I am having a bit of a problem understanding some of the reactions in the US to problems controlling an infectious disease, particularly in hospitals. Obviously, in countries in the midst of the breakout, things are well past dire so I confine this thought to the United States.
When I watched the video interview attached to the story out of Kansas I was glad that the Dr pointed out that 22 thousand people in the US died of the flu last year and yet folks are blasé about even getting inoculated against it. He also put up the thought that if 22 thousand people died of Ebola there would be rioting in the streets. I agree.
When it comes to protocols in hospitals for dealing with this; what is the surprise? Nosocomial diseases are rampant. These are
hospital acquired infections (HAI), illness either bacterial or viral you come out with that you didn't have when you went in. They infect 700,000+ per year and kill over 75,000. Eblola is an infectious disease but thankfully much more difficult to transmit than flu, C.diff and others.
Only a couple of hospitals in the US are designed for containment. Just as many hospitals do not have trauma centers, or specialize burn units, etc. Why do we all of a sudden start thinking all hospitals should be equipped for something that has never happened here before? It is clearly demonstrated most cannot handle regular prevention of common bacterial spread.
I am not trying to minimize the danger to healthcare workers and do believe that a ramp up of training and equipment beyond what was previously provided is prudent and urgent at this time, things will likely get worse before they get better. But all of these 'representatives' screaming about how far behind or unprepared we are must have only just now taken off their blinders and are looking for targets to blame.