Political Ebola
The images this morning were truly worrisome. An evacuated hospital, family members transporting their loved ones to other response centers, and us journalists asking them as they left the hospital, faces barely covered by masks, what happened in that place.
The scene happened last week in a Cali hospital that, by extreme precautionary measures, was evacuated under the suspicion of having received an Ebola patient. Immediately, social networks and the media were flooded with messages of alert and general panic.
Fortunately, the supposedly infected individual only had gastrointestinal symptoms; otherwise, we would have gone into a state of national hyperventilation much more serious than the contention of an epidemic itself that, according to experts, is not likely to have the same effect in America as it has currently in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
It’s true that this is one of the more lethal epidemics in history, but it’s also true that apart from a handful of cases in the United States and Spain, nothing else has happened. In fact, of the total eight patients infected and treated in America, only one death has occurred. I’m not trying to minimize the subject — more than 4,500 people have died in Africa — but it’s also a fact that the majority of deaths have happened in areas of extreme poverty very far from modern medicine.
This epidemic presents various challenges: one, to take advantage of the circumstances by helping a part of the planet where people die of hunger and are only recognized at a global level when its viruses affect an American or a European, and two, containment of fear on a global level.
In an era of globalization, mobility is the main characteristic. It’s not only mobility of people, thanks to planes and cheap mass transport, but also the movement of thoughts. In these times of hyperconnectivity and 24-hour television news channels, fear and irresponsible noise proliferate more rapidly than the virus. Because of this, communication from the government is essential. There isn’t a ministry in the cabinet that needs more correctly informed people than the Ministry of Health.
Why is there such a fuss in the U.S. due to an outbreak that will likely not become an issue in America? The answer is, among other things, political. Fear is the best element to get people to the ballot box. We are on the eve of the midterm elections in the U.S., and in a continued debate over immigration reform. Therefore, Obama’s political enemies are doing everything possible to make him look like a weak president. And from the side of those who oppose immigration reform, the argument is forming that it’s necessary to have a secure border without amnesty for illegal immigrants because that’s another way the door will open to Ebola. Does that seem ridiculous to you? Don’t be surprised; fear serves to drive voting here in Colombia, too.
The scene happened last week in a Cali hospital that, by extreme precautionary measures, was evacuated under the suspicion of having received an Ebola patient. Immediately, social networks and the media were flooded with messages of alert and general panic.
Fortunately, the supposedly infected individual only had gastrointestinal symptoms; otherwise, we would have gone into a state of national hyperventilation much more serious than the contention of an epidemic itself that, according to experts, is not likely to have the same effect in America as it has currently in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
It’s true that this is one of the more lethal epidemics in history, but it’s also true that apart from a handful of cases in the United States and Spain, nothing else has happened. In fact, of the total eight patients infected and treated in America, only one death has occurred. I’m not trying to minimize the subject — more than 4,500 people have died in Africa — but it’s also a fact that the majority of deaths have happened in areas of extreme poverty very far from modern medicine.
This epidemic presents various challenges: one, to take advantage of the circumstances by helping a part of the planet where people die of hunger and are only recognized at a global level when its viruses affect an American or a European, and two, containment of fear on a global level.
In an era of globalization, mobility is the main characteristic. It’s not only mobility of people, thanks to planes and cheap mass transport, but also the movement of thoughts. In these times of hyperconnectivity and 24-hour television news channels, fear and irresponsible noise proliferate more rapidly than the virus. Because of this, communication from the government is essential. There isn’t a ministry in the cabinet that needs more correctly informed people than the Ministry of Health.
Why is there such a fuss in the U.S. due to an outbreak that will likely not become an issue in America? The answer is, among other things, political. Fear is the best element to get people to the ballot box. We are on the eve of the midterm elections in the U.S., and in a continued debate over immigration reform. Therefore, Obama’s political enemies are doing everything possible to make him look like a weak president. And from the side of those who oppose immigration reform, the argument is forming that it’s necessary to have a secure border without amnesty for illegal immigrants because that’s another way the door will open to Ebola. Does that seem ridiculous to you? Don’t be surprised; fear serves to drive voting here in Colombia, too.