[ad_1]
The WHO said the Ebola virus was "an emergency" in the region, but that it was not a global threat.
However, it was overwhelming for countries that donated less than half of the money needed to cope with the disease.
The deadly epidemic – the second largest in history – has killed more than 1,400 people.
Cases have been detected this week at the Ugandan border, but the virus has not spread there yet.
Declaring a public health emergency of international importance is one of the most important things that WHO can do.
This has only been done four times before, especially for the Ebola outbreak in West Africa that has killed more than 11,000 people.
Such a decision usually involves more money and healthcare staff to deal with an epidemic – or political support to end the fighting and allow doctors to do what is necessary.
So, why is Ebola not a global emergency?
It was not a simple decision.
Dr. Preben Aavitsland, Acting Chairman of the WHO Emergency Committee, said that there had been lengthy debates and differing views during the emergency meeting. .
The epidemic fulfilled some of the criteria of a global emergency as it was both an extraordinary event and a risk of international spread.
However, he said efforts on the ground "would not be strengthened" by declaring an emergency.
Dr. Aavitsland said: "This is not a global emergency, it is an emergency in the DRC, it is a serious emergency."
But he warned that an emergency declaration could result in border closures or airline refusal to visit the DRC, which could do more harm than good.
"There is nothing to gain, but there is a lot to lose," he said.
WHO has previously discussed whether the Ebola outbreak in the DRC should be declared urgently twice.
Both times they decided not to, partly because the Ebola virus was considered a threat only in the region rather than internationally.
[ad_2]
Source link
