The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with a rising Ebola epidemic, with almost 600 cases detected so far and more than 130 deaths.

Ebola is a rare virus that initially causes a fever, fatigue, muscle pain, then vomiting and diarrhoea. It can then progress to the hemorrhagic stage, with internal bleeding – which presents as blood in vomit and faeces – as well as bleeding as from parts of the body including the nose, gums, vagina and needle punctures.

Ebola primarily spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as blood, faeces and vomit. It can be contracted from contaminated surfaces or contact with bodies of those who have died, but can also spread by other routes including without contact.

This current outbreak, caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain, was first confirmed as Ebola on May 15. It was already estimated to have 246 cases at the time of this confirmation.

As surveillance efforts stepped up, it became clear the outbreak was more than double that size, with spread to Uganda.

So what are health authorities doing to get the virus under control and why is it such a challenge?

And what can health authorities in Africa, as well as the rest of the world, learn from previous outbreaks?

How did so many people get sick so quickly?

Ebola has a long incubation period of two to three weeks or longer. This means the number of infected people has likely been growing since at least March or April.

Our epidemic early warning system, Epiwatch, saw signals of unknown illness in the DRC on April 13, with reports of hemorrhagic fever noted even earlier on March 13.

The delay in diagnosing Ebola may have been due to initial testing targeting the more common Zaire strain of Ebola. Tests must be specific to Bundibugyo.

The DRC is also experiencing other serious outbreaks including mpox and measles, as well as malnutrition and chronic malaria.

These underlying factors can make epidemics more severe and harder to detect.

Read more: WHO has declared mpox a global health emergency. What happens next?

How big did previous outbreaks get?

The worst Ebola epidemic in history was over 28,000 cases in the 2014 West African epidemic. More than 11,000 people died from this Zaire strain, as vaccines were not yet available at the peak of the epidemic.

In the DRC, the last epidemic of 64 cases was in late 2025. The largest epidemic in the DRC was in 2018-2019 with more than 3,000 cases. These were both the Zaire strain.

There have only been two other Bundibugyo outbreaks. The first, in 2007 with 149 cases, was in the Bundibugyo District of western Uganda, near the DRC border. The second, in 2012, was in the DRC, with 57 cases. The current Bundibugyo epidemic is already the largest in history.

While Bundibugyo is not as lethal as the Zaire strain, it can kill 30–50% of infected people. The fatality rate in this epidemic appears close to 30%, with 139 deaths reported from almost 600 cases.

Unlike the Zaire strain, for which there are treatments and vaccines, there are no approved drugs or vaccines for the Bundibugyo strain.

However, the World Health Organization has sponsored clinical trials of a monoclonal antibody and the antiviral remdesivir, a drug which is also used for COVID.

We may see higher fatality rates unless non-pharmaceutical measures ramp up.

How can it be stopped?

The epidemic can be stopped by coordinated surveillance and containment. This is by identifying cases, isolating them so they cannot infect others, tracing their contacts and quarantining them.

In 2014, these measures alone controlled the Ebola epidemic at a time when no treatments or vaccines were available. This means health system capacity is the key to epidemic control.

There were not enough beds for Ebola patients in the 2014 epidemic, so health authorities built tent hospitals to help bring the epidemic under control. This could be considered if hospitals are overwhelmed.

The DRC has limited capacity to diagnose Ebola, so it’s important to scale up surveillance and testing. A clinical case definition (such as “fever and bleeding means a probable case”) can be used if testing is not available.

Simple surveillance systems – such as open-source intelligence, where community chatter and local news reports can provide signals of epidemics – can help. So can providing incentives for communities to report suspected cases.

It’s also essential to communicate and work with communities and community leaders from the ground up. In the 2014 epidemic, locals murdered eight Ebola workers who provided health education, showing how important trust and community relationships are.

Health workers, close contacts and funeral attendants need extra precautions

Ebola is predominantly spread by contact with blood and bodily fluids. Those most at risk are close contacts of patients with Ebola, health workers and people attending funerals, which often involves touching the body.

At least four health workers have been infected, including one American missionary doctor.

Given the high fatality rate, health workers should be provided the highest level of personal protection.

Read more: How are nurses becoming infected with Ebola?

What can other countries do?

Ebola is a concern for all of us, because travel can result in infections occurring in any country. During the 2014 West African epidemic, cases also occurred outside the main affected countries, the largest number in Nigeria.

Failure to initially diagnose a case in Texas resulted in four other people becoming infected, including health workers.

Whether facing hantavirus or Ebola, emergency departments need tools to improve their awareness of and ability to prevent hospital outbreaks.

Busy staff in emergency triage may send someone with a fever back to the waiting room for hours, not realising they have travelled recently and may have a serious infectious disease. In South Korea, a person with the deadly Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus was in the emergency department for many hours, and a huge outbreak resulted.

One useful tool for hospitals is a decision-support system used during triage that prompts staff to ask for a patient’s travel history and provides data on disease outbreaks in the country of travel. This means patients with deadly infections may be isolated before they can infect others.

Another concern is that if the outbreak becomes much larger, there may be survivors who still harbour the virus for many months or longer after recovery. They could continue to infect others after this epidemic is over if they come into contact with bodily fluids such as semen, amniotic fluid or breast milk, as well as fluids from the placenta or eye.

The WHO declaring a public health emergency of international concern helps, as it activates a range of additional measures and resources for outbreak control.

Read more: Ebola survivors struggle to return to normal lives: what I found out in Sierra Leone and Liberia

C Raina MacIntyre is the founder of EPIWATCH Global Pty Ltd which tracks global epidemics. She receives funding from NHMRC Investigator Grant 2016907 and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence GNT2006595.

Ashley Quigley, Mohana Priya Kunasekaran, and Noor Jahan Begum Bari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Early summer is a valuable time for parents and young people to prepare for the transition to college in the fall.

As first-year college students arrive on campus every fall, a predictable pattern unfolds. Rates of heavy drinking spike, social pressures intensify, and the risk of sexual assault, injury and other harms increases.

Many parents feel trepidation about their teens navigating this landscape of opportunity and risk. And unfortunately, too often, students don’t receive guidance from schools or caregivers as they make this major life transition.

Research suggests that the summer before college can be a critical window to help students prepare for the social and emotional realities they are about to face, and to reduce risks before they begin. And parents and caregivers can play a key role.

We are a sociologist and a research scientist, and each of us studies different aspects of prevention science.

When we went to college in the 1980s and early 2000s, the dominant message to families was to step back and let students figure things out on their own, and we struggled to adjust. Looking back, we wish our families had received clear guidance and resources for how to stay connected and support us during this transition.

A perfect storm

While students may legally be adults when they leave for college, key parts of the brain – particularly those involved in judgment, impulse control, emotional regulation and decision-making – are still developing well into their mid-20s. At the same time, the parts of the brain tied to reward, emotion and social belonging are especially sensitive during this stage of life.

This combination can make young people more likely to prioritize immediate rewards, peer acceptance and emotional reactions over careful assessments of risk – especially in environments with fewer guardrails and greater access to alcohol and other drugs.

Students are also navigating enormous change: separation from family, pressure to fit in, loneliness, uncertainty and the challenge of building a new identity and social network. Even positive transitions such as moving or getting a new job can create significant stress.

Many students turn to alcohol and other substances to manage stress, reduce anxiety and navigate social belonging in environments where substance use is often normalized – or even expected.

Unfortunately, substance use impairs judgment, increases impulsivity and amplifies vulnerability to a range of other high-risk behaviors and harms. And this struggle, as one of us, Beverly Kingston, experienced, can be more than a phase.

The risks are real, but they can be addressed

The spike in drinking and other risky behaviors during the transition to college is not inevitable. And parents and other adults in young peoples’ lives matter during this developmental transition to adulthood, more than many realize.

For instance, research clearly shows that parents’ attitudes and norms around drinking play a big role in how their children engage with alcohol, both as teens and in adulthood. When students believe their parents are permissive about alcohol, they are more likely to drink and binge-drink.

Even well-intended efforts to encourage “safe” drinking send the wrong message. Many parents believe letting teens drink at home in a supervised environment is safer, but decades of research in the U.S. and internationally show that this unintentionally signals to teens that drinking is acceptable and contributes to higher alcohol use later on.

Yet when parents communicate clear expectations and have honest conversations about alcohol, it can reduce risk and support healthier decision-making. Conversations about binge drinking, peer pressure, stress and decision-making can help students navigate environments where alcohol use is often normalized.

One of us, Clara Hill, works on research related to a tool for navigating these conversations, a parent handbook called “First Years Away from Home: Letting Go and Staying Connected.” In a randomized clinical trial, the most rigorous type of research study available, students whose parents used this handbook during the summer before college were significantly less likely to start or increase substance use during their first semester.

However, the focus of the handbook is not only on substance use. It also serves as a tool kit to guide parents in talking to their young adults about values, expectations and relationships.

Support, not surveillance

Many students say they want their parents involved in their lives – just not overly involved. They want emotional connection, guidance and support while also being trusted to grow into independent young adults.

To achieve this balance, parents may find it helpful to think of themselves as holding three important roles during the college years. These roles are the cheerleader, who provides emotional support; the coach, who supports autonomy by helping students clarify their values and problem-solve; and the safety monitor, who communicates clear expectations around issues of potential harm and checks in about health and risk behaviors.

Different scenarios – roommate conflicts, poor grades, mental health struggles – will call for parents to embody new parenting roles during this time, distinct from what children needed during adolescence or childhood.

Support can begin with honest conversations before students ever arrive on campus. Parents can talk with their students about stress, loneliness, belonging, alcohol and substance use, relationships, values, safety and how to respond when things do not go as planned.

Looking back, both of us entered college carrying expectations and fears we did not fully understand. When the transition became harder than expected, it fell to us to navigate loneliness, uncertainty and the pressure to fit in.

Finding the right balance

Parents, too, often feel adrift; they want to help, but may receive mixed messages from the media and from colleges about how much they should be involved in their new college student’s life.

Feeling pressure to optimize their young adult children’s success, while also being cautioned against “helicopter parenting,” can lead parents to step back more than necessary when it comes to offering guidance and support.

Today, researchers know much more about what helps young people navigate this major life transition and thrive. Students do not stop needing support when they leave home, and parents do not have to disappear in the name of independence; parents can lovingly support young adults’ growing autonomy.

When students are surrounded by connection, guidance and support, the transition to college can be healthier, safer and less overwhelming. And the time to begin building that support is before students ever arrive on campus.

Clara Hill works for Washington State University, where the "First Years Away from Home: Letting Go & Staying Connected" handbook was developed. She receives funding to disseminate the handbook to universities in Washington State from State Opioid Relief funds, which are granted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) to the Washington State Health Care Authority.

Beverly Kingston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

It has long been the case that when a US President speaks, financial markets react.

But recently oil markets have been behaving a bit differently: sometimes the stock price moves before Trump posts. Millions of dollars are changing hands with some traders seeming to have made incredibly well-timed bets. Did some of them know something the rest of the market didn’t?

@realDonaldTrump made 1,341 Truth Social posts from January 25 to April 8. Our analysis of that 73-day window reveals 15 distinct events with unusual trading activity around Trump’s posts. In several of those events — including the most striking ones — the price had already moved sharply in the minutes before he posted.

➡️ Read the interactive story here

Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council for the Discovery Project "Understanding and Combatting 'Dark Political Communication'", from the Universities Australia-German Academic Exchange Service Joint Research Cooperation Scheme, and from Meta Platforms Technologies.

Ella Chorazy receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), for the Discovery Project 'Understanding and Combatting "Dark Political Communication"'.

Stephen Harrington receives funding from the Australian Research Council, for the Discovery Project 'Understanding and Combatting "Dark Political Communication"', and for the Discovery Project "Understanding Twenty-First Century Media Uses and Purposes".

Colorado voters passed Amendment A, a ballot measure touted as an end to slavery in state prisons in 2018. The amendment eliminated the penal exception clause, which allowed the state to use forced labor in addition to incarceration as a punishment for crime.

Colorado was the first of eight states to repeal its penal exception clause. Advocates for the policy change hoped it would prevent forced labor for little pay. Colorado pays incarcerated workers between US$0.33 and $1.61 per hour for maintenance jobs such as cooking, cleaning and groundskeeping.

Nationally, the elimination of state penal exception clauses has had little impact on incarcerated workers. Lawsuits in Colorado and Alabama have alleged that forced labor continues despite the policy change.

My research examines prison conditions and programming, including work programs. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on state and federal prison industries, which sell goods produced by incarcerated workers to government agencies.

Colorado lawsuit alleges abuse

In 2022, the plaintiffs who brought a class action lawsuit, Mortis v. Polis, alleged that the Colorado Department of Corrections violated the amended state constitution by punishing incarcerated people who refused mandatory work programs. The punishments included solitary confinement and use of force.

Incarcerated people also reported the loss of good time and earned time credit, which are two sentence reduction incentives based on participating in work programs. Additionally, they reported loss of privileges like phone calls and family visits.

During the trial, David Lisac, deputy director of the Colorado Department of Corrections prison operations, testified. He said the department had neither changed its policies in response to the amendment nor attempted to ascertain whether the department was in compliance with the amendment.

In February 2026, the court ruled that the department and Gov. Jared Polis violated the state constitution by forcing people to work. The ruling specified that use of force and isolation for failure to work were unconstitutional. On the other hand, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that withholding privileges or credits constituted involuntary servitude.

Whether the decision will have an impact on work conditions in Colorado prisons remains to be seen.

History of the penal exception clause

When the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery passed in 1865, the penal exception clause allowed for slavery only as punishment for a crime. Along with Jim Crow laws that criminalized Blackness, the loophole allowed for the legal re-enslavement of Black Americans to financially benefit the state. The penal exception clause also allowed prisons to continue to operate as they had prior to the 13th Amendment. Historically, prisons in Colorado and across the U.S. used the labor of incarcerated workers and paid them little to nothing.

This included the establishment of state penal farms on former slave plantations and widespread convict leasing of incarcerated workers’ labor to private companies. Chain gangs to build railroads were also established during this time.

The Colorado Constitution, drafted and approved a decade later in 1876, included a provision that mirrored the 13th Amendment. Article II, Section 26, Colorado’s penal exception clause, stated: “Slavery prohibited. There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

Opposition to forced labor in prison took many forms. Those include the Attica uprising in 1971, attempts to unionize incarcerated workers and prison labor strikes.

Colorado’s penal exception clause was eliminated in 2018. Following Colorado, legislation and ballot measures were introduced in many states and at the federal level.

Incarcerated people need work

Colorado and states across the country use incarcerated workers to do almost all the jobs of running the prison. Paying prevailing wages would significantly increase operating expenses. A cost-benefit analysis of paying incarcerated workers full wages for their work, by Edgeworth Economics, an economic consultancy firm, estimated the increase of expenses to fall between $8.5 billion to $14.5 billion nationwide.

Incarcerated people use earnings from their work to purchase food and hygiene products from the commissary. In addition, many derive meaning and purpose from work, which is important for mental health.

Refusing to work can also lead to harsh consequences. The Colorado lawsuit plaintiffs alleged that they experienced solitary confinement, isolation in their cells, loss of phone calls and visits, and loss of good time and earned time credits for failure to work. Solitary confinement harms mental health, and phone calls and visits are essential for family connectedness. Good time and earned time credits accrued through work can speed up release and are an important motivator to work, regardless of working conditions.

Simultaneously, incarcerated people risk retaliation for speaking out about prison conditions. For example, the incarcerated men who started the Free Alabama Movement to end forced labor in 2013, and featured in the popular 2025 documentary film “The Alabama Solution,” were later transferred to solitary confinement.

Incarcerated workers rarely considered employees

Some prison labor is recognized as employment and paid the minimum wage – in theory. Nationally, private-sector Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program and work release employers are required to pay the prevailing minimum wage to their incarcerated employees. However, states always take deductions for room and board, transportation, victims services, court fees and the like. In some cases, up to 80% of an incarcerated person’s wages are deducted. That means take-home pay often remains low.

But 97.4% of incarcerated workers labor for government entities directly and are paid less than a dollar an hour.

They also lack protections. They are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which provides minimum wage rights and provisions for overtime pay. Nor are they covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which enforces worker’s compensation and rights to safe working conditions. If an incarcerated worker is injured on the job, they are entitled to medical care, like anyone else in prison, but they have no right to financial compensation or sick days.

Adapting the private-sector pay structure for all work in prison could result in fair wages – that’s if deductions are revised to be fair as well. Researchers estimate that paying fair wages to incarcerated workers could produce up to $20.3 billion annually in income to them directly, and benefits to families, crime victims and the economy through child support payments, restitution payments and taxes. Furthermore, fair wages would allow people to support themselves during incarceration and save for when they are released, which could have a meaningful impact on well-being during and after incarceration.

Reforms, such as adjusting pay structures or removing the penal exception clause, may improve working conditions for incarcerated people. But researchers have asserted that prison labor will always be inherently coercive. Incarcerated workers have limited options to earn money and work toward an earlier release date, which undoubtedly influences their choice to work.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Julia Bowling does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.