But how much will that cost? And how much would multiple fully-equipped CDC mobile teams cost? I’m not being facetious here–somebody has to balance the risks against the costs. If we overestimate the risks, we could spend millions (if not billions) of dollars that could better be spent elsewhere. If we underestimate the risk, we could have a lot more Ebola patients. Somebody has to make that evaluation, and we shouldn’t pretend that they don’t have to. I don’t envy the person who has to make it, because the likelihood of getting it exactly right is pretty low.</p>
<p>I am angry. Our governments first duty is to protect Americans. A travel ban back in early September or August would have kept Duncan out. And all the rest of this would never have happened. All this anxiety, fear, expense, illness. I am very angry.</p>
<p>Thank you for pointing this out, as you make my distinction for me. </p>
<p>Note that GM is being held accountable for its bad switches and will be paying a lot of money in restitution to the victims. In contrast, the CDC will never be writing checks to the Dallas community and the people harmed by its policies. </p>
<p>The Dallas hospital will be held directly accountable with lawsuits (advocated by many here) and may be held accountable by bankruptcy as well. In contrast, the CDC for its errant policy will still exist and will get a budget increase.</p>
<p>Any political readings you have are pure projection on your part, as I made up nothing and attacked no political party. All I have done is explain the lay of the land as it exists. It is not political to point out these stark differences in accountability and competency expectations, which exist between public and private institutions. </p>
<p>I just received a WFAA alert which states that the family of patient #3 has identified her and states she is also a 26 y/o nurse.</p>
<p>The alert stated that “the mother of her former stepfather” identified her. Jeez oh pete, I certainly hope they had the patient’s permission; otherwise that’s pretty low.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, given the speed government works, while a travel ban now will reduce the infections, it will not reduce the need for such hospitals. We cannot afford to mix even one patient in with regular hospitals and communities. </p>
<p>50 is too much though, as 5 to 10 might work thinking long-term, and they need to be smaller scaled hospitals, not large ones. In any event, we do need a few that are specific to this disease though. </p>
<p>More interesting is to throw out the number 50 indicates to me means they are not even thinking of a travel ban yet and expect a lot of infected to come.</p>
<p>I’m only on page 34, but I want to point out that according to what Josephus Weeks said in his original interview HE called the CDC, who told him to talk to the TX health authorities, during the 4-hr period when Duncan was lying in the regular ER, because it did not seem to him that the medical personnel were treating Duncan’s case as a probable Ebola case should be treated. Even though he was presumably still in NC at that point, I can see that he would have been in communication with his relatives waiting in the ER, and he would have made the call as the person in the family who was very articulate, not hampered by a West African accent, and most comfortable in US society.</p>
<p>Seems to me that the nurse’s accounts lend credence to what he said. Maybe it was his calls that finally woke someone up and got Duncan out of the ER.</p>
<p>The discussion of the young woman who protected herself with garbage bags brings up a question that has been in my mind for a while - does anyone know whether some people are unlikely to be infected with Ebola even if exposed? It stands to reason that there are varying levels of sensitivity, and that some people are less likely than others to develop symptoms after identical exposures. I’m wondering if some people have a natural immunity. </p>
<p>The four hospitals that have designated biocontainment facilities are set up to handle aerosolized infections. Other major hospitals have units to handle infectious diseases, including negative-pressure rooms, respirators for personnel, etc. I’m not sure what level the Dallas hospital is, but if it’s not a major hospital like, for example, Mass General, then it does not make sense to expect that hospital to treat an Ebola patient. As someone posted above, one or a few hospitals in each state should be designated Ebola treatment center. </p>
<p>I find it reassuring that only those in contact with Duncan in the final stages of disease have been infected. I’m not minimizing the horror being faced by the two nurses, but it could have been so much worse.</p>
<p>I know this is an odd thing to fixate on, but I am so glad that the nurse’s dog is being cared for. Imagine contracting a dread disease and surviving it only to learn that your beloved pet has been killed.</p>
Baloney. GM has plenty of money. The big cheeses who let it happen won’t be held accountable; they’ll still get their golden parachutes even if they lose their jobs.</p>
<p>But perhaps there is something to what you say about a bureaucracy, whether it’s public or private. Real accountability is difficult in any big organization.</p>
<p>No sense in arguing the facts. Currently, the settlements are going through the courts. Therefore, the company is being held accountable. In contrast, the CDC will never be held accountable, but the hospital and entire community of Dallas will be.</p>
<p>I don’t know if this was linked to before - it’s been covered a lot of outlets including NPR.
Firestone company has a big operation in Liberia, and how they are managing to keep their employees safe is a pretty amazing story too, imo.</p>