From screening to isolation and exposure: The 72 critical hours
National
By
Eunice Omollo
| Oct 07, 2026
Six months after the first case of Ebola infection was announced in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the first case was detected in Nairobi. Kenya's preparedness, according to government officials, was top-notch. It turns out the reality was different. The patient, who had been ailing, travelled from the DRC to Uganda and then to Kenya, where he succumbed to the disease yesterday.
How was screening conducted at the airport, if at all? When did the hospital confirm the patient was infected with the virus? Is the patient's death what prompted officials to announce the first case? Why did the announcement come hours later? Do we have the capacity to care for patients if the infection spreads?
As Kenyans mull over what could have gone wrong, experts say the next 72 hours are a do-or-die moment in the management of the disease.
The questions now shift to laboratory confirmation, the specific virus strain involved, the people exposed before and after the patient became ill, and whether Kenya can identify and contain every possible link before transmission moves beyond this imported case.
READ MORE
Companies linked to Nakumatt in dispute with Stanchart over Sh950m loan
Coop and UN-backed facility unveil financing solution for digital enterprises
Kenya's first Ebola case raises concerns over trade barriers in EAC
How Meta's AI Chief understood the Gen Z assignment in crocs
Banks tighten lending to stem resurgence in bad loans
African capital markets leaders seek to unlock Sh516tr for development
The city startup building trade from broken glass
Unilever invests Sh70m in solar to cut energy costs
Laboratory-medicine specialist Dr Ahmed Kalebi says confirmation of Ebola and identification of the specific Ebola virus species are not necessarily the same thing.
“A compatible illness and travel from an affected area justify immediate suspicion and protective action,” Kalebi says. “Confirmation requires evidence of the virus, principally through a validated Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, specifically Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), which detects the virus’s genetic material in a patient’s sample.”
A PCR test looks for the genetic material of the virus in a patient’s sample. RT-PCR converts the virus’s RNA into a form that can be detected and amplified, allowing scientists to determine whether the Ebola virus is present.
Three elements are critical, Dr Kalebi says: an appropriately collected specimen, testing in a designated and suitably equipped laboratory, and a reliable result supported by valid controls and correct specimen identification. Whole blood is generally used in living patients, while an oral swab is a recognised option after death.
However, the laboratory analysis does not end once Ebola is confirmed.
“Some molecular assays detect several Ebola viruses without differentiating them,” Kalebi says. “A positive result can therefore confirm Ebola infection while further species-specific testing or sequencing establishes which virus is involved.”
An assay is a specific laboratory test used to detect the virus or its genetic material. That distinction matters because the outbreak in the DRC involves the Bundibugyo virus, an Ebola species different from the Zaire Ebola virus targeted by the licensed Ervebo vaccine.
“A test designed only for Zaire Ebola cannot automatically be assumed to detect Bundibugyo,” Kalebi says.
The clinical picture alone also cannot provide a definitive answer. Ebola can present with symptoms that overlap with malaria, typhoid, bacterial sepsis, Marburg, and other viral hemorrhagic fevers.
“Finding malaria does not automatically exclude concurrent Ebola, and bleeding is neither necessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis,” Kalebi notes.
That distinction is particularly important in a country where febrile illnesses—diseases that cause fever—are common and where a patient may initially present without the classic image of Ebola often associated with severe bleeding.
The Timeline May Be More Complicated Than It Appears
The circumstances surrounding the patient’s illness require careful reconstruction. Reports of a prolonged illness cannot automatically be taken to mean that the patient had Ebola throughout that entire period.
Dr Kalebi says the key question is when the first Ebola-compatible symptoms appeared and what happened during the preceding 21 days.
“Rapid deterioration cannot reliably date the infection,” he says. “A patient who dies shortly after admission may already have been ill for several days.”
The incubation period for Ebola is generally two to 21 days between infection and the onset of symptoms. That is fundamentally different from the duration between hospital admission and death.
Investigators need to reconstruct the patient’s movements, travel, contacts, healthcare visits, and possible exposures before symptoms began. Earlier healthcare records and information from relatives could prove particularly vital.
Even laboratory results have limits in determining timing.
“A high viral load, or a low PCR cycle-threshold value, may accompany severe disease, but it is not a reliable clock for determining when infection occurred,” Kalebi says.
Sequencing could help determine whether the infection is linked genetically to the DRC outbreak, but it cannot independently establish the exact date, location, or person from whom the infection was acquired.
The Body Remains an Infection Risk
The death of the patient does not mean the biological risk has ended. “Death does not eliminate infectiousness,” Kalebi says.
The body and bodily fluids must continue to be handled as potentially infectious by trained teams working under public health coordination. An oral swab can provide a post-mortem diagnostic specimen, while unnecessary invasive blood or tissue sampling should be strictly avoided.
Specimens require appropriate packaging, identification, traceability, and safe transportation to the receiving laboratory. Upon arrival, receipt, opening, inactivation, and molecular testing must strictly follow validated biosafety procedures.
The same caution applies to handling the deceased.
“The body should be handled minimally by a trained team, with appropriate containment and a safe, dignified burial,” Kalebi says. “Embalming and unprotected washing or touching should be avoided.”
The greatest risks arise when people come into contact with infectious blood or bodily fluids. This includes needlestick injuries, splashes to the eyes or mouth, contaminated hands, unsafe specimen handling, spill cleaning, removal of protective equipment, and handling of the body.
This places relatives and caregivers squarely inside the public health investigation.
“The relatives who cared for and transported this patient need urgent exposure assessment,” Kalebi says. “Cleaners, transport staff and mortuary personnel must receive the same attention as clinicians and laboratory workers.”
The First Test of Kenya's Preparedness
Kenya has invested in surveillance, laboratory capacity, healthcare worker training, and isolation infrastructure. The arrival of an imported case provides a real-world test of whether those systems function effectively when an infectious patient appears unexpectedly.
Dr. Kalebi says the review should examine the entire chain from the first recognition of illness and travel history to isolation, notification, specimen collection, laboratory testing, and communication of results.
“This case requires an immediate review of the complete pathway: when the illness and travel history were recognised, when isolation began, when public health was notified, when the specimen was collected and received, which assay was used, and when the result reached the response team,” he says.
The fact that the patient passed through an airport does not automatically mean screening failed. Someone infected with Ebola can still be incubating the virus without showing symptoms while travelling.
“Border screening can miss someone who is still incubating infection,” Kalebi says. “Recognition must therefore continue at hospital reception, clinical assessment and subsequent points of care.”
The key measure of preparedness is not simply the number of available isolation beds or laboratories, but the speed at which the system moves from suspicion to isolation, reliable confirmation, and action on contacts.
“The death alone does not establish diagnostic or laboratory failure; the patient may have presented with advanced disease,” Kalebi says. “However, any delay that allowed unprotected exposure must be identified and corrected.”
Who Is Actually at Risk?
The investigation has identified contacts and is assessing additional people who may have travelled with the patient. According to the Ministry of Health, there are currently 28 persons of interest.
However, contact numbers must be interpreted carefully. People should not automatically be assigned the same level of risk simply because they were on the same aircraft or in the same environment. Risk depends strictly on the nature of exposure.
Relatives who provided care, individuals exposed to blood or bodily fluids, healthcare workers with unprotected exposure, and those who handled the body require particular attention. Passengers and crew members may require assessment, but sitting on the same flight does not automatically imply equal exposure. The same principle applies to healthcare workers who used appropriate protective equipment.
“Risk depends on actual exposure,” Kalebi says.
The 21-day monitoring period remains central. Contacts should undergo active follow-up for 21 days after their last exposure, with immediate reporting of symptoms and a reliable pathway to medical assessment. High-risk contacts may require closer supervision, including quarantine, movement restrictions, or work exclusions determined through public health risk assessments.
A person who feels well but tests negative cannot necessarily be considered completely cleared of infection.
“A negative PCR while someone is well cannot exclude an infection that is still incubating,” Kalebi says. Anyone who develops compatible symptoms should be isolated immediately and retested.
Moving From an Imported Case to Local Transmission
This remains the most critical epidemiological question facing the country. A single secondary infection acquired in Kenya would constitute local transmission, even if directly linked to the imported patient.
While that would not necessarily mean Kenya has an uncontrolled outbreak, it would demonstrate that the virus has successfully transmitted to another person within the country.
The epidemiological concern rises significantly if investigators begin finding cases with no clear link to the original patient, or if transmission continues into a second or third generation.
That is why the next phase is not simply about counting contacts; it is about finding missed contacts, identifying unrecognised illnesses or deaths, monitoring healthcare workers, and rapidly investigating anyone who presents with compatible symptoms.
Dr. Kalebi says Kenya should also actively search for linked illnesses or deaths while strengthening infection prevention, decontamination, waste management, and safe body handling protocols.
Bundibugyo Changes the Vaccine Conversation
The identification of the Bundibugyo virus carries another major implication: there is currently no licensed vaccine specifically for the Bundibugyo species.
The vaccine licensed for Zaire Ebola (Ervebo) is not automatically proven to protect against Bundibugyo, and its efficacy in humans against this specific strain has not been established.
The World Health Organization's (WHO) current guidance supports using the Zaire vaccine against Bundibugyo only within approved research protocols, rather than as an established, licensed defence.
Kenya's Next 72 Hours — and Beyond
The national response cannot wait for another press conference. Experts emphasise that laboratory findings must be verified, the virus strain fully identified, and an urgent pathway maintained for testing all suspected cases.
Investigators must reconstruct the patient's movements from the onset of symptoms, including time spent at home, transit routes, healthcare visits, and post-mortem handling. Every potentially exposed person needs to be assessed according to actual exposure risk.
The health system must also look beyond the immediate contact list. A missed patient at another facility, an unexplained death, an exposed healthcare worker, or a family member who develops a fever could hold the next clue in the transmission chain.
Clear communication will also be vital. Contacts need practical support to complete their 21-day monitoring, health workers require clear operational protocols, and the public deserves verified, transparent information to prevent stigma and panic.
For the public, the message is straightforward: anyone who develops compatible symptoms after recent travel to an affected region—or following contact with a suspected or confirmed case—should disclose that history immediately and notify health services before arriving at a medical facility to ensure safe assessment and transport.
Kenya is no longer asking whether Ebola can reach its borders. Sadly, it has arrived. The question now is whether health authorities can ensure the imported case remains a single, contained event, or whether an unnoticed link has already carried the virus further.
The answer will come not from the death itself, but from what investigators uncover in the days ahead.