The Within-U.S. Ebola Response As a Public Health Success

Leaving aside the dismal policies put in place by many state governors (and, here, the failures and few successes are bipartisan in nature), Paul Waldman notes that the federal level response to Ebola has been pretty good (boldface mine):

Imagine that a year ago, I told you that a few months hence, west Africa would see the largest Ebola outbreak in history. Then I explained that despite regular travel in and out of the affected countries by health professionals and ordinary people, there would be a grand total of two — not two hundred, or two thousand, but two — Americans who contracted the disease here, and both of them would be nurses who had treated a dying patient who had contracted the disease in Liberia. And I told you that both of them would be treated, and would survive and be healthy. If I had told you that a year ago, would you have said, “Wow, that sounds like a gigantic federal government failure”?

Of course not. You’d say that sounds like a public health triumph.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that there have been no mistakes. In the early days, the CDC didn’t offer clear enough guidance on prevention measures for health care professionals, which is what made it possible for those two nurses to become infected. But if you actually look at the facts, the disease has been completely prevented and contained here in the United States. It makes you wonder what the administration’s critics are talking about when they cry that the government has failed.

I suspect much of the Ebola-related criticism will disappear Nov. 3, the day after the election.

This entry was posted in Public Health. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Within-U.S. Ebola Response As a Public Health Success

  1. Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says:

    It makes you wonder what the administration’s critics are talking about when they cry that the government has failed.

    Ebola and Benghazi both have three syllables.

Comments are closed.