The Canadian government was asked to send medical workers. which for our country is different in terms of resources, structure and personnel as compared to the USA. Any call for these workers would most likely come from the public and private sector rather then the military. As there is no guarantee that any worker would not get infected with Ebola, and not be able to readily airlifted out, the government would not commit...and rightfully so. Those who volunteer are the probable same type of workers that would be asked by the government. However the difference being (and I will leave the politics out) is that these workers, if they get infected, it would be up to the aid agencies to arrange transport home.

This no different then any government when they are asked to respond to any disaster but do not commit people but other NGO agencies do send people. My wife who has spent a lot of time in Africa with various NGO's will attest to where an NGO would have to fly a person out for medical reasons (at a huge expense) without any government support. BTW, to date, my wife has not brought forth the discussion of her going to any of the affected African countries in a NGO role. I think she is very aware of what my response would be...

At one point, there were calls to send Canada's military DART team to one of the affected areas. Wisely the Government said no. The DART team is not really trained for this type of operation and IMHO, it would been a waste of resources and money for all. Perhaps in a post Ebola outbreak ending, DART could have a role, but not now.

In the US when someone becomes sick and needs to be evacuated the organization that sent them - military, CDC, NGO - has to pay for their transport back.

It appears that this time *nobody* thought of the need to have an evacuation plan until Dr. Brantly got sick. The fact that there is even one aircraft is a result of hindsight from the SARS outbreak, not foresight for Ebola.

The second aircraft is apparently under contract and in Siberia somewhere, and not currently available for evacuation flights from Africa.

Both aircraft can apparently be configured for full BSL-4 containment, including airborne pathogens. Phoenix Air is modifying a third airframe for this, but no more without a paying customer. That means that in the best case, with all three aircraft available and properly configured, the US has the capability to evacuate about one patient per day.

Even that best case seems low to me. In the real world you can probably count on only one or two aircraft unless you're willing to pay to keep them on standby - Phoenix is the business of putting those airplanes to work, not sitting them idle somewhere in case a call comes in.


Is that true of all Ebola outbreaks or only this one?


Also, the Phoenix aircraft must refual a couple of times, in foreign countries, to get to the US. The aircraft might be denied landing rights if an Ebola patient isn't in a POD, even if no one leaves the aircraft.

I am a bit of an aviation buff and previously read up on the Phoenix Air ambulances They are using modified Gulfstream G-III jets to airlift Ebola patients back to the USA. The jet is refueled at Lajes Air Field on the Azore Islands before flying to the USA.

Inside the Flying Quarantine Ward Used to Transport Ebola Patients

Phoenix Air details Ebola flight operations in 'Flying ICU'

Well, the basis for saying that Ebola is not contagious until symptoms appears, and only through direct contact with bodily fluids, is based on prior outbreaks. Granted, First World experience is very limited, but so far, it does seem to support that assertion, too. Early on, these people are not suffering from vomiting, diarrhea, or bleeding out yet, so the risk to others seems minimal in the early stage. The viral load in bodily fluids that early is also relatively low.

The point about countries not accepting planes when Ebola patients are not sealed in a pod is a good point. I can certainly see countries blocking the landing of such flights. Boy, what happens if a plane had to make an emergency landing?