4 ms·

I question "Unseen in a Century". I lived in Gabon in 2001-2002, and I remember that this was pretty much the way Ebola outbreaks were handled then and there.

ekianjo 12y ago
It's also the same tactics described in "The Plague" from Camus. With very rational reasons.
upofadown 12y ago
We have recently seen stories associated with the current outbreak where medical aid teams were being prevented from moving around freely due to local quarantines. Those stories strongly implied that it was all about fear and ignorance. Now suddenly quarantines are being presented as the smart thing to do...
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  I don't see why you think the two are contradictory. The point is to quarantine the general populace, not the medical teams.
richardwigley 12y ago
Or Flu in 2009 by Chinese - they kept people in their hotels [1]. I'm guessing the Journo wanted to 'big' the story up. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/02/idUSHKG2279 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/02/idUSHKG2279
- nostrademons 12y ago
  The article is describing a form of quarantine much more severe than keeping people in their hotels. They're talking about cordoning off the entire affected area - basically, the area around all infection sites becomes one big border with armed guards that only allow food, water, and medical supplies in, and nobody out. The reason this is controversial is because there are close to 2 million people in the affected districts, and only about 500 of them currently have Ebola. At best, you're severely inconveniencing 99.975% of the population, and at worst, you're leaving them to die. It'd be like cutting San Francisco off from the outside world, with armed guards on the bridges and San Bruno Mountain, because measles was found on BART. I don't know what the situation in Gabon was like, but as I understand it they depended upon local quarantines of villages, and didn't close the border of the whole country, right?
  - etimberg 12y ago
    Part of the problem is that health officials really have no idea how many people could be exposed inside the regions as many do not trust health care providers. Quarantining entire areas is probably the safest thing that can be done right now. "Its size is due in part to weaknesses in the affected countries’ health systems and a lack of trust in the health workers who are struggling to combat the virus" [0] Not sure the reliability of this source, but "The health security situation is worsened by an apparent lack of trust by the local population in their own governments and medical staff. Warnings against the consumption and selling of bush meat for instance have largely fallen on deaf ears with an inherent belief of the local populations that Ebola either must be a myth or a scam on behalf of corrupt politicians to deprive them of their most basic needs and livelihoods." [1] [0] - http://www.intrahealth.org/page/ebola-outbreak-underscores-need-for-stronger-frontline-health-workforce-in-west-africa http://www.intrahealth.org/page/ebola-outbreak-underscores-n... [1] - http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2014/08/12/ebola-west-africa-a-global-biosecurity-risk/ http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2014/08/12/ebola-west-africa...
    - richardwigley 12y ago
      There was a BBC video, a female reporter, went around looking at what was going on/wrong - they population didn't trust the government as they had been lied to about everything else - why should they trust the Government now? It is difficult to educate a population in this situation about hygiene. Let alone asking them to not eat bush meat. Searching for 'BBC Ebola' is now a thankless task - so I can't find the reference.
kazinator 12y ago
You are right. The way I read it, the article clearly means "unseen in a century" in certain implicit parts of the world, not absolutely anywhere. There are all kinds of things done in some places that have not been seen for centuries in other places.

ekianjo 12y ago

It's also the same tactics described in "The Plague" from Camus. With very rational reasons.

upofadown 12y ago

We have recently seen stories associated with the current outbreak where medical aid teams were being prevented from moving around freely due to local quarantines. Those stories strongly implied that it was all about fear and ignorance. Now suddenly quarantines are being presented as the smart thing to do...

ceejayoz 12y ago
I don't see why you think the two are contradictory. The point is to quarantine the general populace, not the medical teams.

richardwigley 12y ago

Or Flu in 2009 by Chinese - they kept people in their hotels [1]. I'm guessing the Journo wanted to 'big' the story up. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/02/idUSHKG2279 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/02/idUSHKG2279

nostrademons 12y ago
The article is describing a form of quarantine much more severe than keeping people in their hotels. They're talking about cordoning off the entire affected area - basically, the area around all infection sites becomes one big border with armed guards that only allow food, water, and medical supplies in, and nobody out. The reason this is controversial is because there are close to 2 million people in the affected districts, and only about 500 of them currently have Ebola. At best, you're severely inconveniencing 99.975% of the population, and at worst, you're leaving them to die. It'd be like cutting San Francisco off from the outside world, with armed guards on the bridges and San Bruno Mountain, because measles was found on BART. I don't know what the situation in Gabon was like, but as I understand it they depended upon local quarantines of villages, and didn't close the border of the whole country, right?
- etimberg 12y ago
  Part of the problem is that health officials really have no idea how many people could be exposed inside the regions as many do not trust health care providers. Quarantining entire areas is probably the safest thing that can be done right now. "Its size is due in part to weaknesses in the affected countries’ health systems and a lack of trust in the health workers who are struggling to combat the virus" [0] Not sure the reliability of this source, but "The health security situation is worsened by an apparent lack of trust by the local population in their own governments and medical staff. Warnings against the consumption and selling of bush meat for instance have largely fallen on deaf ears with an inherent belief of the local populations that Ebola either must be a myth or a scam on behalf of corrupt politicians to deprive them of their most basic needs and livelihoods." [1] [0] - http://www.intrahealth.org/page/ebola-outbreak-underscores-need-for-stronger-frontline-health-workforce-in-west-africa http://www.intrahealth.org/page/ebola-outbreak-underscores-n... [1] - http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2014/08/12/ebola-west-africa-a-global-biosecurity-risk/ http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2014/08/12/ebola-west-africa...
  - richardwigley 12y ago
    There was a BBC video, a female reporter, went around looking at what was going on/wrong - they population didn't trust the government as they had been lied to about everything else - why should they trust the Government now? It is difficult to educate a population in this situation about hygiene. Let alone asking them to not eat bush meat. Searching for 'BBC Ebola' is now a thankless task - so I can't find the reference.

kazinator 12y ago

You are right. The way I read it, the article clearly means "unseen in a century" in certain implicit parts of the world, not absolutely anywhere. There are all kinds of things done in some places that have not been seen for centuries in other places.