An estimated three travellers infected with Ebola could be taking international flights from West Africa every month if no screening was in place at airports, claim researchers.
A Canadian team based the conclusion on an analysis of World Health Organisation (WHO) Ebola surveillance data and flight records relating to hundreds of thousands of passenger trips out of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
The study found that without exit screening, on average just under three (2.8) people infected with the deadly virus would be expected to travel on an international flight from any one of the countries' international airports each month.
Airport screening is in force at the three airports investigated, Conakry, Monrovia and Freetown. However, the findings are said to highlight the importance of preventing the global spread of Ebola at source.
Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone are the African countries still firmly in the grip of Ebola. As of October 14, the WHO had received reports of 9,216 confirmed, probable and suspected cases in five African countries plus Spain and the US. There have been 4,555 deaths.
Since this update, Nigeria and Senegal have both been declared Ebola-free.
Lead researcher Dr Kamran Khan, from St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, stressed that the best way of minimising risks to the global community was to control the epidemic at source.
Meanwhile, International Development Secretary Justine Greening was due to fly out from RAF Brize Norton today for Sierra Leone with about 100 soldiers to help deal with the Ebola outbreak.
Ms Greening is travelling with the Royal Army Medical Corps to see how Britain's £125 million assistance package is helping the country to tackle the crisis.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article