<p>He’s the governor. He should be involved in an emergency That said, I don’t think he added much, but neither did anyone else. The hospital spokesperson had nothing understandable to say. All I remember is “Regretfully”. And the CDC is not exactly inspiring confidence, right now… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Will repeat this for the umpteenth time. He was NOT contagious on any of the flights because he had no symptoms then. My H is flying United tonight; he is a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. He has not a care in the world that he’s going to somehow fly on some plane that this person with Ebola did and catch it. </p>
<p>Just relaying the news.
I’m sure your H will be safe.</p>
<p>teriwtt - please don’t cloud the issue with FACTS. 
</p>
<p>When paramedics transport a patient to the ER, they always disinfect everything the patient touched in the ambulance before putting another patient in. I have even seen them hosing out ambulances at Parkland after transferring bloody patients. I’ve seen posts on the internet today stating that the fact that the ambulance was not taken out of circulation is going to be the cause of the fall of civilization. People all the way across the country are saying that they are going to hunker down and eat canned food in their homes for the next month. Seriously!</p>
<p>The misinformation that is being spread is mind blowing. I just read a post BY A NURSE asking how many people this patient “passed by” since he became ill.</p>
<p>Scout59, et al - sorry if I came across so flippant; I don’t think people stop to think that, when resources are being used to dispel rumors, unfounded fears, paranoia, it takes away resources that could be used to actually get to the bottom of who was exposed, when, etc., and get on top of the situation where it is needed. </p>
<p>And yes, I know my H will be fine. Because of his background in research, he generally does not fall for these fear-mongering stories. After knowing him for 30+ years, I’ve too learned not to over react. </p>
<p>This isn’t making me feel better . . . he didn’t even incubate 21 days and he knew that he had close contact with a woman who dies of ebola hours after he handled her. The guy who helped him carry her is already dead.</p>
<p>WARNING EDIT: good article but photo may be disturbing</p>
<p><a href=“Liberian Officials Identify Ebola Victim in Texas as Thomas Eric Duncan - The New York Times”>Liberian Officials Identify Ebola Victim in Texas as Thomas Eric Duncan - The New York Times;
<p>Publishing a photo of the body of the 21-year-old Ebola victim was totally and completely unnecessary. The NY Times ought to be ashamed of itself. </p>
<p>Agree - it is unnecessary - I added a warning . . . thanks</p>
<p>That makes me really angry. The complete and utter disregard for everyone he came into contact with after helping his neighbor. Mr. Duncan had to know there was a high probability he contracted the virus and yet he chose to board a plane. Then we have incompetence at the hospital once he gets there, smh</p>
<p>I usually like CNN, but it is really ticking me off that they’re making such a big deal that he flew on two United flights, with emphasis that, god forbid, he went through the D.C. area. It has no bearing on what they should be focusing on right now, which is identifying people he came into contact with once he started having symptoms. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “he didn’t even incubate 21 days”? The incubation period is a range, different for different people. He wasn’t contagious while incubating, he became contagious only after developing symptoms. They guy who helped him carry her was related to her, correct? Probably he had also been exposed well before they encountered the guy who ended up in Dallas. What exactly about that is specifically “isn’t making you feel better” other than that it is a very sad set of circumstances?</p>
<p>teriwtt - I didn’t think you were being flippant AT ALL. I just think that there is way too much hysteria right now in the media and on the internet…</p>
<p>I’m not a doctor, but is it really possible to know, definitively and without qualification, that there is “zero” chance that the patient was contagious while on the flight? All that is really known is that he did not have a fever at the time of the pre-boarding screen. I don’t doubt that is “extremely unlikely” or that there was a “negligible chance” that he was contagious, but how can they say “zero” chance?</p>
<p>I think he came to the USA as soon as he could because he knew that if he was infected he had a better chance of surviving it here.</p>
<p>If it is possible, then no M.D. or public health professional has admitted to it publicly in all the interviews I’ve seen and articles I’ve read.</p>
<p>@scholarme I believe that too</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They have researched this. They take blood samples of people who are exposed and track when the virus begins replicating. It doesn’t show up in amounts necessary to cause infection until symptoms are present. One researcher said that even when a patient first shows signs of a fever, there is almost no detectable virus. Once it gets a good foothold, however, it replicates very well and very quickly.</p>
<p>They also look at patterns of infection. If people were infectious before having symptoms, such as with influenza, there would have been far more infections in Africa than we have seen.</p>
<p>scholarme, if that was the case, I think he would have flat out said, “I have been exposed to ebola” the first time he went to Presby.</p>