As the nbcnews.com artticle here indicates, the spread of this virus reflects how not only poorly cost based economies handle disease prevention, but also how hard it is for the WHO to get member nations to continue to cooperate on a long term basis.
PresidentObama is still fighting the Republicans in Congress on Extra Zika funding; one assumes for reasons both connected to what it costs, but also because they simply don't want to hand him something that might make him look good in his final months as president. And then countries who may have irradiated the Zika carrier mosquito in the past, but have stopped funding the continuation of such programs. And perhaps even worse, have been dragging their feet in the monitoring and reporting of new disease developments.
One thing that I think the UN ought to consider, quite apart from whether they drop Capitalism or not, is the idea that, if you don't full participate in UN sanctioned health, or humanitarian programs, you lose the rights of membership in the world body. Conversely, if they do make serious efforts to comply, but are hampered by a lack of funds, then the more prosperous nations of the West need to step up and aid them, on, say, some kind of matching dollar basis to ensure their commitment.
What we are really talking about here has a very basic, bottom line, reality. The factors concerning world health have no borders. A disease spreading in one place is all too soon a disease spreading all over the map. As such it is in every one's interest to treat world health issues as a major priority in their national security. To do other wise is an unbelievable, as well as immoral, act of omission.