At the time of the last outbreak, were there economic funds in the African countries affected to cover this kind of epidemic or did they depended on external intervention?
Most of the African countries were not ready in the sense that there were no funds for acting fast against this kind of outbreak. At the same time, the International community didn’t have funds for a direct intervention against outbreaks. I believe that there was an error in the way the amount of money was spent, but this is going to help us to have funds in the future. Therefore, we will be able to act faster and reduce the expenses.
Most of the African countries were not ready in the sense that there were no funds for acting fast against this kind of outbreak. At the same time, the International community didn’t have funds for a direct intervention against outbreaks. I believe that there was an error in the way the amount of money was spent, but this is going to help us to have funds in the future. Therefore, we will be able to act faster and reduce the expenses.
In this recent case, the outbreak started too quickly, there was very little intervention from the external community, and almost no money available.
There was also no accessible program to combat this disease. But of course I think that the intervention of the external funding has been fundamental in this case to counteract the Ebola outbreak.
Has the fund for this kind of outbreaks been created?
It’s not available yet. The international community has still not agreed on it but I think the next step for them is to have a fund or a program that can handle this kind of events. This (the Ebola outbreak) is just a sign of what could happen in the future.
The problem is that Africa, specially, is over populated in some areas so the possibility that a new illness emerges and diffuses really quickly is extremely high. There are countries that have conditions where outbreaks can happen faster and with lower ability to fight back. What we have learned from Ebola is that the international community should be ready for funding this kind of projects.
What was the response of pharmaceutical companies to the last epidemic?
Pharmaceutical companies do their own business, so they invest where they think they can get in return. The role of fighting this disease is a pure public problem.
Has the fund for this kind of outbreaks been created?
It’s not available yet. The international community has still not agreed on it but I think the next step for them is to have a fund or a program that can handle this kind of events. This (the Ebola outbreak) is just a sign of what could happen in the future.
The problem is that Africa, specially, is over populated in some areas so the possibility that a new illness emerges and diffuses really quickly is extremely high. There are countries that have conditions where outbreaks can happen faster and with lower ability to fight back. What we have learned from Ebola is that the international community should be ready for funding this kind of projects.
What was the response of pharmaceutical companies to the last epidemic?
Pharmaceutical companies do their own business, so they invest where they think they can get in return. The role of fighting this disease is a pure public problem.
We cannot ask companies to invest in something that they do not expect to be profitable.
This is basically the main concept of innovation. Investing innovation is very expensive but you do it if you expect returns. That’s why people didn’t invest in Ebola vaccines before, because they were not expecting to have a demand. If you have to invest millions of dollars on a vaccine, which is not expected to affect anybody, then why would you do it?
What is the current state of the development of the vaccine?
For what I know, a vaccine for Ebola is almost ready. I think it will be available thanks to the international community’s pressure for generating it. It didn’t require a lot of effort its just that there was no financial incentive for doing it.
Of course, you have limited resources and you have to decide whether you want to invest in other types of illnesses in the world that require studies and other things.
What is the current state of the development of the vaccine?
For what I know, a vaccine for Ebola is almost ready. I think it will be available thanks to the international community’s pressure for generating it. It didn’t require a lot of effort its just that there was no financial incentive for doing it.
Of course, you have limited resources and you have to decide whether you want to invest in other types of illnesses in the world that require studies and other things.
What was the role that the World Bank played in this last outbreak?
I don’t know exactly if the World Bank invested money in a direct intervention but for sure it has been working in understanding whether the economic effect has been higher, how and among whom. Its vey important because we know almost nothing about what determines this kind of outbreaks.
What economics usually do is to study the behavior of people in front of this kind of changing situations. For example, if you want to introduce a vaccine, you need to understand how you can shape awareness and spread information and believes since these are what drove the Ebola outbreak.
With the disappearance of Ebola in the rich countries, do you know if pharmaceutical companies have left the project of creating a cure now that it is not profitable anymore?
For my knowledge, a vaccine is being tested to see basically if it is working or not.
Why? A think that it is mainly because the international community pressured and of course there is still the risk of Ebola to spread through Europe for example. At least there was this fear. What’s unique is that people ask for change so you don’t need to change to be hit.
What kind of policies do you think that these countries should perform with the limited resources to address this epidemic?
For sure they should create a program for tackling this problem at the source. If something happens, they need to be ready with specific program. We should know how to stop the spreading, how to put areas in quarantine, for example.
In the optimal work what you should say is that there should be a better infrastructure but money is not available for constructing for everyone so I think the most important thing is just to be sure that there is a quick intervention and second thing is what the people have been doing now, basically awareness that’s the only thing you can do with people with low levels of education and income so instructing that they shouldn’t bury corps next to their houses or that they should wash their hands, all this kind of very simple information which can make a big difference.
So, is economy the key to solve this kind of problem? Does money make the difference in addressing this type of epidemic?
It for sure makes a big difference. It is not a case in which money was just thrown, there was a risk for the whole world.
Money makes a big difference but if you really want to make a difference you should think about change; which is more on the long run.
You can think about two kind of solutions, so money is important for this kind of intervention but you have to think about another type of change that money cannot really work with, which is more on the long term like empowerment, education. The last mentioned could transform the economy itself in some sense.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.