Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Obviously, we should heed the lessons of the past, but a virus like Ebola is not a static phenomenon

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Obviously, we should heed the lessons of the past, but a virus like Ebola is not a static phenomenon and it's concerning that so many seem to have developed strongly-held assumptions. The number of medical personnel infected in this current outbreak is particularly worrisome and we don't yet understand the exact causes of this. We do know that the strain in the current outbreak is different from those seen before, and that it's mutating[1]. Filoviruses have a rapid rate of mutation, and the longer the outbreak lasts, the more opportunity the virus has to mutate into a form that makes it harder to defeat. The speed with which Ebola kills those it infects is actually disadvantageous to the virus. Natural selection would logically favor a strain of the virus that didn't kill its hosts so quickly. While a lot of speculation revolves around the possibility that the virus could become more easily transmissible, it would be just as worrisome if there were mutations that affected incubation time or the onset symptoms. These types of mutations could significantly complicate some the strategies we're relying on today, if not render them useless. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ebola-virus-has-mutated-during-course-of-outbreak/2014/08/28/98235aaa-2ecb-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ebola-...