Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Fri Oct 17, 2014, 09:25 AM Oct 2014

MSF: Ridiculous that we're carrying the brunt of care for Ebola victims in West Africa

International pledges of deployments and aid for Africa's Ebola-hit regions have not yet had any impact on the epidemic, a major medical charity says.

Christopher Stokes of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said the disease was still out of control.

He said it was "ridiculous" that volunteers working for his charity were bearing the brunt of care in the worst-affected countries.

<snip>

MSF runs about 700 out of the 1,000 beds available in treatment facilities Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

<snip>

Mr Stokes said promises from the international community were encouraging "but it is not having any significant impact on the epidemic and it won't now for maybe another month or month and a half".

"We've been calling for massive deployments for several months now and the deployments are always behind the curve."

<snip>

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29656417

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MSF: Ridiculous that we're carrying the brunt of care for Ebola victims in West Africa (Original Post) cali Oct 2014 OP
I bet if it could be fixed with cruise missiles hootinholler Oct 2014 #1
I'm concerned about us using our "National Guard Reserves" KoKo Oct 2014 #2
NPR had a good story on what the existing troops are doing there. FSogol Oct 2014 #4
Too many budget cuts at the WHO. FSogol Oct 2014 #3

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
2. I'm concerned about us using our "National Guard Reserves"
Fri Oct 17, 2014, 10:07 AM
Oct 2014

as construction teams and the exposure there.

The concern is that our National Guard's mission has been stretched to include Iraq/Afghanistan and now Ebola as "threats to the Homeland" meaning our National Guard now has to be part of overseas deployment rather than it's original mission to protect us here internally in case of disaster...not a fill in for military actions as "Boots on the Ground" in other countries.

Maybe that's why the term "Homeland" has been emphasized (drilled into our heads) by every Government Spokesperson. Protecting the "Homeland" reinforces in our minds the "Authorization to Use Military Force" whenever, wherever and for whatever purpose our Government deems as a "threat."

These should be missions the United Nations should be in charge of. They would need more money to do it...but, better that than USA using it's Military and our Struggling Taxpayer's dollars to intervene in every disaster around the World.

We should be making more us of UN Peacekeeping troops and Health Workers services from the other international agencies like "Doctors Without Borders." Use our power and influence to get cooperation from other countries to participate in UN Coordination to work in being on the ground when epidemics, floods, earthquakes, storms and other disasters threaten countries who need help. And involve the UN more actively in Peace Keeping Efforts and Diplomacy when territorial wars break out.

Haven't we had enough of shouldering the worlds problems on our own backs sending our men and women to endless wars and now we are supposed to be the sole saviors of those suffering from the Ebola Outbreak by sending in 5,000 Troops and (with this latest announcement) how many numbers of our National Guard Reserve?

FSogol

(45,428 posts)
3. Too many budget cuts at the WHO.
Fri Oct 17, 2014, 10:07 AM
Oct 2014

From a NYT article by Sheri Fink

Soon, the global financial crisis struck. The W.H.O. had to cut nearly $1 billion from its proposed two-year budget, which today stands at $3.98 billion. (By contrast, the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2013 alone was about $6 billion.) The cuts forced difficult choices. More emphasis was placed on efforts like fighting chronic global ailments, including heart disease and diabetes. The whims of donor countries, foundations and individuals also greatly influenced the W.H.O.'s agenda, with gifts, often to advance specific causes, far surpassing dues from member nations, which account for only 20 percent of its budget.


Whole article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/africa/cuts-at-who-hurt-response-to-ebola-crisis.html

Too many rich nations and donors are diverting those funds for pet causes.
Pretty amazing that the CDC budget is 1.5x WHO's budget.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»MSF: Ridiculous that we'...