- A Bard college student who “tested positive for measles was contagious when he boarded an Amtrak train last Sunday and potentially exposed thousands of travelers to the infection.”
- According to the CDC, as of January 28, there were 84 people in 14 states in the U.S. reported to have measles.
- On the causes of the outbreak, some are blaming anti-vaxxers, a derogatory, catch-all term for people who choose — despite the litany of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective — not to vaccinate themselves or their children.
- Others are pointing to overseas travel as the major cause of the outbreak.
- Naturally, Vox.com is hedging its bets, saying it could be both anti-vaxxers and overseas travel.
- In the wake of the outbreak, Bard College is reportedly requiring students show proof of vaccination, get vaccinated, or stay off campus for 21 days.
- Beyond the Bard campus, doctors are refusing to see children whose parents refuse vaccination.
Yesterday Chris Blattman wrote a post titled, “Ebola is the Kardashian of Diseases.” He had tweeted the same thing a day earlier, followed by “Do not get distracted. Malaria, TB, HIV is what matters.”
[Sidenote: For those who don’t know what a Kardashian is, it roughly translates to being famous for no substantive reason (see a helpful description in the third paragraph of this paper).]
While there’s a bit in Blattman’s post to agree with, we find rather misleading one particular point:
Meanwhile, malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS are already at pandemic proportions and I venture destroy more lives, more economies, and perhaps even more politics than Ebola.
As global health researchers, we are well aware of the top causes of death in African countries and the data are clear that across the continent, malaria, tuberculosis (TB), and AIDS will each claim more lives this year than will Ebola.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated there were 596,000 deaths from malaria and 230,000 deaths from TB in Africa in 2012 and UNAIDS estimated there were 1.1 million AIDS-related deaths in Africa in 2013.
As a comparison, the total number of Ebola deaths in the current outbreak in West Africa according to the most recent WHO update (8/22) is 1,427. A new, unrelated Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has left another two people dead. But even considering there will be more deaths from Ebola before year’s end, the total number of Ebola deaths on the African continent will come nowhere close to the numbers of the top killers.
But Africa is a continent – not a country. If a health problem is only prevalent and problematic in one country rather than in many of Africa’s 54 countries, does that make it as irrelevant as a Kardashian? Continent-wide metrics can mask dramatic impacts of disease outbreaks in countries or even sub-regions. If we consider Ebola in the context where it’s unfolding, it matters a great deal. By the end of 2014, it may matter even more in these countries than the other infectious diseases mentioned by Blattman.
Counting deaths is hard. There are virtually no real-time mortality data in these countries outside of the Ebola case count. What we know about mortality levels and causes in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia comes either from censuses (conducted every 10 years) or from surveys conducted only every five years or so or from statistical models used by the United Nations and other organizations. So we used the 2012 estimates for the leading causes of death in Liberia published from the WHO to put the current Ebola-related mortality in perspective. It shows that, since 5/29, the daily number of Ebola deaths is comparable to the daily number of malaria deaths (approximately seven per day) prior to the outbreak. The daily number of Ebola deaths recorded by WHO has been increasing steadily: in August, it reached an average of 18 deaths per day. This is higher than daily averages for any other cause of death in the country. And it seems to continue climbing (see figure below).
Maybe a reader will be suspicious in reading too much into our daily death rate graph since these data may be capturing a temporary spike in the number of deaths. Over an entire year, the “big killers” that matter could still very well dwarf the total number of deaths due to Ebola. But the current Ebola outbreak is not going away without a fight. The international director of Doctors without Borders said recently that the situation is spiraling out of control in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The outbreak has had a slow and unimpressive response from governments in the affected countries and from the WHO. The heavily affected countries have incredible health care worker shortages and, as more health workers get infected, there will be even fewer to care for those who become sick with Ebola. Just today, the WHO announced it was temporarily pulling its health workers out of Kailahun in Sierra Leone after one of its staff members contracted Ebola under incredibly challenging working conditions.
So, how many deaths from Ebola can we expect by year’s end under these conditions? To try and answer this question, we did some simple arithmetic: at a rate of 18 deaths per day (i.e., the average number reported for August so far in Liberia), it will only be 10 days until Ebola has killed as many people as road-traffic accidents usually kill in the country in an entire year. It will be 20 days until Ebola reaches the yearly level of maternal deaths; 70 days until it reaches the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS deaths and 125 days (i.e., before the end of 2014) until it reaches the estimated annual number of malaria deaths in the country. And of course, these “projections” rest on the very optimistic assumption that the public health response will be able to maintain the number of deaths due to Ebola at 18 per day. In recent days however, the daily number of deaths seems to have been rising quite sharply over time. The number of Ebola deaths may thus catch up with other causes of death this year much sooner than we just calculated.
We have not calculated similar measures for Guinea or Sierra Leone – but given the wealth of publicly available data, we hope others will. Based on reported figures, the outbreak appears better controlled in those two countries and the number of Ebola deaths may not catch up with other causes of death like HIV/AIDS and malaria. It might also be instructive to consider the three countries together in a comparison of the impact of the major causes of death.
But one should still be cautious in sub-regional comparisons. These, too, can be misleading. For example, The Economist called Ebola a “small-scale killer” when comparing it to other infectious diseases in the four affected countries: Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria (at the time of publication, there had not yet been news of the unrelated outbreak in the DRC).
The inclusion of Nigeria in The Economist’s figure, however, biases the assessment of the scale on which Ebola strikes, for two reasons. First, Nigeria has experienced only a very limited number of Ebola cases: 11 infections resulting from one recent “importation”, at the end of July (i.e., contact with an infected traveler, Patrick Sawyer, who flew to Nigeria from Liberia). Later, two infections resulting from contact with patients who came into contact with the index case (for a total of 14 confirmed Ebola cases) were also recorded. Second, Nigeria is also the most populous country in Africa; its population is more than eight times larger than that of populations of the other affected countries combined. As such, any estimates of deaths per day that includes Nigeria in a sub-regional analysis will be heavily influenced by the data from Nigeria.
Two additional points to keep in mind:
- Despite the very exact counts for Ebola cases published with regularity by the WHO, these cases are very likely an undercount. The WHO even stated recently that their estimates of the number of Ebola deaths likely underestimate the scope of the outbreak. So if that is the case, Ebola may reach the level of other causes of death even faster than we calculated above.
- This post is ONLY about deaths. Ebola has taken a much larger toll on these countries than through deaths alone. Think of the effects Ebola is having on the local economies in the most heavily affected countries. HIV/AIDS and malaria are serious diseases – but they haven’t stopped commercial airliners from flying to West Africa.
In sum, we know that the Ebola outbreak is unfolding in a context where there are indeed many pressing issues facing the ordinary folks who are themselves trying to navigate the outbreak. Though we appreciate considering the broader continental context, one might generate misleading characterizations of the impact and scale of Ebola when thinking of Africa as a single unit.
It was flattering to be included on Vox.com‘s list, “24 Twitter accounts you should follow to understand the Ebola outbreak.” But I had a few problems with the list. Most of us included are white (I’m only half, but you get my drift). Limited diversity is not a new problem at Vox. Unlike earlier situations, however, in the space of informing the public about Ebola via social media, there are many diverse voices. Vox readers are missing out on a lot if they limit their scope to what these 24 mostly-White people have to say about Ebola.
One particularly remarkable omission from the Vox list is any African journalist. All the journalists/freelancers/correspondents are white (except Sanjay Gupta). I was genuinely surprised by this since one of the best things I’ve read about the current Ebola outbreak was penned by Umaru Fofana, a journalist in Sierra Leone who has been very active in posting Ebola updates to Twitter.
Below is my (alphabetically ordered) list of people who you could follow on Twitter that weren’t mentioned in the Vox list but should have been. I’ve also included one of the Tweep’s recent tweets about #Ebola. (Please, if you have recommendations, leave links or Twitter handles in the comments section and I’ll add to the list.)
Adia Benton, Medical Anthropologist at Brown University
Abena Dove, Historian of Medicine and Science at UC Berkeley
Bate Felix, Dakar-based West & Central Africa Correspondent for Reuters News
Umaru Fofana, Journalist writing for Reuters and BBC in Sierra Leone
Stephane Helleringer, Demographer at Columbia School of Public Health
Viviane Mbombo in Conakry, Guinea
Cédric Moro, Independent Risk Consultant
Susan Shepler, Professor at American University School of International Service (and recently a Fulbright Scholar in Nigeria)
Abdul Tejan-Cole, Ex ACC Commissioner of Sierra Leone
Jeremy Youde, Professor and author of Global Health Governance
Part of the problem with Vox’s list is that it is limited to Twitter.
I suspect like in many African countries, Facebook is more popular than Twitter in Ebola-affected countries and so including Facebook pages expands the range of topics and issues than we would see on Twitter alone. For example, the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation does not have a Twitter feed, but they have been very consistent in disseminating information on their Facebook page.
Here are a few pages you could like/follow on Facebook, with a few of their recent Ebola posts (again, if you have suggestions for other resources on Facebook, please share in the comments):
FrontPage Africa, a Liberian newspaper
Journalist Nathan Charles, posting from Liberia
In two recent radio interviews, I spoke about my thoughts on the current Ebola outbreak and the response by governments and health organizations. The interviews were with local NPR stations in Columbus, Ohio and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The great thing about both of these programs is that they’re hour-long shows and they take their time covering topics. There’s no rush for quick and easy answers and so no pressure for “soundbite” material.
The first interview was yesterday on the show All Sides with Ann Fisher (WOSU). I’m in the final segment of the show with a Peace Corps Volunteer who was just recently evacuated from Sierra Leone (starting roughly 37 minutes in).
The second interview was this morning on the show The Daily Circuit (MPR). I’m in the throes of writing a post now that goes deeper into the issue of providing experimental treatment in West Africa — what I talk about in the very end of the interview with The Daily Circuit (starting circa minute 33).
Mostly, this blog post is for my mom, who wonders what I do especially when there are no classes to teach. Mom: I’m writing a book. And doing some interviews on radio stations you don’t have in Nevada.
Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO), in partnership with the governments of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, released an eleven-page document outlining the planned response to the Ebola outbreak, which is now spreading in four West African countries.
Clearly stated on the second page of the WHO document is a rather exact figure for the amount of external funding needed to support the response to the Ebola outbreak over the next six months: $71,053,413.
Shortly thereafter, the World Bank announced a pledge of $200 million dollars to the Ebola outbreak response — more than double the WHO’s request.
There are also reports that the African Development Bank will be providing somewhere between $50-$60 million in funding the response.
So problem solved, right? Maybe. Maybe not.
The WHO has not been very good at estimating the resources needed to combat Ebola. For example, the same WHO document reports how earlier in the current Ebola outbreak, the WHO issued funding appeals that totaled $4.8 million and the donor community provided $7 million in response to those appeals. All of that money has been exhausted and the epidemic has only gotten more out of control.
The current WHO estimate takes into account finances pledged by governments of affected countries. The total estimated resource needs are actually more than $71 million figure.
Based on my own calculations from the budget breakdown pictured above, the WHO estimates $103 million is needed for the Ebola outbreak response. Governments in the three affected countries have pledged a total of $32 million toward response efforts (bringing the request for external resources to the $71 million mark).
If governments in affected countries fail to fulfill their pledged commitments, the World Bank and African Development Bank pledges (up to $260 million together) should still cover the estimated resource needs for the response to the Ebola outbreak as estimated by the WHO.
But it’s still hard to know exactly what these budget estimates cover. For example, there is some chance that experimental treatments for Ebola could improve outcomes for West Africans sick with Ebola. Are the costs of those treatments accounted for in the current budget estimates? I doubt it.
The current estimates also fail to account for needs of containing the spread in Nigeria, which only recently reported new cases of Ebola following the death of a man who had traveled there from Liberia. Today, a Nigerian nurse is reported to have died and a doctor is sick with Ebola; both treated the traveler from Liberia.
All of this is to say the resource needs are a moving target. Don’t everyone sit back and think the World Bank and the WHO have this covered.