A six-year-old Ebola survivor has been found safe in the Democratic Republic of Congo. British medics, who have been on the ground for weeks, are applauding the news. But as the world breathes a sigh of relief, I cannot help but perform a mental audit of the resources expended.
Let us be clear: the survival of a child is a moral absolute. It is not a line item in a budget. Yet in the cold calculus of public health economics, every life saved carries a price tag. The question that keeps me awake at night is whether the billions poured into containing Ebola in the DRC could have been better invested elsewhere. In malaria prevention, for instance, which claims far more children under five each year.
The British government has committed over £100 million to the Ebola response since 2014. This is taxpayer money. Money that could have funded entire schools, hospitals, or infrastructure projects at home. And while the Treasury is adept at printing money, it cannot print fiscal discipline.
The markets have been surprisingly sanguine about this outbreak. Perhaps because Ebola, for all its horror, remains a contained risk. It is not a systemic shock like a banking crisis. But the opportunity cost is real. Every pound spent on a niche virus is a pound not spent on chronic diseases that burden the NHS.
Of course, the human angle is compelling. A six-year-old girl, presumed dead, found alive. The medics who risked their lives to save her. These are stories that tug at the heartstrings and loosen the purse strings. But as a financial editor, I am paid to be cynical. I see the hidden liabilities: the long-term care costs for survivors, the psychological trauma, the potential for future outbreaks.
The Bank of England has kept interest rates low, but the debt clock keeps ticking. We are borrowing from future generations to fund today's emergencies. It is a Ponzi scheme of compassion.
So yes, celebrate the survival of a child. But also demand accountability. Ask your MP: what is the exit strategy? What is the cost-benefit analysis? Because in the end, the market always settles the score.
