" It quickly became clear that something was wrong at the hospital. Epidemiological detective work by our team confirmed the suspicions: people were being infected at the hospital through injections made using contaminated needles and syringes (only five syringes and needles were issued to the nurses each morning), and hospital staff and attendees at funerals were falling victim through exposure to body fluids infected with the virus. In addition there seemed to be transmission from mothers to babies. "
The full article is a moving and rewarding read:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4c1711c2-d004-11e3-a2b7-00144...
As a tragic aside, it is the same poor hospital procedure that gave so many Africans AIDS back in the day. Sexual transmission is now the main vector, but it wasn't always the case.
Treating those with Ebola at home is a recipe for catastrophe. Contrary to AIDS, Ebola is highly contagious and often leads to the infection of the whole family and visitors.
So no, fear of healthcare is just about the worst possible mindset for those infected with Ebola and their families.
And this is as a epidemiologist working in hospital infection control.
If by 'to' you mean there was a case or two from elsewhere that won't spread, it's not something to care about.
So I think that comment is a legitimate argument about the point of the article when it comes to spreading, and you're being too picky.
The original question posed is about the chances of ebola spreading TO western nations. However, the grandparent question answers the chances of ebola spreading WITHIN western nations.
The epidemiology of the former involves questions like transportation controls, quarantine of travelers, border controls, and perhaps even banning international imports from involved nations. The latter involves differences in cultural behaviors, sanitation levels, healthcare coverage, etc.
They are very different questions.
As far as if ebola can get TO the western world, that is a 100% chance that it can. Primarily, because there is always an underground movement of goods and people, often women and children into and out of countries, regardless of official lockdowns. Think of it like drugs in prisons. There should be no place more free of drugs and alcohol, and yet it's easier to get drugs in prison than in my town. The conversation then is about the remaining requirements to 'spread'.
When we take a look at spreading of other lifeforms, say for instance seeds in Darwin's Origin of Species, dispersal is only a tiny part of the equation with spread being about not just buoyancy, but rather length of sustainability once the seed arrives at a barren landmass.
This is again consistent with man and Mars. We've gone there with robots, and will one day go there with people, but until we establish a foothold, we have not yet spread to Mars.
Regardless of whether the article addresses the point and only the question, all examples of life (and disputed forms of life in the form of virus), do not spread unless they take root.
What doesn't add to the conversation is obnoxious pedantry like your comment.
(I actually don't have any problem with snide obnoxiousness. "I'm amazed you could [be so incredibly idiotic]" is upfront at least. What I do get tired of is a continual tree, like this one, of "You shouldn't have said that.")
You would think this would have been selected against ages ago.
Consider the number of European nations in the middle ages fully capable of going to war with high endemic disease levels, or indeed lasting on the field while there were ongoing epidemics in their armies.
If somebody has solid arguments against emiliobumachar's point, I'd be interested to hear them.
It's only that culture evolves by different means than genotipes, and by those means fitting the norm more than compensates any unfitness caused by health problems. At least at the short term.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
That's is rather more contact with a corpse than most funeral practices involve.
Many people in African nations will stay away from hospitals because they believe they will get Ebola from the hospital. Therefore often people that are sick die of Ebola in the community and therefore spread the disease (symptoms of ebola are very similar to malaria in the first stages, and therefore does not always draw attention to people familiar with malaria)
Secondly, when people die in many of these cultures, there is much more physical connection with the body, potentially spreading the disease more.
In NA and Europe, people are much more likely to seek care and we also don't have as much contact with deceased person (and also have guidelines for handling of infectious bodies).