With treatment centers overflowing, and alarmingly little being done to stop Ebola from sweeping through West African villages and towns, Joanne Liu, the president of Doctors Without Borders, knew that the epidemic had spun out of control.
The only person she could think of with the authority to intensify the global effort was WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍), whose agency has a long history of fighting outbreaks. If the WHO, the main UN health agency, could not quickly muster an army of experts and health workers to combat an outbreak overtaking some of the world’s poorest countries, then what entity in the world would do it?
“I wish I could do that,” Chan said when the two met at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva this summer, months after the outbreak burgeoned in a Guinean rain forest and spilled into packed capital cities.
Illustration: Mountain People
The WHO simply did not have the staffing or ability to flood the Ebola zone with help, said Chan, who recounted the conversation. It was a fantasy, she said, to think of the WHO as a first responder ready to lead the fight against deadly outbreaks around the world.
The Ebola epidemic has exposed gaping holes in the ability to tackle outbreaks in an increasingly interconnected world, where diseases can quickly spread from remote villages to cities housing millions of people.
The WHO, the UN agency assigned in its constitution to direct international health efforts, tackle epidemics and help in emergencies, has been badly weakened by budget cuts in recent years that have hobbled its ability to respond in parts of the world that need it most.
Its outbreak and emergency response units have been slashed, veterans who led previous fights against Ebola and other diseases have left, and scores of positions have been eliminated — precisely the kind of people and efforts that might have helped blunt the outbreak in West Africa before it ballooned into the worst Ebola epidemic ever recorded.
Unlike the SARS crisis of 2003, which struck countries in Asia and elsewhere that had strong governments and ample money to spring to action, the Ebola outbreak has waylaid nations that often lack basic healthcare, much less the ability to mount big campaigns to stamp out epidemics.
The disease spread for months before being detected because much of the work of spotting outbreaks was left to desperately poor countries ill prepared for the task. Once the WHO learned of the outbreak, its efforts to help track and contain it were poorly led and limited, according to some doctors who participated, contributing to a sense that the problem was not as bad as it actually was. Then, as the extent of the epidemic became obvious, critics say the agency was slow to declare its severity and come up with plans, and has still not marshaled the people and supplies needed to help defeat the disease and treat its victims.
“There’s no doubt we’ve not been as quick and as powerful as we might have been,” WHO Assistant Director-General Marie-Paule Kieny said.
Another WHO leader agreed.
“Of course in retrospect I really wish that we had jumped much higher much earlier,” said Keiji Fukuda, the assistant director general in charge of outbreak response. “Of course I wish we’d poured in more and more earlier.”
However, he added: “If this outbreak had been a typical outbreak, nobody would be saying we did too little, too late.”
The outbreak began close to the borders of three neighboring countries — Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia — and spread surprisingly fast. Since then, the WHO has engaged more than 400 people to work on the outbreak, including employees of other agencies in its network, and last month the agency declared the epidemic an international emergency, hoping to stop it from crossing more borders.
Chan has met with presidents in the region, and two weeks ago the WHO announced what it called a road map for a “massively scaled” international response.”
The outbreak has killed more than 1,900 people and spread to the point that the WHO warns that more than 20,000 people could become infected. Sick people are dying on the street. Some feel the entire model the world uses to fight outbreaks needs to be rethought, so that an agency like the WHO has the structure and mandate to take command.
However, Chan said that governments have the primary responsibility “to take care of their people,” calling the WHO a technical agency that provides advice and support. Still, she noted that her organization, like many governments and agencies, was not prepared.
“Hindsight is always better,” Chan said. “All the agencies I talked to — including the governments — all of us underestimated this unprecedented, unusual outbreak.”
SHIFT IN EMPHASIS
The WHO, founded in 1948, is responsible for taking on a wide range of global health issues, from obesity to primary healthcare, but since the world’s health needs far outstrip the financial contributions of the WHO’s 194 member nations, those priorities compete.
The threat of emergent infectious diseases jumped high onto that list 20 years ago, when an outbreak of plague in India created a panic, sending about 200,000 people fleeing. The next year in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola killed about 245 people. With fears of cross-border infections high, a new urgency arose: improving the world’s ability to stop outbreaks.
The WHO took the lead, at the request of its member nations. A crew of passionate outbreak veterans assembled a unique department, using an early form of electronic crowdsourcing to detect outbreaks and dispatching experts to the field. Three years after the effort solidified, the WHO played a big role in responding to a cluster of deadly pneumonia cases in Asia. The new virus became known as SARS, and it was contained within the year, with most cases occurring in China.
To aid the fight, wealthy individuals offered the WHO “literally hundreds of millions because their businesses were affected,” said World Bank director Jim Yong Kim, a former director at the WHO. “But as SARS burned out, those guys disappeared, and we forgot very quickly.”
Soon, the global financial crisis struck. The WHO had to cut nearly US$1 billion from its proposed two-year budget, which today stands at US$3.98 billion. (By contrast, the budget of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for last year was about US$6 billion.)
The cuts forced difficult choices. More emphasis was placed on efforts like fighting chronic global ailments, including heart disease and diabetes. The whims of donors also greatly influenced the WHO’s agenda, with gifts, often to advance individual causes, far surpassing dues from member nations, which account for only 20 percent of its budget.
At the agency’s Geneva headquarters, outbreak and emergency response, which was never especially well-funded, suffered particularly deep losses, leaving offices that look, one consultant said, like a ghost town.
The WHO’s epidemic and pandemic response department — including a network of anthropologists to help overcome cultural differences during outbreaks — was dissolved, its duties split among other departments. Some of the main outbreak pioneers moved on.
“That shaping of the budget did affect the area of responding to big outbreaks and pandemics,” said Fukuda, who estimated that he now had 35 percent fewer staff members than during the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic — more than double the cuts for the organization as a whole.
“You have to wonder are we making the right strategic choices?” he said. “Are we ready for what’s coming down the pike?”
The entire WHO unit devoted to the science of pandemic and epidemic diseases — responsible for more than a dozen killers, including flu, cholera, yellow fever and bubonic plague — has only 52 regular employees, including secretaries, according to its director, Sylvie Briand, who said that could be increased during outbreaks. Before the Ebola epidemic, her department had just one technical expert on Ebola and other hemorrhagic diseases.
Across Africa, the ranks of the agency’s regional emergency outbreak experts, veterans in fighting Ebola, were cut from more than a dozen to three.
“How can you immediately respond to an outbreak?” said Francis Kasolo, a WHO director in the region. “It did affect us.”
And a separate section of the WHO responsible for emergency response was whittled “to the bone” during the budget cuts — to 34 staff members from about 94 — according to Bruce Aylward, its assistant director general.
“You can’t make a cut that big, that deep, and it’s not going to have an effect on your operational capacity,” he said.
His group, charged with responding to wars, disasters and resurgent polio, was asked last month to assist with Ebola, too.
“At no time that I can think of in the recent past have we been dealing with such a scale of human misery over such a broad geography due to such a range of hazards,” Aylward said, including enormous population displacements in Syria, Iraq, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.
OVERLAPPING CHALLENGES
However, officials warn, multiple, overlapping challenges may well be a feature of the future.
The WHO hoped to balance its budget cuts by strengthening the ability of countries to respond to public health threats on their own. It put out new regulations for nations to follow to help contain outbreaks, but by 2012, the deadline it set, only 20 percent of nations had enacted them all. In Africa, fewer than a third of countries had programs to detect and stop infectious diseases at their borders. The WHO’s strategy was often more theory than reality.
“There never were the resources to put those things in place in many parts of the world,” said Scott Dowell, a specialist formerly with the CDC.
The Ebola virus took full advantage of these poorly prepared nations and the holes at the WHO.
Given the weakness in surveillance, the outbreak was not identified until March, in Guinea, roughly three months after a villager was believed to have contracted the virus from an animal, possibly a fruit bat. The delay allowed dozens of cases to spread through villages and even to Conakry, a capital of more than 1.5 million people. Right away, Doctors Without Borders declared the outbreak unprecedented in its reach, the only group to do so.
Hastening the spread, hospitals lacked basic infection-control essentials like running water, protective gowns and gloves. Many doctors and nurses caught the virus from their patients, passed it to others, and died. The vulnerability and collapse of medical facilities revealed how far there is to go in achieving the WHO’s top priority — ensuring basic global healthcare.
“This kind of outbreak would not have developed in an area with stronger health systems,” Fukuda said.
In the crucial weeks after the discovery, daily meetings brought together national authorities and foreign responders at the WHO office in Conakry, but an absence of strong leadership was notable from the beginning, some participants said.
OPENING FOR DISEASE
“It’s purely improvisation,” said Marc Poncin, the emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders in Conakry. “There is no one to take responsibility, absolutely no one, since the beginning of the crisis.”
Stopping previous Ebola outbreaks had required meticulous tracking: monitoring people who had close contact with infected individuals, and isolating them if they developed symptoms.
Previously, “if we missed a case,” said Simon Mardel, a British emergency doctor deployed by the WHO to help with the effort, “it was like a failure.”
This time, the number of contacts being followed was disastrously low from the beginning, only 8 percent in the epicenter of Gueckedou, Guinea, in early April, according to another doctor sent by the WHO. That meant the disease was silently spreading.
Mardel said he thought the more experienced WHO leaders who had left the agency, “would have been very vocal and they would have sought to put it right quickly, as a matter of urgency.”
A single person who traveled and became sick could touch off a conflagration.
It was not that responders were not trying. Victims’ contacts were spread across a wide area, hours away on bad roads. The payment of local workers had somehow been overlooked, so they stopped doing vital, risky jobs. Essential protective equipment was not delivered to many who needed it. Bottles of bleach were given out without buckets. The WHO lacked relationships with some long-standing organizations with large networks of health workers in the region.
Traditions that contributed to Ebola’s spread, including funerals where mourners came into contact with corpses, were not fully recognized or confronted, said Pierre Rollin, an outbreak specialist at the CDC who worked within the WHO umbrella.
Some villagers blocked roads with tree trunks and drove Ebola workers away with stones, accusing them of bringing in the disease. Adding to the tension, only bare-bones clinical care was provided to try to treat patients, reducing the chances of yielding survivors who could act as ambassadors for the cause. Some doctors deployed by the WHO said it should have given them more tools to care for patients.
Institutional and personal tensions flared.
CONFUSION, CHAOS
“Everyone’s working at a fevered pace,” Dowell said. “There’s confusion and chaos. It argues for a system that’s organized as much as possible ahead of time.”
One consultant thought it strange that the WHO would not send Twitter messages with links to the CDC’s Ebola prevention information, part of a policy not to promote material from other agencies. Various offices within the WHO’s balkanized hierarchy also jockeyed for position.
The difficulties in tracking cases and gaining access to villages led many to think the outbreak was burning out.
“I came home sort of thinking, with a little luck, that’s wrapped up,” said Daniel Bausch, an Ebola outbreak veteran from Tulane University, who returned in May from a WHO mission in Guinea.
The outbreak was not gone, just hidden. An herbalist in Sierra Leone contracted the virus treating Guinean patients. More than a dozen mourners at her funeral fell ill and seeded Sierra Leone. Some of them traveled back to Guinea and rekindled the outbreak there. After a lull of several weeks, cases re-emerged in Liberia, too, and reached the capital, Monrovia.
Bausch flew to Sierra Leone in July.
“I was like, ‘where is everybody?’” he said, referring to the shortage of health workers fighting the disease. “We all recognized we were really understaffed. We needed more people in the field.”
In some treatment centers, two or three doctors, wearing stifling gowns and masks in the heat, were caring for up to 90 patients. With the only WHO logistician in the country working elsewhere, Bausch did not have anyone to accompany him and manage supplies of protective equipment, he said.
Bausch worked in Kenema, Sierra Leone, where he had helped set up a research program for another hemorrhagic fever, Lassa, which was common in the region. He knew some of the nearly two dozen health workers there who died after Ebola hit.
“It would be a logical question to ask, since Lassa was there, why was it so hard to switch gears” to Ebola, Bausch said.
However, research institutes provided money for science, he said, but not for disease surveillance and treatment.
Those tasks had been left to the government of Sierra Leone, “one of the poorest countries on Earth,” he said. “I always felt bad about this.”
In late July in Liberia, two Americans working at a missionary hospital fell sick and were soon evacuated home. A Liberian-American brought the virus by plane to Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation. Suddenly, the world seemed to understand the threat.
The question now, experts wonder, is whether the leaner, retooled WHO — heavy on technical know-how, light on logistical muscle — can surge in a way that will help lead the world in bringing one of the most challenging health crises in recent history to a close. WHO’s road map calls for US$490 million from donors, and thousands of foreign and local health workers to contain the outbreak. Yet few foreign medical teams have yet answered the call.
“It is incumbent on the international community to really respond now,” Kasolo said. “Otherwise history will judge us badly.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations