1. I don't think they know what they're talking about
2. Even if the risk is slight, is it really sensible to have no hospitals in a region that are Ebola-free?
It wouldn't be difficult to direct everyone with Ebola-like symptoms to go to one hospital in the area. If it's flu or Envero or whatever, so what? A specialty hospital could sort it out without getting everyone else sick.
I’m not going to disagree at all with what you posted. I think it’s a tough situation that might loom in front of us. As a guy on the internet, I have to admit that I don’t know what the right course of action is.
One of the prime takeaways should be this — and it really has nothing to do with Ebola, as such:
The government cannot handle a crisis. Our government does not know what the right course of action is. About anything. Our government is lost on all topics, but especially a real crisis.
NOTE: I’m not saying Ebola is a crisis right now. I’m saying that if a terrorist were to introduce a bio-weapon, or if an EMP went off, or if 100 suicide bombers came up through Mexico, or if a dirty radioactive bomb went off, or any of a number of scenarios — if faced with a crisis, the American government would do two things and two things only:
1) Look at the polls to weigh how the crisis would affect the next election
2) Go on TV and lie.
That’s all the government is capable of these days.
The topic of whether hospitals could or should or would take in Ebola patients? — I have no evidence that our government has spent even 5 minutes thinking about it, let alone come up with workable guidelines.
Read "The Hot Zone".
In a previous outbreak of Ebola in Africa, while attempting to treat infected patients the hospitals themselves became sources of infection.
Instead of stemming the spread of the virus they were spreading it.