BTW, so did the Nigerian healthcare workers if you’ve been following that situation.
Some of those workers began running fever and displaying symptoms at the end of last week/Saturday but tested negative for the disease. It wasn’t until today that one of them actually tested positive for the disease.
So the little old lady at Gatwick could have had a heart attack, deep vein thrombosis, or some other affliction. But a negative test for ebola doesn’t mean she did not in fact have it.
They put the plane back into service, crew and passengers went home, and my guess is that the woman’s body will be returned to her home.
I doubt that they are wrong about the test results.
>> a negative test for ebola doesn’t mean she did not in fact have it <<
Of course. You can always say the same for any test, for any disease, at any time. It’s a matter of simple logic, because we know that mistakes are always possible — at least to some degree or another.
Still, the foregoing “logical conclusion” doesn’t prevent one from making a probability-based judgment that the UK authorities are most likely doing a competent job in this case, and that neither gross incompetence nor conspiracy is involved in their decisions on the matter.
She didn't have it.