WHO's May 17 statement declaring Bundibugyo Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda a Public Health Emergency of International Concern advises all other States Parties that "no country should close its borders or place any restrictions on travel and trade," because such measures "are usually implemented out of fear and have no basis in science." [1] CDC's May 18 Title 42 order does the opposite. [2]

The CDC order, signed under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act, imposes entry restrictions on non-US passport holders who have been in DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan in the previous 21 days, runs for 30 days from the signing date, and adds enhanced screening, port-health protocols, and contact tracing for arriving travelers. [2] The order says the immediate risk to the general US public is low, but the legal instrument is a border closure for a defined population.

The numbers behind the disagreement: as of May 16, eight laboratory-confirmed cases, 246 suspected cases, and 80 suspected deaths in Ituri Province, plus two confirmed cases (one death) in Kampala among travelers from DRC, with at least four healthcare-worker deaths suggestive of viral hemorrhagic fever. [1] There is no approved Bundibugyo-specific vaccine or therapeutic. WHO grounds its no-border-closure advice in operational evidence — closures push movement to informal crossings, hurt response logistics, and damage local economies.

CDC's order takes the same epidemiology and produces a different instrument. The 30-day calendar is the part to mark — by mid-June the order either renews, lapses, or expires into a different posture.

Two arms of one week's response said opposite things. The page that prints in 30 days will tell readers which arm the response settled on.

-- MAYA CALLOWAY, New York