By Greg Odogwu
For those who still doubt the reality of
a warming Earth, there is now undeniable evidence that global
temperatures are increasing. Of course, no one would now give the excuse
that the statistics authenticating climate change are based on
scientific mumbo jumbo; they are now based on direct temperature
measurements and observations of other impacts such as melting glaciers
and polar ice, rising sea levels, and changes in the lifecycles of
plants and animals.
And the sad truth is that it is having far-reaching
consequences for every aspect of life – food, water, air and governance.
Higher temperatures have not only affected health, education, food
production, energy and water supplies, but all these and other sectors
have affected one another. This costs the world a great deal; but it is
vital that global health interventions recognise and factor in these
inter-sectoral impacts in emerging strategies.
Significantly, the health sector seems
to be most affected because of its peculiar fundamental concerns.
Alarming figures from the World Health Organisation’s recent study show
that seven million people died in 2012 because of air pollution. Another
WHO study captured in the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change report, shows that climate-altering pollutants cost the
world $1.9trn every year, taking into account money spent on health
interventions. Besides respiratory diseases like asthma, studies have
shown a link between air pollution and heart disease and cancer –
visible traumas springing from climate change.
Today, some other diseases have joined
the litany of climate change influenced maladies. Recently, the Wildlife
Conservation Society released a report whereby it enumerated about 12
diseases likely to get worse as a result of climate change. The “deadly
dozen” include Bird flu, Babesiosis, Cholera, Ebola, parasites, Lyme
disease, Plague, Red tides, Rift Valley fever, Sleeping sickness,
Tuberculosis and Yellow fever. The WCS was quoted as saying that to
prevent these ailments from becoming as destructive as the “black death”
(which wiped out a third of Europe’s population in the 14th century) or
the flu pandemic of 1918 (which killed an estimated 20 million to 40
million people worldwide, including 500,000 and 675,000 people in the
US) the world should vigorously engage in monitoring wildlife to detect
signs of these pathogens before a major outbreak.
Now, let us concentrate on the
hemorrhagic fever, Ebola. Ebola is a deadly viral disease characterised
by massive bleeding and destruction of internal tissues. It can be
highly contagious through contact with infected bodily fluids; it has a
very high fatality rate of about 90 per cent. The virus is lethal to
both humans and other primates, and has no cure. In addition, it is
unclear where the disease, which causes fever, vomiting and internal
or/and external bleeding, comes from – though scientists suspect fruit
bats. Ebola virus is named for the Ebola River in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, where it was first identified in 1976. Since then, it
has visited Africa off and on, killing thousands in its wake. As you
read this, fresh cases detected weeks ago have killed about a hundred
people in Guinea, with similar outbreaks recorded in neighbouring
Liberia and Mali.
Interestingly, in as much as the
definite vector of the virus is not known, what is clear is that
outbreaks tend to follow unusual downpours or droughts in central
Africa, which is a likely result of climate change. This also makes the
scourge dangerously unpredictable; because climate change is a risk
factor which the whole of tropical Africa faces and which effectively
puts all of us at risk.
To illustrate, a research published as
far back as 2006 in the journal, “Transactions of the Royal Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene”, asserted that Ebola outbreaks would
worsen with global warming. The researchers reported that, “Illness and
deaths among animals were most prevalent during periods of prolonged
drought-like conditions in the rainforest, which indicates that severe
environmental stress may facilitate disease transmission.” The study
later concluded that with some climate models projecting drier
conditions in Central African rainforests due to climate change, it was
possible that incidences of Ebola could increase in the future. This is a
very remarkable conclusion because current Ebola outbreak has justified
the study.
For us in Nigeria, we still have Lassa
fever to grapple with. Named after a village in Borno State where it was
first detected in 1969, Lassa fever remains that dreadful viral
epidemic that keeps visiting. Ebola and Lassa fever are part of a larger
group of viral haemorrhagic fevers and are the two most important ones
epidemiologically in the tropical African context. However, in as much
as Ebola is rapidly lethal and is dramatically perceived as a global
plague because of the international attention, Lassa fever is much more
endemic.
The case fatality rate of Lassa fever is
only around one per cent, but the disease claims more lives than Ebola
fever because its incidence is much higher. It is estimated that there
are 300,000 infections and 5,000 deaths per year. Just last year, when
Lassa hit about 13 Nigerian states, the Chief Medical Director of Irrua
Specialist Hospital Benin, Prof. George Akpede, said there had been 60
per cent increase in suspected cases and 80 per cent increase in
confirmed cases across the country. He said more than 51 million
Nigerians were at risk with the annual number of illness estimated at 3
million and the annual number of deaths estimated at about 58,330.
Therefore, I think it will serve Nigeria
better to concentrate on improving on the widely faulted strategies
deployed in tackling Lassa fever. Perhaps, as we gird-up for Lassa
fever, we would in the same gear be getting ready for any potential
Ebola threat.
What should our government do? Firstly,
instead of the knee-jerk approach the government used in constituting
the Ad hoc/Emergency Rapid Response Committee months after Lassa fever
hit town, it should constitute Standing Rapid Response Committees
immediately, for both Lassa and Ebola. Secondly, Nigerians should be
exposed to the truth that bush burning triggers these deadly
vector-borne diseases, as animal carriers could be chased out of their
habitats into our own abodes thereby infecting us.
Thirdly, Nigeria has poor disease
surveillance infrastructure, and this is disturbing; we must improve on
disease surveillance across the length and breadth of the nation.
Fourthly, our education system has to be strengthened with relevant
animal-related research courses. In fact, right from secondary school,
students should be encouraged to embrace such courses. The situation
whereby everyone wants to study medicine; and only drop outs and
“second-choicers” are herded into courses like Zoology, Animal Science,
Veterinary Medicine and Laboratory Science, is a sad one. This has to
stop; so that our government’s critical epidemic research-response
institutions will have a crop of “genius cadre” in its ranks.
Fifthly, government must establish
laboratories for epidemiology and animal health inspection and research,
equipped with ultra modern instrument and manned by well-motivated
staff. Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that NIMET’s recent
2014 prediction of reduced rainfall does not only have an inherent food
security signature in it; therein embedded is a potential epidemic
threat! Ebola is known to move in such tropical wet-to-dry seasons; and
Nigeria, being a nation with porous borders and on-the-move populace,
cannot afford to be caught unprepared.
No comments:
Post a Comment