[schrodingersCat]

I hate to be the cynical one here, but the countries with the power to stop this outbreak aren't going to start taking it seriously until more people from western nations start dying. It is true, it will be really bad if it is not stopped soon. Containing an outbreak of >5000 is out of the reach of most of the states affected by the disease and quite honestly very expensive for any nation. Once this spreads closer to Europe, watch people start to take more action. I hope it won't be too late

[s4sharpie]

There are massive global political ramifications that restrict the ability of those countries that do want to make a difference. As the article refers to, it is ultimately the UN that has the powers to essentially trample on a country's sovereignty (that is what you need to do to make a difference). The UN has been called a toothless tiger in many respects - this is another example where they can and should take a more proactive and aggressive stance. Only then can we comment on the actions of other Western nations.

The way that South Africa dealt with their AIDs epidemic (from a western perspective, true head in sand activity) is a case in point: despite many aggressive offers of help from western governments, the South African's continued their denial. To make a change would have required going against the government policy of the time. This is viewed legally as an invasion by an outside force.

[joe_the_user]

I am not sure what relation your (or the article's) talk of trampling sovereignty has to do with the present situation on the ground.

The articles I read describe the problematic issues being; a lack of running water in existing clinics, a lack of medical supplies, a lack of clinics and notably a lack of food everywhere - patients are escaping isolation in efforts to find food.

Liberian officials have pleaded for help in fairly abject terms (one official mentioned the possibly of nation ceasing to exist - I think that means they're worried). The details of what Western nations have done so far is fuzzy but it seems like there not been a sufficient rush to deliver these acutely needed supplies.

Sure, once the existing clinics have food, supplies and running water, parachuted in field clinics sound grand. There's no evidence I've seen that the Liberians would refuse these.

[s4sharpie]

The article references having burial specialists. This would require certain people having the right to take deceased corpses and burying without regard for the family/tribal/religious requests/requirements etc. This would at the very least be seen as impinging on the rights of the family, it would likely need armed support. If these burial specialists were say American, they would NOT be deployed without American armed support. Having American armed support (most likely the army) on the ground supporting people who are likely to be impinging on perceived rights will be viewed as trampling sovereignty.

Australia and the Netherlands had a similar issue with the downing of the Malaysian Airliner in Ukraine. In this case, the Ukrainian government had to pass legislation to allow armed Australian and Dutch military to support inspectors. They were just 'inspecting', not creating forced closures of specific areas, forcing burials, witholding care, etc all under significant armed guards.

The present situation on the ground (and the lack of 3rd party government level interaction) is largely a result of weak leadership by the UN. The better question is why the UN hasn't taken ownership of the outbreak?

[joe_the_user]

Well,

Liberia does have Liberian burial specialists now, who do what you describe and it indeed is probably the most awful job in the world. Indeed, the Liberian government, with varying levels of competence, has attempted to do most of what you describe. Essentially, there's no evidence, no indication that the Liberian state would resist UN or US aid but also very little evidence of such aid. If anything, the Liberian government has done some stupid impingements on rights itself (quarantining the entire poor sector of Monrovia for example).

Yes, the Liberian state is already taking desperate and extreme measures but when most clinics without running water, their options are limited. I'm sorry, this stuff make me so angry I could ask what it says about you and your ilk when you're so eager solve things with guns that you don't notice that lack of food and water is the primary problem?

Obama some announcements about military assistance but I've read not article about anything materializing.

Seriously, we're talking pretty well unprecedented disaster - the response has been much than even the response to "typical" third world disasters, much less than the response to the Haitian earthquake for example.

[icelancer]

> no evidence, no indication that the Liberian state would resist UN or US aid

It is not official action that the parent commenter is referring to. Individuals themselves could treat actions they see as counter to their religion and belief as very hostile.

[tzs]

> Containing an outbreak of >5000 is out of the reach of most of the states affected by the disease and quite honestly very expensive for any nation

Many African nations have a history of dealing with problem regions, such as regions that have the wrong politics, tribal affiliation, or religion, by going in with their military and killing everyone in sight.

What are the chances some of these countries might decide to deal with the problem of Ebola infected regions that way? Especially regions where superstition or ignorance lead the people there to avoid treatment? If the rest of the world waits too long to come up with a solution for the problem, I fear we may see a lot more deaths from this than just those who are killed by the Ebola virus directly.