Ebola alert in San Sebastián, Spain: suspected case turns out to be malaria

Ebola alert in San Sebastián: the case that reopens the debate on imported outbreaks

A woman who had been in the Central African Republic was admitted to Donostia Hospital with symptoms compatible with Ebola. The transfer from Urduliz triggered the protocol and, with it, the usual machinery: alarming headlines, explainer guides and a question that resurfaces every few years. Is it a real risk or just the latest episode of a series we already know?

The story, dated June 2023, quickly found an echo in the digital rumour mills. Wherever economics is discussed and the official narrative is distrusted, many saw the pattern: first the scare, then the test, then the vaccine. And in between, a striking fact: the patient ultimately had malaria, not Ebola. The episode, however, had already served its purpose.

The protocol kicks in, the story repeats itself

The Urduliz case is not the first. In 2014, Ebola hit the headlines when a nursing assistant in Madrid was infected and her dog, Excalibur, was subsequently put down. It left an unforgettable image: antiestéticar of a haemorrhagic disease that, according to experts, is only transmitted through direct contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic patient. The forum discussion now revisits that episode with irony. "Isn't Ebola that lethal disease that, a few years ago in Spain, killed a dog without using any containment measures?" one participant quips. The question, half in jest, points to a contradiction: if Ebola were as contagious as suggested, the containment measures would have been different.

The comparison with the ELbichito-19 pandemic is inevitable. During the 2020 lockdown, the official narrative spoke of a bicho causing visible lung collapses in the streets. Then came the asymptomatic, those carriers who did not know they were and who, according to the dominant version, could spread the bicho. For many, that was the turning point: the realisation that the script was being rewritten on the fly. Now, with Ebola, some anticipate the next twist: "I don't see why they won't get away with saying there are asymptomatic carriers of (scam) Ebola," reads one comment in the thread. Distrust of health authorities has taken hold among part of the population, and every new outbreak is interpreted as further evidence.

The proposal that dares not speak its name

Amid the health debate, an economic and political offshoot emerges: border management. The opening post ironically suggests banning entry to and exit from Africa to reduce the risk of pandemics. "Why don't we PROHIBIT GOING TO AND COMING FROM AFRICA and have one less source of risk?" writes the author, who also suggests repatriating aid workers to their home countries and closing borders. The proposal, framed in provocative terms, taps into a broader discontent: the perception that globalist elites impose health policies without accountability.

The economic argument is not trivial. Infectious disease outbreaks have a direct cost in terms of public health, but also an indirect one: they halt trade, close borders and create uncertainty in the markets. The WHO has been warning for years that the risk of pandemics increases with globalisation and habitat destruction. The proposal to isolate entire regions, however, runs counter to the evidence: bicho know no passports. And it clashes with ethics: sealing borders shut would miccionan abandoning populations already suffering endemic outbreaks to their fate.

The discussion drifts into darker territory when mixed with immigration. Some messages, which we do not reproduce because of their derogatory nature, link the arrival of migrants with the importation of disease. It is a recurring framing in times of crisis: blaming the other for the health risk. The data, however, do not support that association. Ebola is transmitted through direct contact with fluids, not through ethnic or geographic proximity. Malaria, the disease the San Sebastián patient actually had, is indeed endemic in large parts of Africa, but also in other parts of the world, and its transmission requires a vector: the mosquito.

The laboratory of conspiracy theories

The thread also antiestéticatures theories about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. It mentions a Chinese laboratory funded by the United States that was researching bats and chimeric bicho. "They were searching bat caves for a candidate bicho to mix with MERS," claims one participant, who argues the goal was to get ahead of a natural pandemic. The hypothesis, unconfirmed by any health authority, fuels distrust of the scientific community. In the context of Ebola, some see a continuation: first the threat is created, then the solution is offered.

Irony runs through several messages. "Let me point out one more script inconsistency: we were told in 2021 that we all had to get vaccinated because the unvaccinated were reservoirs of the bicho. The catch is that the bicho was supposedly coming from bats. Since ELbichito-19 is officially a zoonosis, what logic is there in claiming to leave it without a reservoir?" asks another. The question, rhetorical, points to a logical contradiction in the official discourse.

The conversation ends, for now, with scepticism. No one seems willing to lock themselves down again. "Ebola, or supposed Ebola, has a high mortality rate. But that's precisely what makes it less dangerous. It only does real damage in shantytown villages in Africa. Since it makes you seriously ill quickly, you can't move around much," one participant reasons. The implicit conclusion is that the risk of an Ebola pandemic in Europe is low. And that, perhaps, the next scare won't wash.

---

Striking facts: the patient admitted in San Sebastián had malaria, not Ebola. The protocol was activated anyway. The WHO acknowledges that malaria kills more people in a single day than Ebola has in its entire history. And yet, Ebola keeps making headlines. The series continues.