[ProudGSMom]

A man, having recently returned from West Africa was admitted through the emergency department with a fever and symptoms. But, no worries, it is "unlikely" he has Ebolaa.

That was more than 24 hours ago.

Supposedly, the test to confirm Ebola has a rapid return of 30 minutes, according to a report presented to Comgress in April. These test kits have been deployed to NG units in all 50 states.

So, why is it that after 24 hours there is no definitive answer?

Interestingly, when the announcement was made that this man was admitted, it was also said from the time he walked into the ER until he was in isolation was 7 minutes. Therefore, there is no 'realistic" risk to the public, staff or other patients who may have been in the ER

Most interesting, to me, has been the choice of words. The statements have continued to state it is "unlikely" this man has Ebola. Likewise, there is no "realistic" risk.

Unlikely, yes. It would be very unlikely for anyone to walk into a NYC hospital with Ebola. And, because it is "unlikely", there would be no "realistic" risk.

This does not mean it did not happen, nor does it mean he has not tested positive, nor does it mean that since the "unlikely" seems to have happened that the risk is not "realistic".

I like words and word games. I don't like when they are being played as a way to obfuscate the truth or create plausible deniability. From what was said, it can be later said that it was never denied, just that it was said to be "unlikely".

Bottom line, it is unlikely that more than 24 hours later, it is not known if this man has Ebola. If he did not, that would be announced. Instead, we are told it is "unlikely". But not to be concerned people, there is no "realistic" threat. Go back to watching the Kartrashians.

I can't decide if I should invest in Alcoa or P&G.