The
recommended 21-day quarantine period for the Ebola virus is not long
enough to contain the spread of the disease, a new study has warned.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) advises the incubation period for the virus is between two and 21 days.
It
is thought that if someone who has been in contact with an Ebola victim
but does not develop symptoms after that point, has not been infected.
But
a study by scientists at Drexel University in Philadelphia has found
there is a 12 per cent chance the deadly virus could lay dormant in a
person's body for longer than the three-week period.
It means a
significant proportion of the population in West Africa could be
developing the disease outside of the key incubation period.
Biologist
professor Charles Hass said when calculating the isolation period on
the basis of past outbreaks, there is always a 'standard deviation for
results' - a percentage by which they may vary - which has yet to be
taken into account during this outbreak.
Professor
Hass, who has vast experience of analysing the risk of transmitting
biological pathogens, said 'reconsideration is in order' as 21 days may
not be sufficient to protect public health.
He
said: 'Twenty one days has been regarded as the appropriate quarantine
period for holding individuals potentially exposed to Ebola Virus to
reduce risk of contagion, but there does not appear to be a systemic
discussion of the basis for this period.'
Data
gathered by the WHO from earlier outbreaks in Zaire and Uganda reported
an incubation period of between two and 21 days for the virus, meaning
if the individual has not presented with symptoms after three weeks they
are unlikely to be infected or contagious.
Professor
Haas said he believes a broader look at risk factors should be
considered as with any research of this nature there is a standard
deviation in results.
In
the case of Ebola's incubation period the range of results generated
from Zaire and Uganda varied little, and this may have contributed to
the WHO's certainty.
But looking
more broadly at data from other Ebola outbreaks in Congo in 1995 and
West Africa recently suggests there could be up to a 12 per cent chance
that someone could be infected even after the 21-day quarantine.
Professor
Haas, whose research is published in PLOS Currents, said: 'While the
21-day quarantine value, currently used, may have arisen from reasonable
interpretation of early outbreak data, this work suggests
reconsideration is in order and 21 days might not be sufficiently
protective of public health.'
He
said these quarantine periods must be determined by looking at the cost
of enforcing the quarantine against the that of releasing exposed
individuals.
Looking
at the potential trade off between costs and benefits as the quarantine
time is extended should guide public health officials in determining
the appropriate action.
But,
with more contagious and potentially deadly diseases the cost of making
a mistake on the short side when determining a quarantine is extremely
high.
Professor
Haas, added: 'Clearly for pathogens that have a high degree of
transmissibility and a high degree of severity, the quarantine time
should be greater than for agents with lower transmissibility and
severity.
'The
purpose of this paper is not to estimate where the balancing point
should be, but to suggest a method for determining the balancing point.'