Just a quick note. The UN Security Council has ad its first ever emergency meeting over a health issue, specifically the current West African Ebola outbreak. From a summary in Science, the Council ...
... unanimously passed a resolution that declared the spread of the virus a “threat to international peace and security” and called on the world to send more health care workers and supplies to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, and not to isolate those countries.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, who chaired today's meeting, noted that the resolution had 130 co-sponsors, more than any previous one in the history of the Security Council.
- Log in to post comments
--George Walker Bush
GWB is right about that: in a disaster, donations are what's needed most, to enable relief workers to buy the supplies they need.
In an epidemic like this, there are no Republicans and no Democrats, only humans trying to help other humans.
Disturbing possibilities raised in a September 23 release from the CDC includes this paragraph:
although a (quite optimistic?) possibility for containing the outbreak is also mentioned:
Something in the setting of the initial outbreak seems to be have been subtly different from previous incidents to be missed or not seen as important, but it has resulted in serious problems. Is there a good reason to be optimistic for a reasonably rapid stop to this?