5 ms·

This unfortunately won’t be news again until, and I think this is now an until versus if, we find evidence the disease is spreading uncontrollably outside the D

This unfortunately won’t be news again until, and I think this is now an until versus if, we find evidence the disease is spreading uncontrollably outside the DRC.

SilverElfin 6mo ago
I think that’s going to be true if any disease whose previous outbreaks were only in a “third world” place. The rest of the world easily ignores it. If it was contained but in let’s say - some European country - I bet it would be in the news 24/7 still.
- scotty79 6mo ago
  You think an outbreak, in for example Belgium, would be 24/7 news in Demorcatic Republic of Congo?
  - rjsw 6mo ago
    The DRC is a former Belgian colony, so yes.
    - TFNA 6mo ago
      Have you ever been to the DRC? Its former colonial master plays almost no role in Congolese society. Belgium made little effort to spread its culture to its colony, rather like the Dutch in Indonesia. Then, after independence, most of the population became isolated from the outside world as central government and education broke down, and the main impact on the country’s politics from outside came from larger, stronger powers than Belgium was.
  - idiotsecant 6mo ago
    This is such a weirdly tilted and aggressive response, complete with Facebook style demand to prove some strawman nobody ever claimed. Yes, outbreaks of extremely contagious and deadly disease often are major news stories in other countries, and yes western nations often ignore outbreaks in global south nations.
    - mft_ 6mo ago
      You might not like the tone, but I don’t think it is a strawman argument. The discussion is about whether the western media is paying insufficient attention to the Ebola outbreak simply because it’s in DRC, and DRC/Africa doesn’t matter. The post you responded to is suggesting a different hypothesis: that the media is paying limited attention because it’s in a country quite a long way away, on a different continent. In line with this hypothesis, it’s not unreasonable to question how much attention the press in countries a long way away would focus on a viral outbreak in a European country.
- jansan 6mo ago
  If that outbreak was in a midsize European town like Marburg they would even name the virus after it.
  - bananamogul 6mo ago
    But not if there was a virus that broke out in, say, Wuhan.
- nekzn 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tkz1312 6mo ago
    I mean it obviously impacts the people who live in the Congo...
  - iammjm 6mo ago
    it doesn't until it does
- mentalgear 6mo ago
  Exemplified by the ridiculous Hanta-Virus news/social media coverage for weeks - even though the risks were much lower and contained - but it happened on a CRUISE ship which the news people thought might resonate with the western vacation crowd.
  - SilverElfin 6mo ago
    I view that situation differently. The Andes strain of hantavirus does spread human to human and isn’t well understood. I think caution and coverage makes sense. After all, someone caught it just sitting near an infected person on a plane.
somenameforme 6mo ago
Ebola isn't like most people think. It isn't airborne, isn't respiratory and requires direct contact with blood/semen/feces/etc to spread. It's also only known to be contagious once symptoms are present. The risk of a global outbreak is very low. Africa has a large array of unique circumstances that make it much more 'viral' there, including various cultural funerary rituals that involve contact with corpses that can have extremely high viral loads, bushmeat consumption/processing (ebola can spread from animals to humans), as well as all the more stereotypical (and accurate nonetheless) reasons as well that make it particularly dangerous for healthcare workers there. It's not entirely clear how it could spread uncontrollably outside of Africa.
- dyauspitr 6mo ago
  Viruses are viruses though. Becoming airborne and less deadly (like this current strain) would be a death knell for the world. The longer you let it hang around the longer it has time to adapt. This is why HIV medication is prescribed so overwhelmingly. One of the main goals is to stop all replication immediately or it rather quickly “figures out” how to get past the drug.
  - jopsen 6mo ago
    There has been a lot of HIV going around, I have yet to hear reports that it's gone airborne. But, yes, I would rather not have an outbreak of ebola.
    - dyauspitr 6mo ago
      HIV is a very weak virus. Ebola is significantly more robust.
  - somenameforme 6mo ago
    Ebola thrives in African animal populations, so it has basically forever to do whatever you think it might do - though I'd add that in basically all scenarios viruses become more mild over time. It's not just good luck but because it maximizes transmissibility - killing your host usually means you die too. And that may well be why ebola remains so nasty to humans - we're not its primary reservoir, it's fruit bats which maintain persistent asymptomatic ebola infections, and are often the source of the first human infection in outbreaks.

This unfortunately won’t be news again until, and I think this is now an until versus if, we find evidence the disease is spreading uncontrollably outside the DRC.

SilverElfin 6mo ago

I think that’s going to be true if any disease whose previous outbreaks were only in a “third world” place. The rest of the world easily ignores it. If it was contained but in let’s say - some European country - I bet it would be in the news 24/7 still.

scotty79 6mo ago
You think an outbreak, in for example Belgium, would be 24/7 news in Demorcatic Republic of Congo?
- rjsw 6mo ago
  The DRC is a former Belgian colony, so yes.
  - TFNA 6mo ago
    Have you ever been to the DRC? Its former colonial master plays almost no role in Congolese society. Belgium made little effort to spread its culture to its colony, rather like the Dutch in Indonesia. Then, after independence, most of the population became isolated from the outside world as central government and education broke down, and the main impact on the country’s politics from outside came from larger, stronger powers than Belgium was.
- idiotsecant 6mo ago
  This is such a weirdly tilted and aggressive response, complete with Facebook style demand to prove some strawman nobody ever claimed. Yes, outbreaks of extremely contagious and deadly disease often are major news stories in other countries, and yes western nations often ignore outbreaks in global south nations.
  - mft_ 6mo ago
    You might not like the tone, but I don’t think it is a strawman argument. The discussion is about whether the western media is paying insufficient attention to the Ebola outbreak simply because it’s in DRC, and DRC/Africa doesn’t matter. The post you responded to is suggesting a different hypothesis: that the media is paying limited attention because it’s in a country quite a long way away, on a different continent. In line with this hypothesis, it’s not unreasonable to question how much attention the press in countries a long way away would focus on a viral outbreak in a European country.
jansan 6mo ago
If that outbreak was in a midsize European town like Marburg they would even name the virus after it.
- bananamogul 6mo ago
  But not if there was a virus that broke out in, say, Wuhan.
nekzn 6mo ago
[flagged]
- tkz1312 6mo ago
  I mean it obviously impacts the people who live in the Congo...
- iammjm 6mo ago
  it doesn't until it does
mentalgear 6mo ago
Exemplified by the ridiculous Hanta-Virus news/social media coverage for weeks - even though the risks were much lower and contained - but it happened on a CRUISE ship which the news people thought might resonate with the western vacation crowd.
- SilverElfin 6mo ago
  I view that situation differently. The Andes strain of hantavirus does spread human to human and isn’t well understood. I think caution and coverage makes sense. After all, someone caught it just sitting near an infected person on a plane.

somenameforme 6mo ago

Ebola isn't like most people think. It isn't airborne, isn't respiratory and requires direct contact with blood/semen/feces/etc to spread. It's also only known to be contagious once symptoms are present. The risk of a global outbreak is very low. Africa has a large array of unique circumstances that make it much more 'viral' there, including various cultural funerary rituals that involve contact with corpses that can have extremely high viral loads, bushmeat consumption/processing (ebola can spread from animals to humans), as well as all the more stereotypical (and accurate nonetheless) reasons as well that make it particularly dangerous for healthcare workers there. It's not entirely clear how it could spread uncontrollably outside of Africa.

dyauspitr 6mo ago
Viruses are viruses though. Becoming airborne and less deadly (like this current strain) would be a death knell for the world. The longer you let it hang around the longer it has time to adapt. This is why HIV medication is prescribed so overwhelmingly. One of the main goals is to stop all replication immediately or it rather quickly “figures out” how to get past the drug.
- jopsen 6mo ago
  There has been a lot of HIV going around, I have yet to hear reports that it's gone airborne. But, yes, I would rather not have an outbreak of ebola.
  - dyauspitr 6mo ago
    HIV is a very weak virus. Ebola is significantly more robust.
- somenameforme 6mo ago
  Ebola thrives in African animal populations, so it has basically forever to do whatever you think it might do - though I'd add that in basically all scenarios viruses become more mild over time. It's not just good luck but because it maximizes transmissibility - killing your host usually means you die too. And that may well be why ebola remains so nasty to humans - we're not its primary reservoir, it's fruit bats which maintain persistent asymptomatic ebola infections, and are often the source of the first human infection in outbreaks.