I have a legit question. Someone help me out here.
Even if a person is not symptomatic, isn’t there a blood test that can show if you’ve at least been exposed to the virus?
Or does a person need to be symptomatic in order to have positive blood test?
Anyone?
Here’s a good source of ingo.
http://www.reocities.com/mockturtl/lifecycle.html
The basic answer is that until it replicates ‘enough’, it is almost impossible to find in the bloodstream. Besides, it takes an ELECTRON MICROSCOPE to find the little buggers.
It could be possible if you are infected. But the distribution of virus might make it difficult it find.
It’s not like a litmus test.
Currently they do two draws. The first one is tested in about four hours. If that comes back positive, the second test is sent to the CDC for the longer test. The first test can give off false positives, but very few false negatives. As of today it is the best, fastest screen.
Here’s the answer. And I keep thinking people know all this.
there is no blood test for ebola. Why would there be?
they have a very broad test they use. THe only definitive test is symptoms.
THis is the purest stupidity of the type that we sensed on election day 2012.
So, I’ll back off. And I am a nurse.
But I know this from when the nuns told us about the Titanic sinking. They said that the builders were so prideful that it was bound to sink - that any flaws would have been and were ignored.
It is pure ridiculousness that those entrusted with our protection have not quarantined west Africa. It will certainly happen eventually.
True or not, it’s at least a metaphor...for me.
And I always think ‘worst case’.
Viruses are mysterious. The flu of 1917 is still unknown in many ways.
When there is a vaccine for any particular virus, it is as a result of long term studies and some luck. THere’s no guarantee. AIDs was talked about as a mysterious killer for a long time before it was even known as a virus.
Ebola has been studied since 1976.
No drug company here has been hot on the trail to study it.
It’s costly and very low risk, as we’re not going to get it over here, oh, unless our boneheaded government and politicians obstruct protective measures we have enjoyed for two hundred years since our founding.
Now they are scrambling.
And everyone seems to expect everyone to just jump to it and fix it.
The Dallas hospital was not informed, nor was any hospital nor airline that they must expect ebola patients.
Maybe bammy knows they are not equipped maybe he doesn’t.
But they are not. And there is no massive protocol in place not even to save the lives of health care workers.
Your body needs to be producing antibodies to the virus to test positive. So, you can see why early tests often produce false negatives.
The military is using an Ebola screening machine that could have diagnosed the Ebola cases in Texas far faster, but government guidelines prevent hospitals from using it to actually screen for Ebola.
It’s a toaster-sized box called Film Array, produced by a company called BioFire, a subsidiary of bioMérieux and it’s capable of detecting Ebola with a high degree of confidence — in under an hour.
Thsi was poted here before: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/dallas-hospital-had-ebola-screening-machine-military-using-africa/96713/