Perhaps the best way to describe my concerns is that while ebola is a spark, there is very little kindling here that could burst into fire. So many things go against there being a significant epidemic here that the odds are severely stacked against it.
Africa, on the other hand, has endless reasons for it to be a problem there. But even in Africa, its potential is limited. Were it a serious threat *there*, by now, millions of people would be sick and dying, not just a thousand and a third.
I like the thought problem that, if you had a billion people, and one million of them died every day, how long would it be before they all died? The easy answer is one thousand days. Or 2 years and about 9 months.
And there are about 7 billion people on Earth. To kill them all at 1 million a year, it would take 19 years and 3 months. Assuming nobody had any more children during that time.
I presume you meant "1 million a day".
Feeling unwell and fearing a similar fate, the sister wanted to see her husband - an internal migrant worker then employed on the other side of Liberia at the Firestone rubber plantation.
She took a communal taxi via Liberia's capital Monrovia, exposing five other people to the virus who later contracted and died of the Ebola.
Thanks for the stats. While I believe you are correct about it not being a real threat to spread across the globe, I also note that Murphy was an optimist......with some of the idiots we have running things around the globe, no telling what chaos they can wreak out of relative calm.