>>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.

Some time ago, apparently. Not relevant to current situation by the sound of it, except to fan the FUD.

>>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.

Agreed. If she's past the arbitrary incubation period, there's no drama.

>>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.

This may be new and worrying for you and "an increasing # of people" but for others it's entirely familiar. We know all this. FWIW, average incubation is <10 days and 21 days is appropriately conservative.

>>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.

Whereas your denials are based on FUD. If you can show a single example of transmission without symptoms, the party line is disproven. Go to it. Otherwise you're just reacting because you don't like it, not on scientific grounds.

>>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.

You can say that transmission never has been recorded, ever, except via somebody symptomatic. Which is consistent with lots of other viral infections. Not knowing how somebody was exposed does not contradict this.