any doctors, hospital etc. So I can't see how this should happen.
- In the history of Ebola there was no outbreak of this size.
In the past there were plenty (relatively) of workers per case. But now patients will outnumber the helpers.
Summary: I can't see why the exponential development could be slowed down as indicated in the model...
Re: (Score:2)
Only because it means 80% of America and Europe will die too.
Re:Liberia Population (Score:4, Insightful)
Source: World Energy Consumption [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trolling or not, it's true that the death of the majority of the population of every nation on earth would go a long way towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The deaths brought about by the resulting general collapse of civil government and trade throughout the world, as Western Europe experienced for eight centuries after 476, would go even further.
The most horrifying part is that the first industrial revolution that made the present state of high civilization possible has at present consumed virtual
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Many of these places have everyone bathing and drinking from the same water supply, and there are cultural practices like touching the dead before burial. Additionally there is a lack of trust in western medical practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Touching the dead can give you Ebola? That seems like an extremely easy to transmit disease. I'm surprised a worldwide Ebola apocalypse hasn't occurred already.
Or by "touching the dead" do you mean people drinking the dead man's embalming fluids?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not airborne, you do have to come into direct contact with it.
The "fun" part is it's not like you have to ingest it - literally touch is all it takes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Touching the dead can give you Ebola? That seems like an extremely easy to transmit disease. I'm surprised a worldwide Ebola apocalypse hasn't occurred already.
Touching people who died from Ebola can give you Ebola, yes. It's an infectious disease that spreads via bodily fluids and causes bleeding. Since someone who died from it probably bled quite a lot, that means they're essentially covered in infected and infectious blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Late-stage Ebola typically involves skin lesions. So any contact with the dead means you're touching bodily fluids.
Re:What is going on? (Score:4, Interesting)
Additionally there is a lack of trust in western medical practices.
That's not the only problem. [cpj.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)