At the very least, it seems like better coverage than I've encountered elsewhere.
I heard on the radio this morning, for instance, that "two people were cured of Ebola." "Cured" is a problematic statement for many reasons. First, because we don't really know to what degree the experimental treatment Brantly and Writebol received is responsible for their recovery. Second, because using the word "cured" implies that there is now a known remedy for the virus. There is not.
"If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated."
Not necessarily. Brantly's DNA might carry some mutation or variant that provides him better natural defense against Ebola, for reasons we don't yet know. Perhaps the treatment he received worked in some way, directly or indirectly, in concert with another factor (or several). Perhaps he is just statistically lucky. What we do know is that Brantly received a course of treatment with ZMapp, and that Brantly recovered from the virus. In between those two facts are potentially dozens of confounding or hidden variables.
If anything, I give this writer a lot of credit for going through the trouble to point out that "it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery." Some other writers and outlets have not been as careful.
Comments
At the very least, it seems like better coverage than I've encountered elsewhere.
I heard on the radio this morning, for instance, that "two people were cured of Ebola." "Cured" is a problematic statement for many reasons. First, because we don't really know to what degree the experimental treatment Brantly and Writebol received is responsible for their recovery. Second, because using the word "cured" implies that there is now a known remedy for the virus. There is not.
"If there is no cure, then it cannot have been eradicated."
Not necessarily. Brantly's DNA might carry some mutation or variant that provides him better natural defense against Ebola, for reasons we don't yet know. Perhaps the treatment he received worked in some way, directly or indirectly, in concert with another factor (or several). Perhaps he is just statistically lucky. What we do know is that Brantly received a course of treatment with ZMapp, and that Brantly recovered from the virus. In between those two facts are potentially dozens of confounding or hidden variables.
If anything, I give this writer a lot of credit for going through the trouble to point out that "it remains unclear if [ZMapp] is responsible for their recovery." Some other writers and outlets have not been as careful.