We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Economics of Ebola
HAMISH_MCTAVISH
Posts: 28,592 Forumite
As I'm sure most people know, the Ebola virus is incurable and has extremely high mortality rates, depending on the strain between 30% and 90% of those infected die within a month of contracting it.
Previous outbreaks of the virus have all been in remote parts of Africa, where rapid quarantine measures have been possible and the virus has generally burned itself out, albeit usually after killing the majority of those who caught it.
The current outbreak however has now killed over 660 people and spread to several major cities, including Lagos in Nigeria, and appears to be beyond practical attempts to quarantine it effectively.
You can absolutely stop this virus in it's tracks by quarantining populations of people...... Shutting down all road and rail travel links, suspending flights and the movement of shipping, imposing curfews and movement restrictions on anyone within a quarantine zone, etc.
But at this point the population of people you'd need to quarantine is several countries and hundreds of millions of people..... For at least a month and possibly more like 2 or 3 months.
Doing so in such fragile economies would result in immense economic and social disruption, mass panic, starvation, and civil disorder.
Even in developed nations, the negative impact would be huge, but probably more manageable.
In our current globalised economy, it seems that pandemic is one of the real low frequency but high impact threats that policy makers and governments have nightmares about.
Shutting down global travel and commerce would be catastrophic to almost everyone.... Hence why I suspect this outbreak has now got out of control and with the long incubation period has probably already spread further than we realise.
On a positive note, Ebola is not the easiest of diseases to catch, which has helped contain previous outbreaks. It's not airborne and you have to come in direct physical contact with an infected persons bodily fluids (sweat, vomit, saliva, excrement, urine, etc) to become infected.
However it is easy enough to catch that the outbreak has spread beyond current attempts to contain it.... And it appears the "nightmare scenario" of an ebola patient vomiting on a flight into a major transport hub has just happened.
So I suppose the question is, how do governments minimise the societal disruption and economic impacts of the measures that might be required to combat a global pandemic threat such as ebola?
Is it better to take the 'short sharp shock' approach and effectively shut down the planet for 45 - 90 days? This would presumably minimise the death toll from the disease, but maximise economic and societal harm, and also maximise the death toll from civil disturbances and starvation/resource depletion.
Or is it better to fight a longer but less aggressive campaign with public health measures and information campaigns, as is being done at the moment? Which appears to be letting the disease continue to spread, but has not (yet) caused catastrophic economic damage and societal disruption to the affected nations?
Previous outbreaks of the virus have all been in remote parts of Africa, where rapid quarantine measures have been possible and the virus has generally burned itself out, albeit usually after killing the majority of those who caught it.
The current outbreak however has now killed over 660 people and spread to several major cities, including Lagos in Nigeria, and appears to be beyond practical attempts to quarantine it effectively.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/deadly-ebola-virus-spreads-to-nigeria-by-plane-as-sierra-leone-hunts-kidnapped-patient-9630359.htmlThe Ebola virus that has already killed 660 people across West Africa has spread to Nigeria after a Liberian man boarded a plane to the country, the most populous in the continent.
He managed to board the flight despite of having a high fever. Once on the plane he vomited, before dying in Nigeria.
Upon arrival in the country’s capital Lagos - a megacity home to 21 million people - the 40-year-old had been moved to an isolation ward.
Believed to be a government official with the finance ministry, he had recently lost his sister to Ebola in Liberia, health officials there said. Authorities are now investigating anyone who may have come into contact with him.
You can absolutely stop this virus in it's tracks by quarantining populations of people...... Shutting down all road and rail travel links, suspending flights and the movement of shipping, imposing curfews and movement restrictions on anyone within a quarantine zone, etc.
But at this point the population of people you'd need to quarantine is several countries and hundreds of millions of people..... For at least a month and possibly more like 2 or 3 months.
Doing so in such fragile economies would result in immense economic and social disruption, mass panic, starvation, and civil disorder.
Even in developed nations, the negative impact would be huge, but probably more manageable.
In our current globalised economy, it seems that pandemic is one of the real low frequency but high impact threats that policy makers and governments have nightmares about.
Shutting down global travel and commerce would be catastrophic to almost everyone.... Hence why I suspect this outbreak has now got out of control and with the long incubation period has probably already spread further than we realise.
On a positive note, Ebola is not the easiest of diseases to catch, which has helped contain previous outbreaks. It's not airborne and you have to come in direct physical contact with an infected persons bodily fluids (sweat, vomit, saliva, excrement, urine, etc) to become infected.
However it is easy enough to catch that the outbreak has spread beyond current attempts to contain it.... And it appears the "nightmare scenario" of an ebola patient vomiting on a flight into a major transport hub has just happened.
So I suppose the question is, how do governments minimise the societal disruption and economic impacts of the measures that might be required to combat a global pandemic threat such as ebola?
Is it better to take the 'short sharp shock' approach and effectively shut down the planet for 45 - 90 days? This would presumably minimise the death toll from the disease, but maximise economic and societal harm, and also maximise the death toll from civil disturbances and starvation/resource depletion.
Or is it better to fight a longer but less aggressive campaign with public health measures and information campaigns, as is being done at the moment? Which appears to be letting the disease continue to spread, but has not (yet) caused catastrophic economic damage and societal disruption to the affected nations?
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”
0
Comments
-
On a positive note, if half the population is wiped out it may reduce house prices a bit.0
-
On a positive note, if half the population is wiped out it may reduce house prices a bit.
To be fair, if half the population is wiped out I don't think anyone will care....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Quite a lot on here would.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »To be fair, if half the population is wiped out I don't think anyone will care....0 -
Quite a lot on here would.
There would be a lot fewer people on here to argue about it....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
It only need two.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »There would be a lot fewer people on here to argue about it....0 -
Time to go short airlines and long gold (or better food)?!I think....0
-
Time to go short airlines and long gold (or better food)?!
Short everything and have a long supply of baked beans.....:D“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Ebola truly could be the saviour of the planet.0
-
Ebola truly could be the saviour of the planet.
Are you volunteering to catch it then?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
My work colleague was at Lagos airport at the same time and is due back tomorrow. Should I shake his hand when I see him? If no further posts are made, you know why.Today is the first day of the rest of your life0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards