>
>P.S. did you notice that the lawyers took on her case for no fee? There's no such thing as "free" when it comes to lawyers, so IMHO there's too much perverse incentive to perpetuate the drama. It's not news any more IMHO, so I'm happy to let it lie (unless we learn that she didn't actually treat sick patients...)


There is some news - at least a report, though I don't know if it's been confirmed - that her roommate in Africa has Ebola (or at least is showing signs) and isn't sure where she got it.

Whether that's relevant to her, I don't know.

Unless it was asked and I missed it, I wish Kaci had been asked by someone in the media on when was the last day she was in contact with an Ebola patient, specimens, etc. Not only would I like to hear the answer, I'd like to watch her reaction when she gives the answer.

But what continues to concern me are the statements of "science, bad science, etc.". I hope you are aware there are an increasing # of people raising the point (certainly not a new discovery) that symptoms are not "on-off" switches where infection and symptoms are simultaneous, that the contagion varies by time and patient in terms of symptoms, and that the process can accelerate at different rates within the rise of temperatures. Additionally, there is one study reporting that a certain % of those infected don't present with fever in the first 21 days. In some of those cases the people might have weakened immune systems to begin with, but it still puts a small crack in the statements regarding fever and symptoms.

That is why I continue to harp on the statement "no symptoms - zero chance of transmission" for not holding water. It's an absolute statement based on approximations. You can certainly say "No symptoms - very low risk of transmission" and I don't think anyone can argue. But that's different than an absolute statement.