is not too bad.

like Dallas Presby.

One person got into the country and now the hospitals across the country are criticized? Just what we need. More money spent on something most hospitals will never see and another pill can cost a few hundred more dollars because of it. Perhaps 6 percent is all we need ready for Ebola.

for an Ebola patient, and that all that was necessary was that a private room be available where a patient could be isolated.

And that was seriously wrong.

The point isn't that all hospitals now need to be made ready. The point is that the health authorities should follow through with the new idea of directing possible Ebola patients to a few limited locations in each area. But all this still remains to be coordinated. In Seattle, for example, the major trauma hospital has volunteered and been designated to receive these patients.

Has such a hospital been designated in your city? If you haven't heard about it, don't assume that this has happened, because this is all still in flux.

Considering that much less than 1% are likely to ever encounter the virus.

By the way, it boggles me that so many people (especially the media) are acting like any/all hospitals should be expected to treat ebola patients. In Africa, ebola treatment hospitals are not generally the same as the main-line hospitals. Many doctors and nurses who have been infected were infected not while treating patients at the ebola centers, but because they were working also in a general ER or hospital setting where an ebola victim was among the general population before being diagnosed. Hospitals have had to be closed for decontamination because the virus got away in a mixed-patient setting.

It makes much more sense to have a relatively small number of hospitals very capable of handling ebola, and channeling patients there if they're discovered at other ERs. Both the CDC and the military have a specialty ebola team at the ready to be sent to any institution where ebola crops up. The hospital will have top-notch assistance, and the patient can be transported where better care is available.

Having every hospital ready to receive ebola victims is just silly. It's a waste of money and effort, especially when less than 1% will ever see a case, the training regimen that truly equips a staff member to care for such an infectious patient is extremely intense, and the precautions required to prevent contamination across the hospital from used equipment, medications, lab testing, etc. are extreme.

Ebola patients.

This hasn't happened yet.

If it boggles your mind that the media thinks any hospital should be able to treat Ebola patients, then you should blame that misunderstanding on Dr. Tom Freiden, the head of the CDC. He was the one telling the media that almost any hospital (any hospital that could isolate a patient in a private room) could handle these patients.

From the article in the OP:

"Just 3 weeks ago, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was asserting that any hospital in the country could care for a patient with Ebola, provided it complied with agency recommendations. In the aftermath of two nurses contracting the virus from a patient at a hospital in Dallas, Texas, CDC Director Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH, now supports funneling these patients to designated facilities."