[knarf]

I think a relatively inexpensive detector could be developed (if not already) that would scan body temp ....

101 ?

Step aside, sir

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Yes, there are many infared temperature detectors in the commerical market market place.

However, the problem is simply using a thermal scan to a potential Ebola patient is the required "time on target" and the close physical distance (6 inches ?) required.

Ignoring these realities yields data that is almost worthless.



Indeed, relying on "thermal data" alone (regardless on how it's collected) to scan for Ebola is a fool's errand.

I can assure you that if this was a "Republican scandal", as opposed to being owned by that Kenyan "bastard" Obama, the NYT, Sandia National Labs, Yale and Princeton scientists would DESTROY (everyday in the national media) the PATHETIC ARGUMENTS now being offered by "Obama Ebola Traitors".

.

[bgill]

13% don’t get a fever. Up until a week ago the CDC said 101.5 was the tell. Then they lowered it to 100.5. Temperature can’t be relied upon.

In other Ebola strains, 30-50% go hemorrhagic but only 18% with this strain do. The CDC’s 21 day monitoring will only take care of 90%. The WHO’s 42 day monitoring will only take care of 98% so there’s still a 2% chance of it developing after that.