I think a talking point has been released. Multiple news channels are asking the same question as to whether or not only specific facilities should handle Ebola patients. That in and of itself might make sense but they are all asking that question. Cue up the Hegelian dialectic perhaps.
This is something I posted on the first report that Duncan had Ebola. Only certain facilities should treat Ebola patients, because of the special training in the suits, disrobing, and the copious amounts of waste that needs to be disposed of.
In West Africa, wherever cases were in the hospitals, the hospitals were forced to cancel other procedures because of fears of cross-contamination. Thus, they emptied out, and critical care for OB and cardiac, etc. cases was unavailable.
The cross-contamination issue is the big one. Ebola was spread, both in the 1976 and current cases, mainly by health care workers. That's why this epidemic erupted in three villages. The HCW who treated the index case carried it to the three village medical clinics and spread it before he knew that Ebola was an issue.
In the 1976 case, it was mainly spread by a med clinic run by nuns, all of whom died, but so did hundreds of villagers they treated for other things.
In Lagos, Nigeria, a nurse who treated Patrick Sawyer then spread the infection to her OB pregnant patients. She didn't touch Sawyer, but insisted that she must have caught it from touching a surface that he had touched, when she helped him eat.
Old Archer has it right. This is much more difficult than any other type of containment protocols we've had to deal with, and beyond anything we have studied or practiced.