American public health officials face two formidable challenges: the possible spread of Ebola and the possible spread of panic about Ebola.

In the days since Dallas medical personnel apparently mishandled the case of Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian who’d recently traveled to the U.S., public health leaders here have scrambled to assure Americans that things are under control. Duncan, suffering from fever and abdominal pain, was sent home from a Dallas emergency room despite blazing red flags. The Ebola patient has now died.

The assurances from federal officials haven’t been too convincing.

President Barack Obama said Monday that stopping Ebola is “a top national security priority.” Federal authorities promise expanded screening protocols for airline passengers overseas and in the U.S. to control Ebola.

What should those protocols be? On our Sunday editorial page, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon Jacobson suggested a smart move: Passengers entering the U.S. should have to document that they have not been exposed to Ebola in those West African countries over the previous three weeks, which is the incubation period for Ebola. Those who fail to do so “should be subject to more severe restrictions, beginning with blood tests and, in extreme cases, quarantine for up to three weeks.”

Some people suggest even stronger measures, such as a ban on flights to the U.S. from the affected countries.

“The Ebola outbreak in West Africa has been compared to a war zone,” wrote David Dausey, dean of the School of Health Professions and Public Health at Mercyhurst University, in a Washington Post op-ed. “The disease is now being viewed as a national security threat on par with nuclear weapons. It’s time to take security precautions that align with the gravity of the threat. That means doing whatever it takes to keep infected people from coming here.”

A ban on flights from certain countries would not be that difficult for passengers to evade though. U.S. officials have warned that such a move could restrict the flow of medical workers and aid to stricken countries. But that argument won’t likely withstand the fear and fury that will be generated by more Ebola cases in the U.S.

The best ways to attack this epidemic and reduce the risk to Americans remain stepped-up efforts to quash the spread of Ebola in West Africa and to speed drug treatments and a vaccine to market. And to be hypervigilant at medical centers and U.S. ports of entry.

University of Minnesota infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm wrote in Politico: “Ebola is spreading faster than anyone would like to admit and the current, slow international response to the deadly disease is morphing into a modern tragedy. In the end, the only guaranteed solution to ending this Ebola crisis is to develop, manufacture and deliver an effective Ebola vaccine, potentially to most of the people in West Africa, and maybe even to most of the population of the African continent.”

Osterholm says 500 million doses are needed. The U.S. could cut regulatory red tape and provide financial incentives to spur drug makers to kick into high gear the development and manufacture of several promising Ebola drugs. Think: a Manhattan Project against Ebola.

Fear grabs attention and motivates. Dr. Thomas Frieden, head of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says, “For health care workers who are caring for people with Ebola, we want them to be scared.” That fear should lead them to be “incredibly meticulous” about infection control.

It’s time to push Ebola to the top of the national security agenda.

— Chicago Tribune, Oct. 8.