The woman who died in the UK upon exiting the plane tested negative for Ebola.

The person in NYC who was admitted is currently being tested for Ebola, as is standard procedure given his symptoms and recent travel. However, this does not mean he has Ebola. Anyone who has the flu and was recently in Africa is going to be quarantined these days.

I know border security is something you're worried about, but those numbers are over 4 years of data. It isn't really relevant to the Ebola outbreak, as 71 people across 3000miles of border over 1400 days isn't that bad. And then when you consider these 71 people came from countries totaling 200 million in population... the odds of any of those people, or the ones not caught, being infected with the ebola virus are very slim. This is a numbers game. Currently 151 cases exist out of 200MM people. You have a less than 1 in 1 million odds that any randomly selected person from that population will be infected with Ebola. Combine that with the fact they have to fly to mexico, then travel across the border via mule, I'm guessing that's about 3 days minimum worth of travel. That rules out anyone infected more than 1 week prior to travel, as they'd likely be too sick after that to make it across the border.

victor809 wrote:

The woman who died in the UK upon exiting the plane tested negative for Ebola.

The person in NYC who was admitted is currently being tested for Ebola, as is standard procedure given his symptoms and recent travel. However, this does not mean he has Ebola. Anyone who has the flu and was recently in Africa is going to be quarantined these days.

I know border security is something you're worried about, but those numbers are over 4 years of data. It isn't really relevant to the Ebola outbreak, as 71 people across 3000miles of border over 1400 days isn't that bad. And then when you consider these 71 people came from countries totaling 200 million in population... the odds of any of those people, or the ones not caught, being infected with the ebola virus are very slim. This is a numbers game. Currently 151 cases exist out of 200MM people. You have a less than 1 in 1 million odds that any randomly selected person from that population will be infected with Ebola. Combine that with the fact they have to fly to mexico, then travel across the border via mule, I'm guessing that's about 3 days minimum worth of travel. That rules out anyone infected more than 1 week prior to travel, as they'd likely be too sick after that to make it across the border.

victor809 wrote:

It has a one month incubation period ... Plus, the story of the woman dying on the jetway at Gatwick, who by the way exhibited the exact symptoms of an ebola death, reminds me of the story Roswell, NM ... where the local Air Force and Sheriff confirmed many things to the story, and then the brass came in and changed the story to a "weather balloon". Now I'm not saying I believe in little green men, but just how things work out this way ... People on scene report something, and then a day or two later, the story changes to, "nothing to see here, move along" . . . I'm skeptical like that, you see . . .

Just like the guy stumbling into the hospital in NYC . . . How many people did he bump into along the way . . .

And, if the disease isn't "airborne", then how come 100 health care workers in Africa wearing hazmat suits contract the disease?

jetblasted wrote:

The woman who died in the UK upon exiting the plane tested negative for Ebola.

The person in NYC who was admitted is currently being tested for Ebola, as is standard procedure given his symptoms and recent travel. However, this does not mean he has Ebola. Anyone who has the flu and was recently in Africa is going to be quarantined these days.

I know border security is something you're worried about, but those numbers are over 4 years of data. It isn't really relevant to the Ebola outbreak, as 71 people across 3000miles of border over 1400 days isn't that bad. And then when you consider these 71 people came from countries totaling 200 million in population... the odds of any of those people, or the ones not caught, being infected with the ebola virus are very slim. This is a numbers game. Currently 151 cases exist out of 200MM people. You have a less than 1 in 1 million odds that any randomly selected person from that population will be infected with Ebola. Combine that with the fact they have to fly to mexico, then travel across the border via mule, I'm guessing that's about 3 days minimum worth of travel. That rules out anyone infected more than 1 week prior to travel, as they'd likely be too sick after that to make it across the border.

In the movies usually the people that panic are right and are never the real problem. information is over rated. at least we all dies during Y2K so none of this really matters.

teedubbya wrote: