Post by Anthony Coppola
Thanks to a poorly coordinated response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa by the world, the disease went on to kill over 10,000 people. If the response was even slower, what would the death toll be? How much further would the disease have spread? This should be a wake-up call to all -- that epidemics, no matter the origin, should be taken more seriously by the first-world nations that have the resources to quell it. It is in the world’s best interest to prevent and destroy outbreaks.
An epidemic such as Ebola may present itself as a security threat to not only the area in which it originated, but to the entire world. Without a proper, coordinated response by the world, a disease could make its way out into our way of life. This could be exaggeration, but is it? In retrospect it seems Ebola did not present a security threat to areas outside of Africa -- but when the disease first hit the airwaves, we did not know for certain how it would fare. So, assuming there is a possibility a disease such as Ebola could hit the shores of Florida out of the blue, our security as a nation is endangered once the media takes notice of it spreading. Anything that could possibly harm our people poses a security threat to our country. It is the mere possibility that is a security threat when a disease is not halted from the beginning, not necessarily the unfavorable odds. It is not inconceivable to one day see a disease worse than Ebola reaching like a surprise attack the shores of first-world nations, for all it takes is a single person carrying the disease.
Africa is the leading place in the world for the origin of diseases. It is one of the most underdeveloped places in the world, as well. It is evident that many countries of Africa cannot combat properly these deadly diseases. It is up to the world to be on top of any potential epidemics. From the documentary Frontline, it was clear that poor countries such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea were overwhelmed with the disease. The world should have helped them sooner, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations, a group which was called on by some people from Doctors Without Borders to address the Ebola outbreak -- but WHO only could react until it was considered by them a “global crisis.”
The WHO did, however, eventually declare Ebola an international crisis. But then it had to gather countries together to fund the fighting of the disease, which would go on to take too much time. In the future, it might be more strategic for WHO to declare a potentially disastrous disease a global crisis at the onset -- this way, the discussions between which countries do what would resolve before the disease culminates. Is it not fair to assume a disease originating in Africa, especially one that is already known to be deadly like Ebola (which was discovered in 1976), is a global crisis in the making?
To support the above, the following is a quote from the documentary, Frontline:
Some may argue that Ebola was over-hyped. Well, maybe -- but as a general rule it may be better to overestimate something as opposed to underestimating it. This way, people are always on their toes. The fear, whether it is imaginary or real, induces us to learn more about the subject, which inAn epidemic such as Ebola may present itself as a security threat to not only the area in which it originated, but to the entire world. Without a proper, coordinated response by the world, a disease could make its way out into our way of life. This could be exaggeration, but is it? In retrospect it seems Ebola did not present a security threat to areas outside of Africa -- but when the disease first hit the airwaves, we did not know for certain how it would fare. So, assuming there is a possibility a disease such as Ebola could hit the shores of Florida out of the blue, our security as a nation is endangered once the media takes notice of it spreading. Anything that could possibly harm our people poses a security threat to our country. It is the mere possibility that is a security threat when a disease is not halted from the beginning, not necessarily the unfavorable odds. It is not inconceivable to one day see a disease worse than Ebola reaching like a surprise attack the shores of first-world nations, for all it takes is a single person carrying the disease.
Africa is the leading place in the world for the origin of diseases. It is one of the most underdeveloped places in the world, as well. It is evident that many countries of Africa cannot combat properly these deadly diseases. It is up to the world to be on top of any potential epidemics. From the documentary Frontline, it was clear that poor countries such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea were overwhelmed with the disease. The world should have helped them sooner, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations, a group which was called on by some people from Doctors Without Borders to address the Ebola outbreak -- but WHO only could react until it was considered by them a “global crisis.”
The WHO did, however, eventually declare Ebola an international crisis. But then it had to gather countries together to fund the fighting of the disease, which would go on to take too much time. In the future, it might be more strategic for WHO to declare a potentially disastrous disease a global crisis at the onset -- this way, the discussions between which countries do what would resolve before the disease culminates. Is it not fair to assume a disease originating in Africa, especially one that is already known to be deadly like Ebola (which was discovered in 1976), is a global crisis in the making?
To support the above, the following is a quote from the documentary, Frontline:
“Sometimes, the world is going to learn things the hard way. There are going to be more of these, no matter what we think. More and more new diseases are emerging. We are not prepared. Ebola was not an exception; Ebola is a precedent.”
turn inches us closer to ending the issue. We cannot take our fortune for granted.
I really like your argument that ebola and other diseases like it are global security threats even if they are not impacting each country. My only concern is with your thoughts on immediately declaring diseases a global security threat. I would be concerned with 'watering down' the term and making it seem less serious. I think this could lead to more problems with funding and response because there would then be so many threats to be taking care of.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Arnold
I agree with your argument that WHO did not do much to help the victims of Ebola, and they should have responded sooner. I think it is important to reform these NGOs, so this would not happen again.
ReplyDeleteChirusha de Mel
I agree that sometimes it is better to overestimate something as opposed to underestimating it and that there should have been a better response to the Ebola crisis. I am curious how you think the spread of Ebola would have been different if foreign nations had helped sooner. Would there have been as many deaths? Would it have spread as much as it did? Why do you think the U.S. responded once the situation had gotten so bad versus when it was just starting out?
ReplyDeletePost by Hedvig Blanco
I like your overall argument in this piece. I do disagree with you somewhat on how you said anything that could potentially harm us should be a security issue. I feel that makes security a more general thing rather than something that has gravity. Also, anything can be argued to be a security threat. Ebola was definitely a security threat, but I feel clarifying that might have helped a little bit.
ReplyDelete-Dom Dellamano