3 ms·
And? I’m not sure what the point is. The effect on the affected countries is still disastrous. Do you think having to fight Ebola on top of Malaria is harmless?
by arrrg 12y ago
And? I’m not sure what the point is. The effect on the affected countries is still disastrous. Do you think having to fight Ebola on top of Malaria is harmless?
Do you think it is worth considering whether a better response was and maybe still is possible to end this quickly (and be better prepared in the future)?
Malaria is a huge disaster. The Ebola epidemic is, too, in the affected countries. (I couldn’t care less about scared idiots in Europe and the US.) Both are.
- guscost 12y agoSure, the Ebola epidemic is still a disaster for public health in the affected places. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But it's a bit strange to see all this American media FUD after years and years of not a word about all the destruction caused by malaria (apart from that Bill Gates project), no?