Infection control practices are assumed to be effective when adhered to. With a disease like Ebola, it's almost guaranteed that health care providers will follow the rules to the letter, at least in the US (and hopefully everywhere).
So: scary.
1) Implying a cluster of 54 countries are all homogeneous, have poor health standard, etc
2) "Struggles to provide any clean water to humans at all" - this is much more heresy than fact. Please rely on statistics
African countries by no means are world superpowers, but this comment is pretty ignorant. Please think twice about such comments, they can be interpreted as offensive
Additionally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Sierra_Leone opens with "Water supply in Sierra Leone is characterized by limited access to safe drinking water."
The parent made no statement that all of Africa is so limited, only that the outbreak was in Africa. The countries most affected by the outbreak were correctly described.
I think it is instructive that ebola has not spread to the more developed areas of Africa in 30 years. Compare to AIDS, which also originated in Africa and rapidly spread into cities worldwide.
Per my understanding of things, that seems frighteningly unlikely[1]. As I understand it, there are a substantially greater portion of health workers getting sick than in previous outbreaks, and those health workers are not tied to a particular location. If that's the case (and mind you, this is all very much Nth hand what-I-got-from-the-radio stuff - either of those could certainly not be the case) then it seems to follow that probably this strain of ebola has some attribute that makes the recommended countermeasures inadequate (at least the countermeasures recommended for deployment in the field, which may or may not be this set of countermeasures).
[1]: That isn't to say "tremendously unlikely", just "unlikely enough to be frightening."