1Ebola is an infectious disease which incites fear due to high case fatality and the anxiety-provoking images it conjures. In affected areas, prevention strategies were hastily implemented, in an inflexible or authoritarian manner, including the closure of borders and schools, the isolation of people who came into contact with a patient… and the isolation of people from infected areas. What were the consequences? To answer this question, anthropologists worked on the perceptions and assessment of health measures in a local context, in Senegal, Guinea and three neighbouring countries.

Collection of epidemiological data, Gabon.

2They identified several factors, starting with the inadequacy of the health messages conveyed to the populations: in Guinea, some patients, convinced that they were the victims of a political conspiracy, refused to take the prescribed medication. In Benin, an Ebola centre was destroyed even before the epidemic hit the country. Conversely, in Senegal the Ministry of Health broadcast clear information via the media on the epidemic flare-up and the population trusted them.

Ebola epidemic treatment centre, Guinea.

3In all cases, the precautionary measures imposed on people who came into contact with an Ebola case were difficult to tolerate. In the survey countries, individuals confined for 21 days were isolated, anxious, incapable of holding a job and they experienced financial difficulties and suffered from social stigma, notably because they were (wrongly) suspected of transmitting the Ebola virus. The study showed how volunteers and front-line workers were able to manage these effects.

4These results contributed to humanising biosecurity and isolation procedures while making them applicable to local contexts, notably by introducing psychosocial assistance for confined individuals, and tailoring messages to patients and the population. On a broader level, they were taken into account by the WHO to define recommendations on ethical concerns during global epidemics.