Buzz
Have you heard the news? The apocalypse has arrived. Across the US, Europe, and the UK, reports are surfacing about a virus that’s an even more vicious relative of the Black Death and the Spanish flu. Ebola is said to be capable of taking lives in the most gruesome manner, and it's about to wreak havoc on humanity.
But is it really? As it turns out, the threat of Ebola to the Western world has been exaggerated to an absurd extent. While it has certainly caused devastation in Africa, it’s not the global catastrophe the media has led us to believe.
10. The Risk of Catching It is Extremely Low
When the Spanish flu struck in 1918, it infected more than a third of the global population. With a terrifyingly efficient spread, the virus moved through humanity like the infection in a zombie film. Today, the big question is: Could Ebola spread like that?
The answer: No. Absolutely not.
Unlike the Spanish flu, Ebola is incredibly difficult to catch. To contract the virus, bodily fluids from an infected person must enter your body through a cut or one of your openings. In fact, you could literally dip your hands in infected blood and—provided you don’t have a cut and clean up properly afterward—you still wouldn't get Ebola.
But what about the common fluids we come into contact with daily, like saliva and sweat? According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the active virus has never been found in sweat. As for saliva, it only becomes infectious in the most advanced stages of the disease, which means you’d have to be engaging in very intimate contact with a terminal patient to risk exposure from saliva. Additionally, mosquitoes or other bloodsucking insects can't transmit the virus from one person to another.
In fact, Ebola is so hard to contract that you could sit next to an infected person on a plane for the entire flight and still not catch it. When an infected man vomited violently on an airplane in July, none of the other passengers fell ill.
9. The Rate of Transmission Is Ridiculously Low
When examining an infectious disease, doctors often consider the basic reproductive number (R0). Simply put, R0 tells us how many other individuals an infected person is likely to spread the virus to. HIV has an R0 of 4, meaning one infected person could potentially infect four others in a completely vulnerable population. Measles, a highly contagious virus, has an R0 of 18. In contrast, Ebola has a maximum R0 value of 1.5 or 2. This means that, even without any isolation or treatment efforts, an infected person is unlikely to transmit the virus to more than two people.
Mathematically, even such a low transmission rate could result in widespread infection if unchecked. However, in the Western world, Ebola’s actual R0 is lower than its theoretical maximum. Since the virus spreads through bodily fluids, it thrives in areas with limited healthcare and where burial customs involve close contact with the deceased. In nations with solid medical systems, the virus has a much harder time spreading. The key to halting its transmission is isolation; even something as simple as a door can stop Ebola in its tracks.
By adhering to standard procedures that have been in place for decades to combat infectious diseases, the US is essentially guaranteed to defeat Ebola.
8. It Will Not Become Airborne
One of the most terrifying fears about Ebola is that it could evolve to become airborne. While scientists assure us that this won't happen, we also know that viruses can mutate. Surely, it’s possible that Ebola could one day spread through the air, right?
Well, yes, but it’s as likely as Carrot Top becoming the 45th president. While it’s theoretically possible for Ebola to evolve into an airborne virus, it would require the virus to defy everything we know about how viruses spread. According to the WHO, there is absolutely no evidence that Ebola has ever become airborne—this includes the 1989 Ebola mutation found in Reston, Virginia. No virus in history has made such a drastic shift in how it transmits. Even rapidly mutating viruses like HIV and the flu have never changed their mode of transmission, and Ebola moves much slower than either of those.
And what about the chance of Ebola spreading through coughs and sneezes, like the flu? Again, it's incredibly unlikely. As Scientific American pointed out, Ebola doesn’t replicate in large enough numbers in the lungs or throat to make transmission via sneezing a real risk. The virus also doesn’t present cold-like symptoms. Lastly, respiratory viruses spread across the globe in a matter of days or weeks. If Ebola had made the leap to a respiratory virus by now, we’d already be aware of it.
7. If Ebola Mutates, It Will Likely Become Less Deadly
Although it might seem counterintuitive, most viruses actually prefer to keep their hosts alive. The world’s most successful viruses aren’t the ones that kill their victims quickly, but those like HSV-1. HSV-1 stays dormant in the system, quietly infecting up to 90% of the American population over 60.
Compared to a Darwinian superbug like that, Ebola is almost laughable. It kills its hosts so quickly that it hardly has time to spread. The idea that Ebola would become more dangerous as time goes on contradicts everything we know about natural selection.
A much more likely scenario if the virus mutates successfully is that it would become milder. This would be an evolutionary advantage for Ebola, as a less lethal version could spread to more people. For us, it would mean the virus becoming significantly less deadly, encouraging further transmission. Instead of being a harbinger of airborne doom, a mutation of Ebola would probably save lives.
6. Ebola Doesn’t Have an Infectious Incubation Period
One of the most unsettling aspects of many viruses is their incubation period—the time between infection and the onset of symptoms. During this period, viruses like the flu can still be contagious, meaning you can spread the virus without even realizing you're infected. Fortunately, this isn't the case with Ebola.
According to the WHO, Ebola can’t be transmitted until symptoms appear. Even if you shared a needle or a cup of vomit with someone the day before they started showing signs of Ebola, you still won’t contract the virus. This is extremely helpful in fighting the disease. Since most people notice when a friend is showing signs of Ebola, we can usually track their movements and isolate anyone who came into contact with the infected individual.
As an added bonus, the virus stops being contagious the moment symptoms subside, meaning the chances of contracting Ebola from a survivor are virtually nonexistent.
5. The Number of Ebola Cases So Far Is Extremely Low
Do you remember the swine flu? Back in 2009, we feared that a flu pandemic would bring an end to humanity. We hardly noticed as it quietly spread across the globe, but it still infected over 60 million people in the United States alone. If America could brush off nearly one-fifth of its population catching the last media-driven panic, how many people must Ebola have infected to cause such a global reaction this time?
The number is closer to 8,000 worldwide. While that's still 8,000 too many and tragic for all involved, it underscores how slowly and narrowly Ebola has spread. Just one case each has been reported in Spain and Senegal, with no fatalities. Even in the United States, where one death has been recorded, the total number of infected people stands at just three (as of writing).
For comparison, the bubonic plague infects an average of seven Americans each year. Yet, as of 2014, we still haven't seen a resurgence of the Black Death that decimated Europe.
4. We’ve Already Overcome Similar Threats
In 2008, Michelle Barnes disembarked from a plane arriving from Uganda, completely unaware that she was carrying a deadly stowaway. Hidden inside her body was the Marburg virus, a close relative of Ebola with similar symptoms and an almost identical mortality rate. Within a few days, Barnes started to show symptoms and came into contact with around 260 people in her Colorado town. How many of those exposed to Barnes actually contracted Marburg?
None. Barnes survived the virus without passing it on to anyone else. She wasn’t even aware that she had the virus until months later, long after her ordeal was over.
In the Netherlands, another woman who had visited the same region of Uganda as Barnes also contracted Marburg. Again, no one else was infected, even though authorities identified 64 people who were considered to be at high risk.
These weren't just accidents. In fact, in every instance of Marburg outbreaks in the West, the death toll and infection rate have been remarkably low. Take the 1975 Johannesburg outbreak, where just three people were infected, and only one died. Even the notorious 1967 scares in Frankfurt and Belgrade only saw 31 people infected, with seven fatalities. This occurred at a time when knowledge of the virus was minimal, and medical standards were not as advanced, yet it still resulted in fewer deaths than what asthma typically causes in just one day.
3. The Real Threat Is Media Hysteria
If you look at past pandemic coverage, it becomes clear that the media often focuses almost entirely on the negative aspects. During the SARS outbreak, the Daily Mail published a headline stating 'SARS more serious than AIDS', suggesting over a billion cases. In reality, no cases have been reported worldwide since 2004. When swine flu surged, various publications predicted it could kill 120 million people. In the UK, the panic caused by the media was worse than the flu itself. By the summer of 2009, only 30 people had died, yet the panic triggered by the media had nearly collapsed the nation’s health services.
Throughout nearly every major pandemic of the past decade, the press has consistently portrayed the worst-case scenario. It seems the more catastrophic the prediction, the more likely it is to grab attention, despite the fact that in many cases, these predictions turned out to be false or exaggerated.
People just don't want reassurance. If we'd titled this article '10 Reasons Ebola Will Destroy America (And It’s All Obama’s Fault),' we'd likely have enough traffic right now to pay off all our mortgages. The same goes for news outlets: They can't let others get all the Ebola clicks, so they keep pumping out more dramatic, louder, and scarier articles to draw people in.
Of course, if they keep fearmongering long enough, they may eventually be right. There could be a disease that devastates the entire world at some point in the future. But this Ebola outbreak won’t be it. The sooner editors and reporters around the world realize that and calm down, the better off we’ll all be.
2. A Vaccine Might Already Exist
In 2005, virologist Heinz Feldmann developed a vaccine that effectively stops the spread of Ebola in macaques, either before or after infection. Since there was no interest in funding an Ebola vaccine at the time, the research didn’t progress to human trials. However, in 2009, it was administered to a German worker who accidentally pricked herself with an Ebola-infected needle. While it’s uncertain whether she contracted the disease, the vaccine didn’t cause harm and likely saved her life.
Ebola isn't the only treatment stuck in clinical trials. According to tropical medicine professor Jeremy Farrar, there are several potential treatments being developed, all of which could offer some degree of protection against the virus. Although, by typical standards, these treatments are still far from ready for public use, if faced with a choice between these experimental drugs and a strong chance of death—as is the case for Ebola patients in West Africa—many believe these treatments are promising enough to make them available.
1. Our Healthcare Infrastructure is Strong
Aside from being ground zero for the Ebola outbreak, what do Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia share in common? The answer: Their healthcare infrastructures are dismal. In all three countries, healthcare is little more than a tragic farce. Patients are often forced to share beds with others, while water and electricity are in short supply. Medical precautions are frequently ignored, and patients are left untreated if they cannot afford the necessary medications. In Liberia, many hospitals are essentially devoid of protective gear and staff. In these conditions, it’s no wonder Ebola continues to spread.
In stark contrast, healthcare in the West is completely different. For example, Germany has seven hospitals specifically designed to treat Ebola patients. The UK’s healthcare system is so robust that officials believe the number of cases could 'never reach double digits.' In the United States, the CDC has a multitude of measures in place to prevent Ebola’s spread. When combined with well-funded, high-quality hospitals across the country, the idea of Ebola ravaging our cities seems like a far-fetched fantasy.
