Ebola in America

On August 2nd missionary Dr. Kent Brantly was flown from Liberia to an Atlanta hospital to be treated for Ebola.This was the first known case of Ebola to be treated  in America, and although the news stirred concern among many Americans it was nothing in comparison to what was coming. On September 30th, 2014 the first patient in the United States was diagnosed with Ebola and on October 8th, 2014 he died from the virus. This was the turning point in America. After Thomas Duncan's death social media blew up with fear, accusations, and conspiracy theories.

The effects of social media on the reception of the Ebola virus were numerous and widespread. From citizen journalism to misinformation America latched on to Ebola and ran with it.

The citizen journalism impacts with the Ebola virus were astonishing. The sheer amount of information that was being put out for others to consume was impressive by it's self, but the inaccuracy of the majority of said content was staggering. Below are some metrics on the accuracy of the information circulating during the period of time when Ebola was a consistently trending topic:

Types of tweets and potential readers (n)

	Medically correct information	Medical misinformation	Other (including tweets of a spiritual nature)
Tweets (%)	203 (36)	313 (55.5)	48 (8.5)
Potential readers	5 596 153	15 039 097	48 308
Retweets*	95	146	7

*χ² test, P<0.001. 

Because of the rampant inaccuracy across social media countless people were mislead and misinformed about the virus. As one Times journalist reports, according to social network communication researchers these people who are so easily mislead by misinformation are "the infected". And the inaccuracy virus was much more widespread than Ebola.

Because social media is such an open platform for discussion communication tends to be more free and raw.

Some of the results of this is sheer stupidity:

But more often than not in the case of the Ebola virus the biggest impact that the communication context of the internet had was that there was too much information. With everyone having access to a say in the matter, misinformation and fear spread like wildfire. Instead of looking to reliable scientific resources people were much more likely to listen to their misinformed, incorrect although well meaning friends.

The locale of any situation plays a big part in the communication process. The physical distance it's self adds an interesting dynamic to the scene. West Africa  is almost as far away as one can possibly get from the United States of America. And yet, in spite of this fact, millions of people were concerned about an outbreak of a virus that is not easily transmittable and had not yet been exposed to the public in the United States, with the exception of two people. But the overwhelming concern was not for the people of Africa, but for themselves. Only when the virus came to America did the U.S. populous become genuinely concerned. 

The emotional impact of the prospect of Ebola was huge. In a Harvard School of Public Health poll conducted in August of 2014, over 51 million people were afraid that they or their family would contract Ebola even though there were zero cases of it in the U.S. up to that time. Emotions power us, and fear is perhaps one of the greatest driving forces there is. 

Personal stories generally have a larger impact on people than simple, emotionless facts. But in the case of Thomas Duncan people really didn't seem to be very interested in who he was. In a particularly revealing article by CNN, which sought to retrace the steps of Duncan, the reporter unashamedly notes that not much is known about him. And upon the opportunity to interview a friend of Duncan's, information was only sought about how he might have gotten Ebola, not the man himself who died.

The timing of the events, and even more so the timing of the social media storm surrounding the events regarding Ebola is fascinating. Looking back it proves rather difficult to find a large number of articles concerning the virus before September 30th. It was on that day that Thomas Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola on U.S. soil. Only then did people really start talking about it on social media. Below is a chart showing the amount of content discussing Ebola in September 2014:

And this was after Dr. Kent Brantly had already been brought to America with the virus and treated for it. It wasn't until it was diagnosed on American soil it seems that Americans really cared much about it. Maybe it was the fear for theirs and their loved one's well being that they started caring. Maybe it was their seemingly total lack of international awareness as citizens that kept them so quiet for so long. But whatever the reason, America started caring the day Duncan was diagnosed.

Altogether I found the contexts surrounding the Ebola virus discussion on social media to be rather disappointing and disturbing. Socially we seem to not care until a danger could affect us and our social class. It would seem that as a country, or at least those who engage in social media communication, care little for others and much more about the impact on ourselves. The lack of fact checking and truth seeking is disturbing on multiple levels, especially when one considers the effects this could have in the future in similar situations. I am disappointed because of the lack of maturity and genuine care shown through social media. Thankfully this immaturity and selfishness is not going completely unchallenged, as organizations like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Samaritan's Purse, did not and have continued to not let Ebola and the people who are suffering from it around the world go unheard, unnoticed and unhelped. If people put the same kind of effort into helping care for and spread the word about those initially infected with Ebola overseas as they did being scared for themselves, the changes that could be wrought would be astounding.