Anticipating the Plague

The announcement that Ebola patients were being transported to the United States made me nervous. Ebola is one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. There is no cure for the disease and it has a fatality rate around 90 percent. Currently the best way to deal with Ebola is containment. Quarantine is the traditional and most effective means of dealing with a virus. Isolate the area of contamination and let the virus burn itself out. Though effective, it is not foolproof and it is also cruel. At times it requires a level of callousness that simply consigns people to die a horrible death. Quarantines, though, are becoming more difficult in our modern transit age. SO, is it wise to intentionally bring infected people into a country that has not had a single case of Ebola?

There are dangers in transporting Ebola patients into the US. Ebola is not airborne and if proper steps are followed it can be contained. But humans are notorious for making mistakes. The missionary from SIM did not have direct contact with patients, but was infected because of failure in safety protocols. There is always the threat of a mistake that will have horrific ramifications. And by the time the mistake is realized hundreds of people may be exposed to the virus. The ones who worry me most are those who claim there is no significant threat. Rational fear is a good thing and those who dismiss any fear are those who are prone to mistakes brought on by hubris. 

A virus is not a sentient being (despite what you may see in movies), but the virus follows a biological imperative to spread. The nature of a virus is to reproduce and it will adapt to fulfill its imperative. At the moment the Ebola virus is stable, but there is the possibility that it may adapt and become more contagious. It is an unlikely scenario, but with a virus this deadly every scenario must be kept in mind. 

There is also a historic note that worries me. Nearly a hundred years ago the world was ravaged by a mysterious virus known as the Spanish Flu. The 1918 Flu Pandemic killed somewhere between 3 and 6 percent of the world's population (perhaps as many as 100 million). That variation of the flu, which actually originated in China, was spread because of mass transit. Soldiers and laborers were transported to meet the needs of armies in World War One. The infection spread among those deployed in the war and then they took it back home with them. Public transportation and crowded public venues helped to spread the virus throughout urban populations. The same elements helped spread the SARS virus in urban Asian cities. There is not a direct correlation between the 1918 flu pandemic and the current Ebola outbreak, but is does paint a bleak picture of what can happen with an uninhibited virus.

HOWEVER, there are some good reasons for bring back the two infected missionaries back to the US. First, these are people who are dedicated to help others and every effort should be made to save them from the disease. Though Ebola has a high mortality rate, it can be survived with the right type of support. Basically, victims need support to keep them hydrated and to keep organs from failing. Primitive hospitals lack the equipment and personnel to meet the needs of large outbreaks. A modern, well staffed hospital can meet the needs for a handful of patients. The best hope for any victim would be a First World hospital. It would be impractical to bring all the Ebola patients to the First World and such a course of action would eventually overwhelm available resources. Epidemiologists have to be selective in who they bring out of Africa. At the moment a Spanish priest has been evacuated to Spain and two Americans have been brought to Atlanta. 

The evacuations are more than an attempt to save medical missionaries. Emory is an university hospital and as a university hospital they not only train doctors, they also perform cutting edge research. Many First World hospitals (or even medical ships)  can treat Ebola, but few facilities are equipped to cure it. I have no doubt that part of the motivation to bring the Ebola patients to Emory is to find a cure (and earn a Nobel Prize). If the two infected missionaries survive the virus it will provide needed data to create a vaccine. The expense and risk of bringing the Ebola patients to Emory will be worthwhile if a solution can be developed. 

Intentionally bringing Ebola patients into the US is risky. However, history demonstrates that Ebola will make its way into the US at some point. Global air travel guarantees the spread of viruses. At some point an Ebola carrier will enter the US undetected. By the time the disease is diagnosed hundreds will have been infected. The best way to head off this threat is find a treatment before that event transpires. The treatment of the two Ebola patients is still the best hope to protect the US population and to provide hope for the infected in Africa. 

Connecting the Dots

In May 2001 the Taliban announced that all non-Muslims in Afghanistan would be required to wear tags identifying that they were non-Muslims. The announcement brought immediate condemnation from nations around the world. India objected because the Hindu minority was being targeted. Christians around the world worried about churches being attacked. Germany objected because it was too similar to the treatment of Jews during the Nazi regime. The Taliban responded that since Afghanistan was under Sharia law that it was necessary to identify non-Muslims to protect them from enforcement of laws that applied only to Muslims. No one really believed them.
Earlier that year the Taliban had destroyed two large Buddha statues because they violated Muslim rules concerning idolatry. These large carvings were considered an international treasure and a great deal of furor was raised over the demolition of these monuments. But beyond the international outcry, nothing happened.

These were isolated events in a foreign nation. The Taliban were in a backward country and lacked the means to be a significant threat to anyone outside of their region. Political pressure was the best way to deal with them and the international community would keep an eye on them. That response was ill advised. In September the world learned how far the Taliban and their ally Al Qaeda could reach.

Fast forward to July 2014 and we see a similar event occurring in Iraq. In Mosul ISIS has ordered that all Christians must either convert to Islam, leave, or die. ISIS members have spray painted the Arabic letter N on the homes of Christians to insure that none are missed. ISIS has also destroyed important Christian sites such as the Tomb of Jonah and converted churches into mosques or outright destroyed them. The international community has been outraged, but little is being done.

There is a pattern that is easily discernible in these events. Fundamentalist Muslims will always seek to identify and mark those who are outside of Muslim. These markings are no different from the Star of David marks used by the Nazis to identify Jews. The purpose is to make it easier to round them up for execution when the final plan is put in place. They will also destroy any historic site outside of their faith. They cannot tolerate the presence, even symbolic, of a different worldview.

The important thing to keep in mind is that a worldview is involved. Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their brethren are never content to keep their beliefs to their region. They will always reach out to challenge any worldview that does not match their own. They truly believe that they are on a mission from God. At the moment ISIS is not a threat to the United States. Many are war weary and do not want to put any effort into confronting ISIS or other radical terrorists. Many, though, will change their minds when a few thousand Americans die in another terrorist attack. Terrorists are ambitious, well financed, and dedicated to a cause. They will not stop with the take over of Iraq or Afghanistan. The Taliban already views the US withdrawal from Afghanistan as a victory. ISIS believes that they have chased the US out of Iraq. They will try to capitalize on their victories and expand their borders. We must keep a watchful eye on these areas and do everything in our power to stop them. That does not necessarily mean military action, but military options must be kept within the toolbox of dealing with volatile regions. We need to be proactive with these threats because the cost is too high to deal with them as a reaction.