If we don’t see a more rapid and robust response to disease by the U.N., our world may soon look like the worst part of the film "Contagion." Only this time, the virus that kills millions will have a different name: Ebola.
In fact, it has already killed thousands of people, and sickened many more; all the victims are from African countries like Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Interestingly enough, these countries are already starting to look like the setting from "Contagion": treatment centers are running out of resources, beds, and suppliers and soldiers are quarantining at gunpoint as riots break out. Borders are being closed, which helps stop the spread of the virus but devastates the region's food supply.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that none of this should be happening, since there is a "cure" for Ebola. Two Americans, Nancy Writebol and Kent Brantly, who were performing medical missionary work in West Africa, survived infection. How?
“The key to resolving Ebola virus infection was aggressive supportive care,” is the answer that was given by Dr. Bruce Ribner, director of Emory University Hospital’s Infectious Disease Unit. Aggressive supportive care? Basically, this term means the use of “saline solution and fever reducers” in a clean and healthy environment like an intensive care unit.
But here lies the problem: this "cure" won’t work in West Africa, mostly because there are very few resources to combat the disease, as beds, clean needles and clean water are all hard to come by. Another big problem is that the virus kills very quickly – think 6 days. If you want to keep the person alive, you have to catch the symptoms early and diagnose them accurately all within a short period of time, which doesn’t always happen. And finally, the disease may become more contagious if it is not halted.
Some however, especially in the U.S., are trying to make sure that it is halted, by trying to facilitate that "aggressive supportive care." President Obama has authorized the deployment of 3,000 U.S. troops to the region of West Africa in an attempt to restore order and facilitate the delivery of supplies and personnel to try to cure the current Ebola cases, while also setting up isolation units to make sure the virus doesn’t spread any further. The U.S. Agency for International Development is also pitching in with beds and hygiene kits.
But even this large effort on the part of the U.S. is not sufficient. Analysts of the situation have said that even the aid that President Obama has authorized is “meager in face of the need” that has arisen around this rapidly growing problem. The complacency of the international community is baffling: President Obama understands that the Ebola outbreak is a huge threat to everyone, not just those in West Africa. So why doesn’t the U.N. understand? And if it does, why doesn’t it do more?
This brings me back to my "Contagion" metaphor: In the film, a comprehensive response was required, with everyone involved. That's exactly what needs to be done here: The international community should direct the U.N. to create what I would call a “global health coalition.” Under the umbrella of the U.N., it would facilitate intimate collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization – which has begun to courageously fight the disease despite a lack of U.N. assistance – and Doctors Without Borders.
The international community should also create a rapid response force, somewhat like what NATO has put together to deal with Ukraine, which would deal specifically with this issue. Also being under the auspices of the U.N., it would comprise global doctors, health professionals, administrators, political advisers, police officials and military personnel, along with both non-governmental organizations and U.N. aid workers. This would allow the problem to be immediately handled and not shunted aside, while also ensuring that the U.S. wouldn't have to send troops unless absolutely necessary.
"Contagion" gives us an example of what the world could look like if the U.N. as a representative of the international community does not act swiftly to curb this epidemic. It should really learn from good advice and start acting more robustly; the world's health depends on it.
Reach the columnist at jbrunne2@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @MrAmbassador4
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
