Domestic violence disclosure schemes: part of the solution…

Monash University Media Release The spotlight is yet again shining on the national…

When Safety is a Fiction: Passing the UK’s…

What a stinking story of inhumanity. A country intent on sending asylum…

The Newsman

By James Moore   “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter…

Not good enough

By Bert Hetebry What is the problem with men? As I sat down to…

University Investments: Divesting from the Military-Industrial Complex

The rage and protest against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, ongoing since the…

Australian dividend payouts to shareholders rise 6 times…

Oxfam Australia Media Release   Australian dividend payments to shareholders from corporate investments grew…

The Wizard of Aus - a story for…

By Jane Salmon A Story About Young Refugee or Stateless Children Born Overseas Once…

Anzac and the Pageantry of Deception

On April 25, along Melbourne’s arterial Swanston Street, the military parade can…

«
»
Facebook

Search Results for: the masters of scare

Make laugh – not war

By 2353NM 

A couple of weeks ago, esteemed blogmaster at ‘The Political Sword’ Ad Astra published a piece asking ‘Why is there so much anger?’ It’s a good question.

Sociologists will tell us that whatever position a person takes on a particular subject, there will be some who agree, some who disagree and some who don’t have a strong opinion either way; they’re ‘sitting on the fence’. Some of those who disagree would listen to an argument designed to change their mind; for others, successfully changing their viewpoint would be impossible.

This played out for all to see in the recent federal election. Out of the 150 House of Representative seats, by the end of the election night there were only a dozen or so that were still in play. The (never-ending) election campaign wasn’t to convince the voters in the 130 odd seats that were almost certain to fall to the red or blue teams, the millions of electrons and litres of advertising ink were all expended to convince a handful of voters to change their votes. Out of the 90,000 people in these marginal (or swinging) electorates, the advertising was designed to convince a small number of voters to support the red, blue, green, orange or other party on 2 July rather than their previous allegiance.

How about we look at this another way. Uncle Toby’s Oats products are available all year round on the shelves of most supermarkets so there is clearly a year round demand. As it is winter in Australia, the sales of this and similar products would currently be higher as people choose to have something warm for breakfast instead of their normal cereal with cold milk. Some people will always purchase Uncle Toby’s Oats regardless of the price or difficulty in sourcing them because of some perceived benefit of the product over other similar products. Others would purchase oats in winter based on the cost or some other criteria without caring about the brand. There are also some who would never buy oats in general or Uncle Toby’s Oats in particular due to any number of reasons from they just don’t like oats through to some perceived shortfall in the Uncle Toby’s product.

In a similar way, some people will always purchase a Ford vehicle, some will buy a vehicle regardless of the brand due to the perceived needs of the consumer being matched as closely as possible by the vehicle they are considering and others would never buy a Ford due to past poor experience, they have a tribal loyalty to another brand or some other reason.

Advertising is designed to move people from the ‘undecided’ column to the ‘always purchase’ column. The belief is that if you convince someone to consider your product, the obvious benefits of your product once they have tried it will convert the consumer to an ‘always’ purchaser of that brand. There are a lot of ways to do this: Uncle Toby’s may hand out free samples at little athletics carnivals or major transport interchanges; Ford might display a car at or sponsor a pop culture festival or perhaps loan vehicles from their range of light commercials to the Gympie Music Muster in South East Queensland; a luxury consumer goods supplier might choose to associate themselves with the Australian Ballet or a series of performances at the Sydney Opera House.

At the same time, other manufacturers of similar products such as Kelloggs and Toyota are attempting to convince the undecided consumer that their products are better for each individual consumer than Uncle Toby’s or Ford. You need something to make your advertising memorable. Comedy seems to be frequently used, such as in this Specsavers advertisement.

PJ O’Rourke is an American political satirist and journalist. He is, by his own account, a conservative Republican who is in Australia for the next month or so on a speaking tour that includes the Byron Bay Writers Festival and a number of ‘think tank’ events in the southern capitals. O’Rourke’s writing skills can be demonstrated by his ‘fawning’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Race – ‘She is the second-worst thing that could happen to America’. O’Rourke was interviewed by Matt Wordsworth on ABCTV’s Lateline. (Slightly off topic, the interview is worth reading solely for O’Rourke’s opinion of Trump.) O’Rourke and Wordsworth discussed the crossover between comedy and commentating:

MATT WORDSWORTH: You and your colleagues at Lampoon — you’re editor of Lampoon, obviously — now, comedians are the go-to commentators.
P.J. O’ROURKE: Isn’t that stupid?
MATT WORDSWORTH: Did you see that coming?
P.J. O’ROURKE: No, no. Who could possibly have seen that coming? I mean, it’s absolutely ridiculous. The role in — if humour has any positive role in covering politics, it’s simply to keep people’s attention for long enough that they will actually look at the serious issues that are …
MATT WORDSWORTH: But they’re increasingly becoming the primary source of news for some people — your Colberts and your John Stewarts and whatnot.
P.J. O’ROURKE: (Laughs) Yes, yes. And I object. That’s not where one is supposed to be getting one’s news. We are and should remain a sideshow. If we can get some more people to go to the big top, great.

The reality is that comedy has been used as a ‘cover’ for making pointed comments since the middle ages. Former Liberal Party Senator Chris Puplick was talking about court jesters in an ’Ockham’s Razor’ interview on ABC’s RN radio network in 2003:

Their job was to give what used to be called ‘frank and fearless’ advice to the monarch. They were the reality check to the absolute rulers of their day. They were the utter reverse of today’s spin doctors. They told the governors what the people needed them to hear, they took the views of the masses to the masters rather than being employed to tell the masses the lies the rulers think they ought to be fed.

It wasn’t just a mediaeval thing, the UK has a long and proud history of comedic comment on ‘sacred cows” such as this Dave Allen clip on his first experience of religion.

Australia also has a rich history of using comedy to comment on the news, from The Mavis Bramston Show, through The Gillies Report in the 1980’s (worth watching the whole 9 minutes for the very young John Clarke at the start and the ‘cover’ of the song ‘Shout’ at the end) …

… to today where Waleed Aly who presents The Project on Network 10 …

https://youtu.be/05Rn_5AqlrE

… and Charlie Pickering who presents ABC’s The Weekly  …

… both offer razor sharp commentary on current events.

So why are some people always angry? Some people are always going to find something to be angry about. Regardless of what argument you present on a particular issue, some people are going to absolutely disagree with you. In today’s winner take all society, some of those who will never be convinced to change their mind on their ideas will actively attack you (in an attempt to either change your opinion or challenge your right to have a different opinion) rather than just agree to disagree.

Others will be open to having their opinions changed by discussion. Currently the discussion on a number of issues around the world is being led by those who preach anger, hate and isolation, such as Trump, Christensen, Bernardi, Hanson and so on. While they claim that their argument is sound and consistent, don’t forget that Hanson’s initial speeches referred to the Chinese who were going to take over Australia 20 years ago, showing similar consistency to those who were around in the 60’s and 70’s suggesting that the Greeks and Italians were going to take all our jobs while claiming unemployment benefits (and other farcical stretches of logic). The problem is that if there is no other argument that sticks in people’s minds to reinforce positive attitudes over the carefully calculated scare campaign, the hate preachers gain more converts.

Mark Twain is alleged to have said “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”. Advertisers use comedy to attract attention and ensure that the sponsored product is kept top of mind. Perhaps the Colbert’s, John Stewart’s, Waleed Aly’s and Charlie Pickering’s have worked out how to produce discussion in respect to sensitive issues, keeping them top of people’s minds (hopefully turning a number of ‘undecideds’ into people with positive opinions on the way), by appealing to those who are looking for relevant information and using comedy as a tool to deliver the message.

Fairfax recently ran an article in The Brisbane Times that demonstrated how the Islamic Council of Queensland is managing trolls who contact them by social media. Instead of getting upset, they use humour to disarm the situation. It’s an example we could all follow.

A little way up the screen is a Dave Allen clip relating to religion. While he was probably best known for his religious jokes, he also frequently told stories about other issues — such as how he lost the top of one of his fingers. If only we could all tell stories like this the ‘hate’ preachers would have nowhere to go.

Dave Allen, Waleed Aly, Max Gillies, PJ O’Rourke and Charlie Pickering are all good story tellers and frequently discuss subjects where others are too afraid to go. While there is the need for decorum and consideration of others feelings, those who wish to provide positive arguments to people who are undecided about a whole range of subjects including religion, drug use, responsible behaviour and so on need to use tools that those looking for information will relate to. Unfortunately, the argument for positive behaviour is usually more nuanced than the alternative, so the message can’t be communicated in a 10 second soundbite that you watch while scrolling through your Facebook feed. Rather than using ‘fire and brimstone’, perhaps a little humour during the explanation of the positive view will delay scrolling long enough to discuss some facts, helping to disarm the hate and anger. It’s fine to disagree — anger and hate is another matter entirely.

This article was originally published on The Political Sword

For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Can Labor seize the moment?

By Steve Laing

Let’s face it. A loss is not a win.

So here we are again. The election is over, the counting almost finally concluded, and the Coalition has limped over the line in the House of Reps, but with an even more divided, and potentially difficult Senate than the double dissolution was ironically called to help remove.

Despite the relative success of the Labor gains, the actual result is really quite depressing. In this largely two horse race, they lost. And it is us, the electorate, who will continue to suffer. Yet if there was ever a campaign that the opposition should have romped home, it was this one.

Firstly, the government ran a lackluster campaign, almost completely devoid of policy detail, repeating ad infinitum the three word slogans that Malcolm Turnbull had sworn the electorate wouldn’t be exposed to. The aim of the game was small target, and presidential. Keep the monkeys away from the media and public, even though it will be these monkeys that will be the ones running the show.

Secondly, Turnbull has also been promising us a “grown-up conversation” with everything on the table, yet somehow over the course of the last six months, still managed to throw things into the mix completely out of left field, such as the idea of the states setting their own income tax rates. So his personal credibility as an action-taking politician has been shown to be so much hot air. Malcolm the Ditherer; Malcolm the Waffler; Malcolm the Flop.

And finally, on any measure of financial success, this past government has been less than woeful. There is no value in going over this disaster, it having been described far better by others. Fortunately Abbott couldn’t get any of the really nasty policies past the Senate, but Turnbull seems equally incapable of getting anything to stick either. Three years, and not one budget passed. Worst government ever? Quite possibly.

But then we look at the opposition. In comparison to the LNP policy vacuum, they’ve produced sensible measures, with details and costings, across almost every policy area. Oppositions just don’t do this! Moreover they seemed to run a decent campaign, setting the agenda, and regularly putting the government on the back foot. The cabinet team was strong, they were united, they won the debates hands down!

Yet even with the strengths of Labor, and the weaknesses of the Coalition, this still wasn’t enough. Sure, the media gave significant support to the LNP, but some question as to whether they really have that degree of influence to the majority of the electorate anymore. And ultimately the electorate in their wisdom re-elected the dunces, the dodgy and the incapable. WTbleedinF!

If it is the case that even in this perfect storm Labor still couldn’t get up, perhaps they would do well to recognize that we now appear to be approaching electoral stalemate, with significant majorities of voters “stuck” in voting patterns, whether by direct intention, or through fear of the other side getting in.

Campaigning purely towards their “electorate”, a classic Machiavellian tactic, the LNP seem to be able to command enough support to always keep them in the running, or indeed to win well. And as Pyne annoyingly reminded us, they are masters at doing so. Unscrupulously finding loopholes to fund their advertising strategies, shamelessly using scare campaign after scare campaign, delighted to instigate an expensive royal commission whose sole outcome appears to have been little more than smear Bill Shorten, and more than happy to degrade key infrastructure like the NBN, or use refugees as political pawns purely as opportunities on which to wedge Labor. Mental illness, rape, suicide and murder all appear to be legitimate campaign tactics for the current LNP, just as illegal wars, wholesale bribery, and international deceit were stock in trade for their best PM ever. Their primary goal is to win the election, what they actually do in power is a lot lower in their priority list. But if you don’t win, all your clever policy work means naught.

Compare this to Labor who, I believe, actually try to campaign for the vast majority of Australians, but never quite manage to satisfy enough of them to get much more than a majority, and certainly not a sizeable one.

And such electoral results mean policy outcomes, when won by either of the major parties, that only a significant minority of the population seems easily able to support. Is it any wonder that we appear to be stuck in a slow spiral downwards because the big stuff is just too politically hard? The current political malaise is far from the nation building that we need to transition us from the old economy to the new, nor to ensure our survival when the true ravages of climate change really start to kick in. And even when we, the electorate, vote to show we aren’t happy with what is being offered, the parties look to put the blame for their lack of results any where but themselves. The total lack of self-reflection has yet again been entirely predictable, with both major parties both now giving themselves huge slaps on the back for what great jobs they’ve done!

Of course the Coalition won’t change. And why should they? They continue to hold the upper hand, and actually don’t really have the talent to do anything other than keep doing what they do.

Conversely, progressive politics needs to change significantly if it is to attract the necessary support from many on the “conservative” side of politics if they are to have a future. As they stand, both Labor and the Greens are too susceptible to the cheap political point-scoring tricks that the Coalition (and their media servants) are all too quick to adopt. They somehow need to make themselves smaller targets. Moreover rather than falling into the false dichotomies that the Coalition love to use, they need to stop being dragged into idiotic discussions that serve no purpose except to those starting them. If the MSM aren’t helping to get the message across, shut them out. Keep playing their game, and you will never win, because the media is a business and knows which side keeps its proprietors wealthy. And in an election comparing policy on one side, against nothing on the other, to have the media choose to endorse the unknown, fundamentally reveals that there is no real support for Labor, and so Labor should stop supporting them. Without content, the media is nothing. Without political news stories, the press gallery have no work. No work, no job.

Personally, my single biggest turn-off this election from Labor has been its unwillingness to discuss working with other parties (particularly the Greens) because “history”. I’m sorry, but I’m not supporting political pig-headedness just because the Coalition likes to trot out the “stability” message (whilst clearly being about as stable as Polonium). I know that the best solutions to problems are those determined from a team of diverse thoughts and opinions, not groupthink. I mean, you only need to look at the woefully inadequate thought process that goes into determining LNP policies to see the outcomes of a team of ideologues backed up by nodding dogs of the backbench are not even as good as third rate. So Labor needs to get off its high horse, and start working out how it can avoid the (very few) mistakes that were made in the Gillard years (which, yes, were in part due to the Greens – they need to do the same thing too, and I think they already are), rather than simply dismiss working with others as too hard, or indeed unpopular with the electorate.

You see the electorate actually would prefer a degree of political consensus. And the LNP do recognize this, but as usual want such consensus to be entirely on their terms. Though for them this means that if anyone else doesn’t agree with their ideas, that those “others” are feral, not team-players, spoilers, etc. Brandis on QandA even said so much, and it is no surprise given this was their MO in the last government. But they are just preparing the voters for the anticipated trotting out that it will be Labor’s (and indeed everyone else’s) fault when their next set of inept policies are voted down by the Senate.

But what Shorten should do is find a way to genuinely offering the players who commanded enough electoral support (not seats, but by percentage of primary votes) early involvement in the White Paper definition process. The best time to do this is not in the solutions stage, but in the problem definition stage (particularly since this is the bit that both parties seem to get significantly wrong, judging how quick they bought into the “need” for 12 very expensive submarines). And if Turnbull is out building bridges now, Shorten needs to be doing exactly the same, not least because he is a lot better at it, and because if there is a snap election he may have to run another minority government.

Secondly, Labor should have pushed hard for a Federal ICAC, and now should make it a core promise. No ifs, no buts. Their failure to pursue this revealed that they too fear their own skeletons in the cupboard, which to my mind is also another good reason for not being able to fully trust them. And these weaknesses make their elected representatives just as vulnerable to manipulation, and whether that is either actual or imaginary, there are enough voters that think it is real for it to be a problem. As someone once explained to me, in the real world perception IS reality. And if there are dodgy operators, we need them out. This isn’t acceptable on any side of politics.

Thirdly, Labor need to disengage financially from the unions. Now this is a very major one given Labor’s background, but given the union movement also needs to rethink how it operates in this new world, Labor needs to rid itself of an image of being controlled by “evil unions” which again the Coalition will shamelessly exploit (whilst simultaneously sucking at the teat of big business, property developers, media tycoons, and indeed it would seem even criminals, if they are willing to put money in their electoral fund – ironic? Yep, but it’s a real stopper for many voters, so either get over it or never expect support). Labor need to pursue a strategy where political parties are no longer dependent on external funding, and make the enactment of such a pre-condition on them dropping that financial tie. And if pursued expediently, it might help cut off the LNP from one of their own most significant advantages – access to the coffers of wealthy donors and big business. Again I believe the electorate would love it.

And finally, all parties need to find better ways of communicating with the electorate in a more complete manner than the current ad hoc communication we have now. I’d like to see a comprehensive document (or better still, website) that explains that parties positions on the full range of policy areas. Better still if this was a website that the AEC controlled so that voters could compare each parties position on each topic. I’m sure that the utter lack of thought and concern shown by the current government to so many areas (homelessness anyone?) that would benefit from central involvement would assist voters in making informed decisions. As it currently stands, fact-finding takes too much time that voters don’t have. Is it any surprise that many still vote on what they feel is right, rather than what they actually understand to be right. Of course, that is exactly how the LNP want it, but Labor need to stop being LNP lite, and recognize that the entire system needs a dramatic overhaul, and that if this doesn’t occur their ongoing electoral hopes are very precarious indeed.

Personally, as I’ve stated before, I think party politics stink. I’d rather a representative democracy where the representatives were the best that each electorate could offer (irrespective of their political leanings) rather than a selection predominantly of nodding dogs endorsed by their local cabal. Evolving to that ideal won’t be an overnight process, so in the meantime we need the parties to progress the small steps that we need to improve the system. Electoral reform of the senate, despite some of what has arrived, was one such measure (and one that the LNP will rue for an awful long time – which makes it so much sweeter!), but we need more improvements to the processes of government if we want our countries decision making to rise above the classroom squabbles that our two major parties seem inextricably locked into, encouraged and abetted by a lazy fourth estate who are more intrigued by the politics than they are by the policies.

To be effective Labor doesn’t just need to win an election or two. Because we know that any positive policies are as quickly condemned to be taken apart by the ever-cynical Coalition when next they get back in. To endure they will need to become the long-term major force in Australian politics. And to do that means more change is needed. The changes to leadership rules are certainly on the right track, but they aren’t enough. So my first question is this. Are Labor big enough to recognize the actual failure of this campaign, and realize that they need to do much, much more to change the political paradigm? But my second question is equally pertinent. Do Labor actually really want to run the country on an ongoing basis, or are they really just satisfied to be the bit players in the circus that is Australian politics? Because if they truly cared about the electorate then Bill and his team should be absolutely seething that they lost, not grinning like idiots. Well Bill, we’re watching.

 

Adani And What You Tell Your Mistress!

Aloysuis says to his lover that he intends to leave his wife and move to Queensland, but it’s just a little inconvenient now because well, his son, Bobo’s doing Year 12 and his daughter, Momo’s getting married, but after that, well, there’s nothing to stand in the way of their love. On the other hand, when he goes home, he continues to plan for the overseas trip with his wife for the middle of 2018.

Who’s he lying to?

On the law of averages, it’ll be the lover. It’s not certain, but nothing’s certain.

Although Warren Truss (you know, our Deputy PM) seems to be certain that coal will be around for the next hundred years, because Adani told him so. He tweeted:

“Coalition Friends of Mining heard today of the exciting opportunities the Adani coal mine will deliver to Australia and India for 100 years.”

Well, Warren’s trust in Adani and the excting opportunities notwithstanding, let me remind everyone that companies are required to report changes in their circumstances in a timely manner. In other words, it’s illegal to hold onto information about your bottom line and not report it to the general market. On the other hand, what you say in a general sense can use the same sort of hyperbole as a politician at election time.

In other words, you can tell everyone that you’re excited about your new product and you think it’s going to turn your company into a market leader, but you have to report if sales are so slow that it’ll affect your profits as soon as that information is available. If you, for example, divested yourself of half your personal shares in the company before the update was made public, it’s called insider trading and it’s illegal.

Late last year, Adani announced that it had “secured” a billion dollar loan from the State Bank of India for the coal project in Queensland. Naturally, the Indian Stock Exchange wanted to know if just maybe, there was information that should have been reported, given that financial arrangements of that size are quite significant.

Well, no big deal really, said Adani because we haven’t actually done anything yet, but the bank “has agreed in principle to consider extending financial assistance of an amount up to $US1b for development of Carmichael coal mine”.

(And Aloysuis has told his mistress that “in principle” he’ll leave his wife at some future date, circumstances permitting.)

Let’s just consider Adani’s statement for a moment. Apart from it reminding me of those finance ads that promise you’ll have a response within sixty seconds where I suspect they’ll tell you: “Thanks, for ringing – our response is that we’ll take your details and let you know if the next few days”, there are so many qualifiers that I could just as easily say the I have full support from my wife to try and beat Bart Cummings record of Melbourne Cup winners, on the condition that I can get a training licence and persuade the owners of the top horses to switch to me.

The Bank has agreed in principle to CONSIDER extending financial assistance of an amount of up to $US1b (but not more, only up to that amount).

In other words, Indian Stock Exchange, we didn’t see the need to tell you because well, it’s just something we’ve discussed and they didn’t say go away we’d never lend you money, but hey, nothing’s been finalised, they just said come back later when you know what’s going on.

Now, I’m bringing this old story up to highlight the difference between what Adani are telling analysts and what they’re publicly saying.

As I wrote the other day, they’re telling analysts that the project is on hold until the price of coal improves. However, they assured us that – like Aloysuis – they’re still firmly “committed” to the Queensland project.

Of course, one suspects that if they told that to the analysts, then they’re share price would tank – in much the same way that, after the salmonella scare, a decision by Woolworths to run a campaign to eat more pre-packaged salads would lead one to suspect that management didn’t have a clue and that Masters hardware stores wasn’t going to be a one-off disaster.

So, expect to see lots of rhetoric about the legal challenges to Adani holding up jobs and growth by politicians. As for Adani, look at what they tell the market, not what they tell Australia.

On the lighter side:

Tony Abbott passes away and is met by St Peter who gives him a quick tour of Heaven. At the end, St Peter tells him that because of his life on earth as politician, he has to spend the weekend in Hell. Tony assures him that it’s not necessary, that he was a good politician, but St Peter insists that all politicians have to spend their first weekend in Hell.

Tony takes the elevator to where Lucifer greats him with a beer. “G’day, mate. Would you like to go your room first and have a rest or would you rather go to the spa?”

“I’m not sure,” says Tony, so Lucifer tells him to go to the bar and think about it. Tony goes to the bar and catches up with a few of his Liberal colleagues before he’s mobbed by a group of women who tell him how much they loved him and present him with a bottle of Grange.

After a weekend of drinking, surfing and cycling, Tony goes back up to see St Peter.

“Well,” says St Peter, “would you like to come to Heaven, or would you rather go back to Hell?”

“To be perfectly honest,” says Tony, “I found Heaven a little boring even during the short tour you gave me.” 

“Remember this is forever!”

“Ok, Hell it is. I couldn’t stand to be here forever.”

So St Peter puts Tony in the elevator and he goes back down to Hell where Lucifer meets him.

“Ah, Abbott. You get in that cell over there, and we’ll send your tormentors in to…”

“Hang on, where’s the bar and all the stuff I saw when I was here before?” asks Tony.

“Gee mate, we were campaigning, surely you didn’t expect we’d be able to afford all that after you’d voted, did you?”

 

Ebola

Each generation has its historic moments, its touchstone memories. I grew up in the 1980s, and my touchstones were the Ethiopian famine, Masters of the Universe and Transformers toys, and Ebola. For all that Ebola was a virulent disease, the outbreak was in a faraway land and affected only a few hundred people. It was horrible for those people, of course, but it’s difficult to see now why an obscure virus outbreak in third-world countries became the subject of teenage nightmares. Breathless news reports gave the unwarranted impression that the scourge of a horrible and uncurable disease was about to sweep the world and bring humanity to its knees.

It never happened, of course. Due to effective healthcare and isolation procedures, Ebola was brought back under control, its outbreak cleared, and the disease eliminated from human population centres.

In the years that have followed, the odd case of Ebola has surfaced. Few cases could be classified as “outbreaks”. Ebola has remained a remote threat and it fell out of the consciousness of the public.

Recent weeks have seen Ebola back in the news, with a far more serious outbreak than anything before in history currently spreading in western African nations. Today’s news media are full of breathless reports on a wildfire disease, out of control, an epidemic. And far more than in the 1980s, what starts as breathless reporting in the mainstream media easily evolves into sheer panic-stricken hysteria in some portions of the internet. It’s important to be aware of the facts, the real risks, and what realistic risk, if any, there is to western populations.

So what is Ebola, why is this outbreak significant, and is there really a risk of a global pandemic that will kill us all?

What is Ebola?

ebola“The Ebola virus” is a term applied to a group of related viruses, infectious viral diseases that cause a deadly kind of haemorrhagic fever in mammals. It’s a cruel disease and a frightening one; the symptoms of advanced Ebola infection are both hideous and highly dangerous.

The virus has a long incubation period – the time between infection and showing the first symptoms – of between one and three weeks. During the incubation period sufferers have no warning of the disease and its progress, and they are not infectious to those around them.

When they appear, early symptoms can seem like a mild influenza, including fever, muscle weakness, sore throat and headaches. The classical symptoms of Ebola follow later: the virus attacks the body’s internal organs, particularly the kidneys and liver and the digestive tract. Symptoms include vomiting and diarrhea. Another effect of the virus is to impair the ability of blood to clot, leading to internal and external bleeding. In the advanced stages, sufferers can bleed from all of the body’s orifices.

Ebola is one of the deadliest viruses on Earth; fatality rates for the different strains vary between approximately 50 and 90 percent. There is no cure. The current outbreak in Africa has a fatality rate of about 60 percent – and that’s with medical intervention.

How is Ebola transmitted?

The virus is highly infectious with contact to the sufferer’s body fluids. This includes blood, urine, faeces, vomit or even sweat. A patient is not contagious until he or she starts showing signs of the disease.

Ebola is not “airborne”: you cannot catch Ebola by breathing the same air as an infected patient. There has been one documented case of the virus spreading through the air: in 2012 a study involving pigs and monkeys resulted in infection of the monkeys from infected pigs without any direct contact. However, Ebola infects humans and pigs differently. In pigs Ebola concentrates in the lungs, causing infected pigs to sneeze and splutter much more than humans, where the virus principally attacks the liver. Human sufferers do sneeze and cough infectious droplets that can travel short distances through the air, but this form of infection would require close proximity. It is theoretically possible to catch Ebola from a large droplet but so far there is no evidence to point to aerosolisation.

How do you treat it

Ebola is a tropical disease that is thought to be carried in the wild by bats. There has been little exposure of this virulent infection in human communities, and thus there is little to no immunity already in the human population. When Ebola infects a human population, most people are extremely susceptible to it upon exposure. Despite intensive research over decades, there is currently no vaccination or prevention method available for Ebola. The only way to ensure you don’t catch it is to avoid contact with infectious materials, which can be difficult when the late stage of the disease results in significant amounts of bleeding and other fluid discharge.

It’s important to note also that you can’t cure viruses. A virus is not like a bacterium; bacteria are self-contained organisms that invade and infest a host, but remain separate to it. Viruses have no independent existence outside of a host. Viruses are, in effect, strings of DNA, and they act by embedding themselves into the DNA of the infected creature. Upon infecting a cell’s DNA, a typical virus will prevent that cell from acting normally and instead turn its machinery to churning out billions more copies of the virus, eventually breaking the cell open to infect those around it.

The problem is that, like a cancer, a virus-infected cell still looks like it belongs to the body. An infected cell cannot be returned to its pre-infection state; the only way forward is to kill that cell. Any “cure” needs to be able to identify infected cells and kill them while leaving uninfected cells intact. Human medical science is typically not very good at doing this; in some cases the effects of viral infection can make a cell susceptible to specific drugs, but there are as yet no drugs on the market that can specifically target Ebola-infected cells.

Where human science fails, the immune system normally excels. Identifying infected cells and destroying them is its sole function. But Ebola virus is also known to attack and pervert immune system cells, and even to use these cells to carry itself throughout the sufferer’s body. With the virus wreaking havoc on the body’s organs, causing massive internal bleeding and constraining the immune system’s activity, the infected host will almost certainly die well before its immune system can fight off the infection.

Given enough time, for some people, the body can rid itself of an Ebola infection. Left to its own devices, the disease is virulent enough to kill most people before their immune system can do the job, so treatment for Ebola is, simply speaking, to treat the symptoms, and to keep the victim alive long enough for their own immune system to let them recover. If the victim was healthy with a robust immune system prior to infection, the chances of survival increase.

Keeping patients hydrated and providing them with the nutrients they and their immune system need is the accepted treatment for this disease. In the case of Ebola this must be done whilst avoiding contact with infectious materials and isolating the patient from family, friends and the public. Even with full medical support, in the current outbreak, the chances of survival are only about 40%.

The current outbreak

Ebola was first identified in 1976, and was named for the region in Africa (the Ebola River) in which it emerged. From that time until the current outbreak, there have been about 1700 recorded cases of Ebola in humans. The current outbreak has so far (as of 22nd August 2014) killed well over 1400 people and infected over 2600.

_77033956_ebola_deaths_624_map_detail_19082014

(Image source: BBC)

The current outbreak affects a region of Western Africa overlapping the borders of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Due to the virus’s highly infectious nature and its long incubation period, there have been many cases of travellers from these areas bringing the disease to other nations. Most significantly affected in this way are other African nations such as Nigeria and Congo, but cases have been identified as far distant as Ireland.

Unofficially, it is likely that the infection rates in Africa could be MUCH higher than the official numbers. The actual numbers are impossible to quantify, as many cases have not been laboratory confirmed and the disease is officially out of control. With a long asymptomatic incubation period, it is likely that many people are infected without yet showing symptoms. Many cases are likely to be in “shadow zones”, outside of officially monitored areas and unrecorded by medical authorities. In addition, there are currently outbreaks of Ebola-like disease in other neighboring countries not yet officially declared a part of this outbreak.

Regardless of the numbers of infected, the UN states that over a million people are affected either directly or indirectly by this outbreak.

Different strains of Ebola have different levels of lethality. The current outbreak is trending at about 60%: six of every ten people diagnosed with the virus (and under medical care) are dying despite best medical efforts.

Why it’s a crisis

The keys to dealing with an outbreak of Ebola are halting its spread and treating its victims to keep as many alive as possible. In the areas of West Africa, in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria, both of these are proving problematic.

Halting the spread of the disease entails rapidly identifying and isolating all sufferers, quarantining those who might have come into contact with them, and educating populations about behaviours that contribute to the virus’s spread. Attempts to do this are ongoing but are running into difficulties due to human nature and community practices in these regions. Patients, and their families, have been seen to behave in ways that are harmful to themselves and to others. In some cases, infected patients have fled hospital, or avoided going to hospital in the first place, for fear of being restrained there to die. Families hide their symptomatic relatives to prevent them being isolated. Local burial customs further complicate matters, with some documented cases of people being infected by touching the departed during preparation of the body or during the funeral service.

Treatment, too, has its problems. The affected countries already have healthcare systems that struggle to support their populations. In many cases, healthcare in rural areas is nonexistent, and the disease has now spread into major urban centres so the lion’s share of medical resources is spent there. Despite Ebola being endemic to Africa, previous outbreaks have been in the centre of the continent, and West Africa was neither experienced in nor prepared for an infection of this type. As a result, we have seen a high number of healthcare workers succumb to the disease as response efforts scaled up, leading to a loss of expertise and resources.

The other enemy is fear. In many areas, deliveries of goods (including medicine, food and water) have ceased as couriers and drivers are unwilling to enter the infected areas. This simply contributes to the breakdown of social order and the environment of fear, and hampers those whose goal is to control the infection and help those affected.

What’s being done

It is clear that this outbreak is well beyond the capabilities of the affected nations to handle on their own. Even with contribution by the World Health Organisation and the CDC, the epidemic is currently classed as “out of control”. Medical charities such as Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) have deployed thousands of staff to run Ebola clinics to supplement overwhelmed healthcare systems. The WHO is providing expertise and leadership, although some have accused it of reacting far too slowly.

In the face of the unprecedented scale of this outbreak, the usual safeguards on novel treatments have been relaxed. Antiviral drugs such as ZMapp are being provided for live-action trials on the understanding that survival is unlikely with or without treatment; even though such treatments might be untested and theoretically could in themselves be harmful, the thought is that someone who’s already dying of Ebola is going to be willing to take the risks. While several people treated with ZMapp have survived, some have not, and it it far too early to say whether ZMapp or other drugs currently in testing are having any positive effects at all.

The imperative to constrain the spread of this virus has led to the imposition of a zone sanitaire: the affected regions are being closed off, with the only egress being via controlled medical checkpoints. Most international airlines have already ceased flights to and from affected areas. At the same time, entry points across the world are on high alert, with airline staff, port and dock authorities and airports being on the lookout for any travellers from affected regions showing any symptomology. This may not be enough to completely prevent the disease’s spread but should severely constrain it.

It’s important to note, finally, that even if a case of Ebola does arrive in Australia or the US – say an infected traveller arriving before they become symptomatic – the uncontrolled spread of the disease is far less likely. In the western world we already impose standards of hygiene that protect against transmission. We generally don’t come into contact with other people’s blood, urine or faeces in daily life. By the time a sufferer becomes highly infectious, they are also highly symptomatic and likely to be under appropriate medical care. We can be sure also that appropriate quarantine and control measures would be rapidly brought to bear.

Learnings for us

There are several key factors in the current Ebola scare. The first is that the current outbreak of Ebola is unlikely to become a pandemic and we, in civilised Australia, should be safe from its immediate effects. Breathless reporting of the risks to global civilisation are overstating the infectiousness and risk of this disease. Ebola may well bring African nations to their knees, but by virtue of distance and a sophisticated healthcare system and high standards of hygiene, any cases in the western world will be rapidly contained.

It’s not all good news though. We live in a global world. Conditions that affect remote third world countries nonetheless have an effect here. Our healthcare systems are on high alert for this disease and, belatedly, the western world is pouring money, personnel and resources into helping their poorer neighbours in Africa. Globalisation has had many beneficial outcomes for the western world – particularly in the availability of cheap labour and cheap goods – but it has also thrown into sharp relief the inequalities between nations.

Ebola is zoonotic disease. Like Hendra, swine flu, rabies and SARS, a form of the virus lives in wild animal populations, but is capable of being passed to humans on exposure. The virus is not new. What is new is its introduction into human populations, and this is typically the result of increasing encroachment of human civilisation into previously wilderness areas. The unfortunate fact is that most of this encroachment, and thus the initial outbreaks of many of these diseases, occurs in third world countries with low socio-economic conditions.

The rise of new human-infectious diseases from zoonotic sources is driven by the need of poor people in Africa, in South America, and in Asia, to support themselves with a continual push into wilderness areas. Deforestation across the world is accelerating rather than slowing. As countries are progressively deforested, native wildlife is displaced, with terrible consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems. The increased interaction between humans (and domesticated animals) and wildlife which might carry novel viruses such as Ebola means that the introduction of new diseases is not likely to end any time soon. In bats, a particular virus might be relatively harmless, as wild populations have developed immunity to it over the course of millenia; but for humans, who have never encountered it, this new virus can be devastating.

We are fortunate insofar as the human-infectious strains of Ebola are not airborne. (One known strain of Ebola is at least somewhat airborne, but this strain is not harmful to humans. “By some genetic fluke, the same mutation that rendered Ebola Reston airborne apparently also left it harmless to humans.” We dodged a bullet with that case.)

It is not beyond the bounds of consideration that a new virus will be introduced to the teeming human masses in a third-world country in the near future, a virus with the deadly consequences of Ebola but the ease of transmission of an influenza. This is the stuff of fiction – for example, Michael Crichton’s The Andromeda Strain, the movies Outbreak and Contagion, Richard Preston’s The Hot Zone. But how we would deal with such an outbreak is the subject of deadly serious consideration by epidemiologists and governments.

The long-term learning is that no nation is an island. The inequality of nations should not be allowed to continue. As long as there are impoverished populations in impoverished nations, desperately levelling their jungles at a time when the world desperately needs those jungles to be maintained, the globe will remain at risk of novel zoonotic diseases, and we may not be so fortunate next time.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button