The count is climbing in the DRC. Can testing and tracking move faster than Ebola? New to this story? Here’s where we are. The DRC Bundibugyo outbreak was already the second-largest Ebola outbreak in history going into this edition, and surveillance gaps have been the central problem. CDC said targets weren’t being met for case-detection alerts, contact tracing, lab testing, isolation of infected people, and safe, dignified burials—so responders were still missing chains of transmission. This is Ebola Watch. Today: a new test, a massive funding question, and whether the response is finally catching up. This one's from CIDRAP:
The latest case counts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are 6,250 cases and 3,039 deaths, as the outbreak continues. Transmission activity is still mainly in North Kivu province. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), researchers have started to use anonymized phone data used to track population movements in an effort to predict where outbreak clusters may occur.
Update from the DRC Bundibugyo outbreak: 6,250 cases, 3,039 deaths. Transmission is still centered in North Kivu, where mining work and displacement mean people are constantly moving through the region. One precision point: CIDRAP, citing WHO, reports 6,250 cases; the excerpt doesn’t label that figure confirmed. Local authorities have used a confirmed-case count, so those numbers shouldn’t be casually merged. WHO is using anonymized phone data to anticipate where clusters could emerge— in plain English, it can show responders where people are likely headed, not who has Ebola. It’s useful if teams get ahead of a cluster; useless if they arrive after it. This is the first time that approach has been used in an Ebola outbreak. In North Kivu, a movement forecast can help position screening, tracing, and care—but confirmation still takes testing and field investigation. From AllAfrica:
The world must move faster to contain an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) that is growing exponentially, the UN's Emergency Relief Coordinator warned on Tuesday. Although the UN and its partners have scaled up their response, a $1.1 billion funding gap remains as the DRC grapples with the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak on record.
Tom Fletcher puts a number on the shortfall: $1.1 billion. WHO’s total is 6,250 cases; this report says local authorities had 6,100 confirmed by Monday. Different reporting frames, same ugly direction. And the comparison is sobering. In its first 100 days, this outbreak recorded 5,515 cases; WHO confirmed 635 in the first 100 days of the West Africa epidemic. Those aren’t interchangeable settings—but this speed demands a faster response. So where does $1.1 billion show up? In the response on the ground: contact-tracing teams, isolation capacity, and supplies at places like ALIMA’s centre in Rwampara—not just a press-release claim about “scaling up.” IOM has conducted nearly 23 million health screenings in the DRC and neighboring countries. That’s substantial border work. But screening only helps if suspected cases can be tested, isolated, and connected across the Kinshasa-Kampala corridor without delay. PR Newswire, with Cepheid:
SUNNYVALE, Calif., Sept. 3, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Cepheid, a Danaher company and a leader in molecular diagnostics, today announced that it has received Emergency Use Listing (EUL) from the World Health Organization (WHO) for the Xpert Hemorrhagic Fever Panel test to support the diagnostic response to the Ebola Bundibugyo (BDBV) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
WHO has Emergency Use Listed Cepheid's Xpert Hemorrhagic Fever Panel for this Bundibugyo outbreak. On a GeneXpert machine, it can return a molecular result in about an hour—and sort suspected cases from confirmed ones far faster. But the phrase "widely deployed across Africa" needs a map. Is there a working GeneXpert in Beni or Butembo, with cartridges and trained staff? Or is the nearest machine a long road away in a regional capital? Exactly. Emergency Use Listing clears a regulatory hurdle; it doesn’t put a test on a clinic bench. Still, it uses existing GeneXpert infrastructure instead of waiting for a wholly new laboratory network, which can save precious time if supplies reach North Kivu. After the UN put the response shortfall at $1.1 billion, that “if supplies reach” caveat is the whole problem. An hour-long test is terrific; it does nothing if it’s locked in a warehouse. Have feedback, story ideas, or a correction for Ebola Watch? Email us at ebolawatch at lantern podcasts dot com. Your notes help make the briefing more useful.
Links to every story are in the show notes, if you’d like to read more about the ones that caught your attention. Thanks for listening, and we’ll be back with the next episode. That’s Ebola Watch for today. This is a Lantern Podcast.