The World Health Organisation has declared the Ebola outbreak in West Africa to be an international public health emergency that requires an extraordinary response to stop its spread.
It is the largest and longest outbreak ever recorded of Ebola, which has a death rate of about 50 per cent and has so far killed at least 932 people. WHO declared similar emergencies for the swine flu pandemic in 2009 and for polio in May.
WHO chief Dr Margaret Chan said the announcement is "a clear call for international solidarity". Speaking at a news conference in Geneva she said: "Countries affected to date simply do not have the capacity to manage an outbreak of this size and complexity on their own, I urge the international community to provide this support on the most urgent basis possible." The agency had convened an expert committee this week to assess the severity of the continuing epidemic.
The current outbreak of Ebola began in Guinea in March and has since spread to Sierra Leone and Liberia, with a suspected cluster in Nigeria. There is no licensed treatment or vaccine for Ebola. WHO said countries without Ebola should heighten their surveillance and treat any suspected cases as a health emergency.
But the impact of the WHO declaration is unclear. "Statements won't save lives," said Dr Bart Janssens, director of operations for Doctors Without Borders. "For weeks, [we] have been repeating that a massive medical, epidemiological and public health response is desperately needed. Lives are being lost because the response is too slow." In the United States, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have elevated their Ebola response to the highest level and have recommended against travelling to West Africa.
American health officials have also eased safety restrictions on an experimental drug, a move that could clear the way for its use in patients. Two Americans infected with the virus recently received a drug never before tested in people and seem to be improving slightly, according to the charity they work for.
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