It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World Bank issues dire warning about Ebola's economic impact

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Bankers always love to tie disasters and social problems to economics.

The World Bank is putting an economic impact cost on ebola.

More than $32 Billion by next year.

So what should nations and businesses do?

Maybe there is an economic "plan" for Africa?

Ebola could be the fuel.



The economic impact of the Ebola epidemic could reach $32.6 billion by the end of next year if the disease ravaging Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone spreads to neighboring countries in West Africa, the World Bank Group said Wednesday.

The World Bank's assessment said the economic impact of Ebola is already serious in the three countries and could be catastrophic if it becomes a more regional health crisis. The CDC said last month that unless efforts to curb the outbreak are ramped up significantly and quickly, the disease could infect up to 1.4 million people by mid-January in two nations, Sierra Leone and Liberia, alone.



World Bank issues dire warning about Ebola's economic impact




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They're as bad as Obama.

Blame their failings on something else. I'd love to know how a disease in an area with NO economy to speak of spells economic doom for the rest of the planet ...

No if the doomsday scenario occurs and Ebola goes airborne and wipes us all out ... then we can revisit this. But so long as it stays in Africa and only spits out the occasional infected person, it isn't going to crash entire economies.

edit on 8-10-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The liberals were right, if we had spent as much money on global healthcare as we did on war, we wouldn't be in this situation. This planet is like a giant cruise liner. If one deck gets brought down by a major infection, it's only a matter of time before it hits all the other ones.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks for bringing this very important issue about the economy impact of ebola sofi, as a matter of fact I was wondering myself about this issue, because let face it countries that were planning on investing in certain sectors of the economy in Africa are backing off, countries like China.

I read something about that issue recently, I didn't save the page.

But as people get into a panic frenzy, beside the real sickness infecting many, the productivity will also suffers.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Well it's a good thing that Ebola isn't as serious a threat as everyone is making it out to be then. Sure it may be the biggest Ebola outbreak ever, but that pales in comparison to Malaria which killed 627,000 people in 2012. But by all means let's continue to fear this new bogeyman that isn't even airborne and is highly unlikey to become airborne.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Ebola could be the fuel.


Sounds like a reason to raise the price of gas!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
So then next year we'll have the poor banks crying about their losses from all this unforeseen nastiness while stating:

"um...We need to be bailed out....or is it bailed in? Can't remember but give us the people's money because we're too big to fail."

Someone has to profit from all this right?

Peace



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem is the exponential rise, Ebola is poised to take if it is allowed to be transmitted across the globe. While it might only be responsible for a few thousand deaths today, it could easily be responsible (by mortality rate) for 750,000 by next yet, and that number can keep growing exponentially. So keeping this disease in line, and not letting it infect as much as a disease that only kills 1-10% of its victims, is obviously of paramount importance.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Well it's a good thing that the first world has the resources and quarantine procedures in place to combat such an outbreak. Reality isn't a contagion movie. There are a LOT of fail safes, presumptions, and violations of evolutionary theory that are made in order for movies and stories that show worldwide epidemics consuming the world growing out of control.
edit on 8-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


There are a LOT of fail safes, presumptions, and violations of evolutionary theory that are made in order for movies and stories that show worldwide epidemics consuming the world growing out of control.



The reason the fail safes work though is because it is in the social consciousness, before recently many areas were not ready to handle an outbreak of ebola. Much of the information for prevention and protection against the disease was dated to 1998 involving different strains, and even now they are sending actors into various hospitals across the country to make sure patients exhibiting signs are being treated properly to prevent further outbreaks. None of this would have happened if it weren't for national and international attention, so while people get a little touchy about fear mongering a certain amount needs to be employed to get people off their ass.

The first world is not an impenetrable shell that viral pathogens can't enter, it is a system much more apt to handle wide scale outbreaks compared to its third world counterparts, but at the same time because of bureaucracy and profiteering in the industry, not all cases are handled the same. The fact that Duncan was originally sent home to expose more people to the virus is a testament to that.

Considering there are other infectious diseases that run havoc, as has been mentioned in many of these threads, I think it only highlights the fact that greater caution should be given to diseases with higher mortality rates.
edit on 8-10-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4

log in

join