Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: longfellowsmuse

The the suggested thermal scanners would be no benefit?


17 posted on 10/03/2014 7:50:19 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: thackney

CDC probably feels they are better than nothing and that may be true. Thermal scanners and other forehead digital thermometers read too low, so... in Mr. Duncan’s case his actual temperature was probably in the 98-99 degree range, still not febrile. Also, in the case of the Ebola victim with a fever of say over 102 thermometer would probably read over 100.5 ( threshold for fever) so in this case it would be helpful.

But, in the case of the patient who is just becoming ill and may have a fever that is more low grade...say 100.5-101.5 the thermal scanner may read a temp that is considered afebrile and be allowed to board his/her plane.

Furthermore, these are the thermometers that are being used in ER’s around the U.S.A. this makes me wonder if a temperature reading that was inaccurately low is one of the reasons Mr. Duncan was allowed to go home.


18 posted on 10/03/2014 8:17:43 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson