Intense stress can severely degrade one's ability to process and utilize new kinds of information.1 This psychological phenomena may partially explain why epidemiologist are challenged to communicate and establish the value of SyS information with emergency management professionals (EMPs). Despite the timely and useful insights that SyS data and methods can provide, it is very difficult to convey what these data are when EMPs and epidemiologists are working to make intense, highly-scrutinized and high-consequence emergency decisions.

Inter-jurisdictional data sharing can enhance disease surveillance capabilities for local, state, regional and national public health situational awareness and response. BioSense 2.0, a cloud-based computing platform for syndromic surveillance, provides participating local, state and federal health jurisdictions with the ability to share aggregated data; a functionality that is easily activated by selecting an administrative checkbox within the BioSense application. Checking the data-sharing box, however, is a considerable decision that comes with benefits and consequences.

The field of syndromic surveillance has received increased attention over the past decade as an expansion of traditional disease detection methods. There is, however, little or no consensus, regarding a standard definition encompassing the full scope of the term 'syndromic surveillance'. Several researchers have proposed at least 36 alternative names to differentiate various forms of syndromic surveillance but none has taken hold (including early warning, health indicator surveillance, enhanced surveillance, among others).