Posted on 10/17/2014 10:28:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
DALLAS, Texas – Thursday in Dallas, the center of national attention amidst multiple cases of Ebola, a woman arriving at Baylor University Medical Center Dallas “screened positive” for Ebola-like symptoms, after which she was transferred to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. She was authorized for release less than 24 hours from when she arrived at Baylor.
Friday afternoon, Baylor Health released the following statement, “Baylor Scott & White Health has not received any confirmed cases of Ebola.” It continued however, “A patient presented at Baylor University Medical Center Thursday evening reporting Ebola symptoms and indicated contact with someone with the disease.”
“The patient was transferred within hours to Texas Health Presbyterian as directed by the Dallas County Health Department,” according to the statement....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It is the "why" that still has me confused...
What am I missing here? A person screens “positive” for Ebola. The person is taken into isolation and is then RELEASED within 24 hours? What is going on here? Is it possible to clear a person for “positive” exposure to Ebola and get a clean bill of health within 24 hours?
It’s an Obola world.
Sounds to me like Baylor said...we don’t want to treat you and sent the person to Presby.
Presby has staffing issues, money issues, image issues and blah, blah, blah issues and said...you are good to go. Please, please vacate the premises.
Let’s hope this person really isn’t sick.
Probably just indigestion.
What does “screened positive” mean then?
What is going on here? Is this three post Duncan cases now in Dallas?
If not more, not to mention Ohio.
Did she have the fish?
Not that I trust the press in any manner...but this is what I read earlier.
Screened positive= exhibits some signs of the disease or has been in contact with someone who has it.
Tests positive= blood tests tell the tale.
Why this person was released? Maybe they have expedited the blood test. But I doubt it.
This article - Headline and all is misleading ... sad such low levels of journalism ...
She probably just wanted to get out of work and collect benefits.
according to the article, the hospital didn’t have the power to detain the person, who decided to resist being there, so the person walked out the door.
‘screened positive’ means that they had reported either travel or contact with a known Ebola patient.
Not ‘tested positive’.
From that way I’m reading the article, the CDC said that this person was low risk, that they didn’t have Ebola, and that they could go home.
There’s a sort of initial test known as a screen that is known for false positives, so those who do screen positive are then tested with a more time-consuming but accurate process, is my understanding.
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
OK. Enough of the legalese parsing of words and nuances thereof. Bottom line is the CDC dodges and weaves and keeps changing their position like a snake sheds its skin. This behavior is hardly the kind that builds confidence. So far, I don’t believe the CDC, NIH, or WHO has a clue what is going on. They dodge and weave and obfuscate. The more they flounder about with obvious preventive measures — LIKE STOPPING AIRLINE PASSENGERS FROM WEST AFRICA — the more credibility they lose. The best and brightest people working on this Ebola crisis aren’t either one.
Because it’s another in a long line of hysterical misleading headlines to articles. In the article it says they tested “positive” for ebola like symptoms.
we have so many crazies in this country... just like with the gal at the Pentagon, they are going to start claiming Ebola symptoms and predictors (I know someone from West Africa, I have been to West Africa) for attention. Going to be a rough few weeks while the pendulum settles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.