<p>Two interesting aspects about this situation re current policy dealing why Ebola: 1) a lack of an executive looking-forward approach and thus misses what things actually cost, and 2) the definition of harm being used is so limited, as to be missing the larger picture. And it is that larger picture that will eventually determine how people deal with this issue.</p>
<p>Someone pointed out what’s the big deal in that only 2 people got infected out of the 7 - 8 million in the Dallas area. No big problem there and the policy to take care of Ebola patients is effective in preventing spreading of the infection.</p>
<p>My take is a bit different, as I find the Dallas situation a pyrrhic victory at best. </p>
<p>Specifically, the cost of only having 2 infections out of about 7+ million people is millions of dollars (>$10M) when one adds up the all economic costs, as someone has to pay for the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>Entire hospital floor / wing shut down to one patient, reducing services to numerous others who need said wing</li>
<li>The quarantining of about 100 people in the Duncan case alone</li>
<li>The quarantining of a new set of people (unknown number) for this in infected nurse</li>
<li>The economic loss of the quarantined people being unable to go to work and do their jobs</li>
<li> The overall reduction in services by the hospital to serve just these two patients</li>
<li>The taxing of emergency services to address one apartment building and neighborhood</li>
<li>There reduction in value of the apartment owner’s property, not to mention surrounding property</li>
<li>The damage to healthcare workers state of mind for fear of contracting the disease, leading to less attentive care in other areas</li>
<li>The damage to Dallas area where people out of fear go out less, spend less, visit less, and may change plans, which takes support away from poor communities due to reduced tax base (I know of two conferences already cancelled)</li>
<li>A possible rise in muni bonds rates, which cost cities more to raise money for development - a serious long-term cost that lasts for a decade or more</li>
</ol>
<p>Such astronomical costs to ensure just 2 infected illustrate that the current process and policy of dealing with this disease is totally, 100% unsustainable. And while it is a victory of sorts that only 2 people are infected, as stated above, it is a pyrrhic victory given the larger damage to the infrastructure. </p>
<p>As a country, we also got lucky that Duncan was in a place, such as Dallas, as it is rich town and will absorb the costs, even as it takes a huge loss. However, medium-sized cities and smaller towns do not have such resources and literally will be pushed towards bankruptcy and unable to handle such cases. This would mean shipping their issues elsewhere for other cities to pick up the tab, and those other cities are going to start saying no way once they start realizing the true costs. </p>
<p>People, on a personal level, are also now starting to calculate the costs of this policy to them. This is already starting here in the US where certain personnel would rather quit than expose their families and their neighborhoods to this potential. </p>
<p>And this is just the beginning. Only a bureaucrat or someone who does not calculate overall long-term costs on a community could remotely think this is smart policy. This is one case where prevention is worth a pound of cure seems rather apt. And ironically, we are not even curing anything, as 60 - 90% will die. But worse, we are not even trying to prevent it from occurring in our backyard. That is a lose-lose situation if there ever were one.</p>