[philsnow]

Antibodies generally last a very long time [citation needed], but would they be useful against such a rapidly-changing pathogen ?

[learc83]

Ebola isn't rapidly changing. At least in comparison to a virus that does mutate rapidly like influenza.

[dreamcompiler]

That used to be true. But TFA points out it's not true now. Ebola used to be too lethal to be efficient: It killed its host so quickly it didn't have time to spread. But because this outbreak is in urban areas, it does have the ability to spread. Which means it has many more opportunities to evolve.

[learc83]

>Which means it has many more opportunities to evolve

More opportunities to evolve doesn't mean a rapidly mutating virus, relatively speaking. It may be mutating faster now because of more opportunities, but the virus still mutates orders of magnitude less rapidly than influenza.

[privong]

> but would they be useful against such a rapidly-changing pathogen ?

Does that explain why people are not immune from the flu after having it once – the version they have antibodies to is not the same as the mutated version which circulates later?

[learc83]

>Does that explain why people are not immune from the flu after having it once

Yes. There are many strains of Influenza, immunity to one strain doesn't necessarily confer any immunity to another strain.

However, Ebola mutates much less rapidly that Influenza.

[dreamcompiler]

Yes. This is why you have to get a flu shot every year: The flu virus is different every year. The same rapid-mutation phenomenon happens with the so-called "common" cold: Having a cold once provides no immunity to prevent you from getting one again.