Which countries, beyond those in west Africa, are most susceptible to the Ebola epidemic? Most epidemiologists do not fear much for the developed world, with its effective quarantine measures and tracking procedures, or even for sparsely populated developing countries. An outbreak could easily be contained in both groups of countries. However, large, densely populated areas, lacking the proper containment mechanisms, are highly vulnerable.
India, with its large emigrant population — the second-largest in the world — high urban density and inadequate public healthcare infrastructure, potentially has the most to lose if the Ebola virus spreads. Links to west Africa are close and date back to the last century, with almost 50,000 Indians or people of Indian origin living in the region.
Indeed, scores of people fly between Accra, Lagos, Freetown, Monrovia or Abidjan and New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkarta or Chennai daily, transiting through the Middle East or Europe. While exit controls are in place in all of the international airports in the affected regions, the virus’ incubation period — which averages eight days in the current outbreak, but can be up to 21 days — means that someone with no symptoms from a recent infection could make the trip to India without triggering alarms.
Recent personal experience at New Delhi airport indicated that nominal arrival checks, as the government requires, were loosely enforced, with a number of passengers exiting the terminal holding completed Ebola information cards that should have been handed to immigration officials. It seems unlikely that India’s government would be able to keep tabs on all of the arrivals from west Africa.
Population density in India’s mega-cities is as high as 10,000 people per square kilometer, and can match that level even in second and third-tier cities, as slums mushroom to accommodate large-scale migration from rural areas. Spending on healthcare infrastructure has been woefully inadequate, failing to keep pace with burgeoning urban populations.
Outside of the large cities, most healthcare facilities are unable to provide anything more than primary care. World Bank data show that India currently has 6.5 doctors, 13 nurses and nine hospital beds per 10,000 people — levels that are less than half the global average and far below what the WHO recommends.
Given these factors — urban density, congested slums and shantytowns with poor sanitation, drainage and sewage, and weak healthcare infrastructure — it is easy to imagine how the Ebola virus could spread rapidly. A single infected person who arrives from West Africa and is then untraceable could easily trigger an epidemic.
India’s government insists that it is prepared. However, with limited resources and equipment and poorly trained medical support staff outside of the large metropolitan areas, it is easy to imagine the disease hitting health workers, as recent cases in Madrid and Dallas — not to mention west Africa — demonstrate. Indeed, because Ebola presents symptoms similar to malaria, dengue fever and other endemic tropical diseases, medical workers might not take adequate precautions — or, worse, might send patients home in a highly contagious phase.
The government’s options are limited. The healthcare system faces deeper systemic challenges that cannot be addressed overnight or only in response to Ebola. What the authorities can do is improve their tracking of all passengers arriving from West Africa, just as the US and the UK have begun to do.
Ideally, all passengers arriving from the region would be quarantined on arrival and monitored for symptoms for at least eight days. However, that would be unfair, and the government’s ability to implement such a program across all of India’s international airports and seaports is doubtful.
Instead, all arriving passengers from west Africa need to be alerted to the symptoms of the disease, instructed how to monitor themselves, and made aware of the importance of seeking medical attention at the first sign of illness. Moreover, it is essential to educate healthcare workers in all urban areas about the virus and its symptoms, and to train them to ascertain patients’ medical and travel history.
The current Ebola epidemic in west Africa reflects a fundamental ecological imbalance. A virus that previously infected the fruit bat has crossed over to humans, whose population growth and density is at odds with the support that the natural environment can provide. That imbalance is hardly unique to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
While it is probable that Ebola will surface in India in the near future, an adequate response is possible, as Nigeria has shown. Lagos, where the Nigerian authorities have done a remarkable job of preventing the spread of the virus, closely resembles India’s megapolises. India’s government should take note.
Hrishabh Sandilya is a lecturer on South Asian politics at Charles University in Prague. Dany Shoham is a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Israel. They are visiting fellows at the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in New Delhi. This commentary reflects the authors’ personal views, not those of the IDSA.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath