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

To: wrench

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.


25 posted on 10/27/2014 5:35:28 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est. President zero gave us patient zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: grumpygresh

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)


26 posted on 10/27/2014 5:40:31 PM PDT by wrench (While not "airborne" at this moment, Ebola is a Snot-Borne virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | 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