Back in March when we first began hearing about the current ebola outbreak, I posed the question [thread=719203]here[/thread] about the chances that such an outbreak could go worldwide. We all pretty much dismissed this nightmare scenario as improbable because ebola kills quickly, past outbreaks had been efficiently contained, etc.
However we are now moving into September. After six months the ebola outbreak is NOT contained. Today reports indicate that the disease has now spread to Senegal. A different strain of the disease is erupting in the Congo. There were 500 new reported ebola cases just in the past week in Africa. The total number of new cases is probably somewhat higher as many people are hiding the disease out of fear of the very health care system that is trying to contain it. The WHO is now forecasting we could have 20,000 infections over the next few months.
So far the disease is contained to Africa, but for how long? The potential for the virus to mutate with such a large outbreak seems suddenly very real. The virus could be used by terrorists who could easily carry it undetected on an airplane with the intention of infecting as many people as possible in the US or elsewhere before succumbing themselves to the disease. Its one thing for a modern hospital to contain a few cases of ebola, but if the number were greater than just a few, well what then?
So is the consensus answer on the widespread ebola outbreak danger different now, and if not —why not?