How Trust Became the Hardest Battle in Congo's Ebola Fight

A village in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Health workers arrive to safely bury someone who has died from Ebola. They are told to leave or armed rebels will be called. They go. The family buries the body themselves, in the way they have always buried their dead, exposing every person who participated to one of the deadliest viruses known to science.

‍

That incident, described by the World Health Organization's Emergency Preparedness and Response Director for Africa, Dr. Marie Roseline Belizaire, captures the central tension in the DRC's ongoing Ebola response. As of 3 June 2026, the outbreak — caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain, for which there is no licensed vaccine or approved treatment — had infected 381 people and killed 64 in the country's east. Uganda has recorded 15 confirmed cases and one probable case linked to the same outbreak. A Congolese national who transited through the United Arab Emirates before arriving in Uganda demonstrated how quickly this virus can move through international travel networks.

‍

The Bundibugyo strain is not the better-known Zaire strain that killed tens of thousands during West Africa's 2014 outbreak and prompted the development of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine. There is no equivalent for Bundibugyo. That absence removes one of the most powerful tools responders have used in recent years and places extraordinary pressure on the other pillars of epidemic control: surveillance, contact tracing, safe burials, and community trust.

‍

On surveillance, progress has been real. Testing capacity has increased from 40 samples a day at the outbreak's start to 800 daily, compressing the time between symptom onset and confirmation. Results now come back within 24 to 48 hours in most cases. That speed matters because early confirmation separates suspected cases from confirmed contacts, reducing the pool of people requiring monitoring and freeing up resources.

‍

Contact tracing is a different story. Coverage stands at roughly 45 per cent, up from 25 per cent when the outbreak began, but still far below the 90 to 95 per cent threshold that health authorities say is necessary to interrupt transmission. More than half of all exposed contacts are not being followed. In an outbreak where a single unsafe burial or unmonitored contact can seed a new cluster, that gap is significant.

‍

Understanding why contact tracing is so incomplete requires looking at the political and social landscape of eastern DRC. The region has been in a state of near-continuous armed conflict for more than three decades. Communities have learned, with reason, to be wary of outside authorities. When health workers arrive in uniform, sometimes accompanied by security escorts, they can be perceived not as rescuers but as representatives of a state that has consistently failed the population. Symptoms of Ebola — fever, fatigue, body aches — overlap closely with malaria, which is endemic. When someone dies from what the community understands as malaria or witchcraft, telling grieving relatives that their loved one had a hemorrhagic fever and that everyone at the burial is now a contact requires trust that has not been built.

‍

The WHO's approach in this outbreak has been to avoid direct confrontation with existing belief systems. Teams are not trying to persuade communities to abandon faith in traditional medicine or spiritual explanations for illness. They are trying to create parallel channels: if you consult a healer, ask the healer to refer fever cases to a health facility as well. If you believe your relative died of witchcraft, also permit a safe burial and allow a test. The strategy reflects a hard lesson from the 2018 to 2020 Kivu Ebola outbreak, which became the second-largest in history partly because armed groups and community resistance consistently blocked response teams.

‍

What is not being said publicly, but is implied in every line of Dr. Belizaire's account, is that the gap between the technical capacity to contain this outbreak and the actual progress being made is explained almost entirely by social and political factors that medical institutions are poorly equipped to address. The WHO can fund tests and train burial teams. It cannot resolve decades of conflict, rebuild trust between the Congolese state and eastern communities, or eliminate the militia networks that threaten health workers. Those are problems of governance and security that no outbreak response budget can fix.

‍

The cross-border dimension adds a layer that makes purely national containment impossible. Uganda has introduced surveillance at entry points. The UAE transit case demonstrated that any international airport touched by a Congolese traveller becomes a potential point of onward transmission. WHO's International Health Regulations provide a framework for information sharing between countries, but enforcement is voluntary, and states vary widely in their capacity and willingness to act on alerts in real time.

‍

The outbreak has not been without hopeful data points. Seven people have recovered, including six healthcare workers. Those recoveries have come through early presentation and intensive supportive care: rehydration, fever management, treatment of complications. There is no specific antiviral, but the body can clear the Bundibugyo strain with sufficient support if caught early enough. That fact is itself a public health message: the community's best defence is not a vaccine but early help-seeking behaviour, which circles back to trust.

‍

Candidate vaccines for Bundibugyo are in development. Whether they will be ready at scale before this outbreak ends is uncertain. What is certain is that even with a vaccine, the structural conditions enabling this outbreak — conflict, weak health infrastructure, fractured community relations with official institutions — will persist. The next outbreak, of whatever pathogen, will encounter the same barriers.