The other thing that bears consideration is the testing. I haven’t seen anything detailed on this subject. There is probably some type of qualitative rapid test and a more elaborate quantitative test that measures the exact amount of virus load. The less specific rapid test could produce a relatively high rate of false positives compared to true positives if the prevalence of the disease is very low.
Of course, the moronic media will not examine this stuff in detail for the moron public.
During the Duncan thing, mention was made of a test machine that gives very accurate results in just hours. Dallas had one, but it wasn’t certified for US use, so they couldn’t use it and didn’t have the proper kit for ebola (Canada has it certified for ebola, though)