Ebola Patient in Atlanta Hospital

a reply to: 00nunya00

His original post was from Aug 1 and he said this:

They took someone in two days ago and confirmed the case last night

So he was claiming that on Jul 30th a woman suspected of having Ebola was admitted, and that it was confirmed on Jul 31st.

So yes, he was LYING. Either himself or by proxy.

Perpetuating a lie is the same as lying.

#Ohio dept. of health says test results sent to CDC in suspected #Ebola case have come back negative - @nbc4i

www.nbc4i.com...

a reply to: ~Lucidity

See this image:

Source:

a57.foxnews.com...




HQ Video here:

www.foxnews.com...

As you can see again, the paramedic or whoever has an air scrubber.

You can clearly see hazmat suits and air scrubbers. As I said, the only difference was the stretcher for Writbol.

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I already posted that. Their update, as well as every other site was within minutes of the breaking news. The average for the update was about 20 minutes, implying that it was already known that she did not have Ebola.

If you look every site has the exact same text as well, implying they all picked it up from some news ticker. I am trying to find their source.

a reply to: raymundoko

I'm sorry. I'm missing your point. Those are from last time. What are you saying? That she was on a stretcher and accompanied by two people both WITH air scrubbers this time?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: 00nunya00

His original post was from Aug 1 and he said this:

They took someone in two days ago and confirmed the case last night

So he was claiming that on Jul 30th a woman suspected of having Ebola was admitted, and that it was confirmed on Jul 31st.

So yes, he was LYING. Either himself or by proxy.

Perpetuating a lie is the same as lying.

I dunno, it's awfully coincidental. Same exact town, and you can interpret "a few days" as anything, 5 or 6 days fits "a few". And again, he was just reporting what he heard. I agree that it turned out to not be true she had *confirmed* Ebola, but I'm more willing to believe that guy was simply relaying what someone whom he trusted to be correct was telling him. And I don't consider that a lie, just a case of misinformation. I would rather people crowd source reports "on the ground" which we all know to take with a grain of salt, rather than have people not report anything at all for fear of being called a liar. We all know the media lies constantly, so what's the difference? Better safe than sorry.

a reply to: crazyewok
I, too, hope that travel is suspended to outbreak zones. Border patrol agents
aren't all-knowing. All morning, MSM keeps telling the world that the virus isn't contagious until
symptoms appear. What if they appear just as a traveler is passing through Customs, standing behind
that yellow line. Let's say this person passes "inspection" and moves to baggage claim. Lifts the wrong suitcase with sweaty (or..??) hands, puts it down, and someone else reaches for the bag and rubs their eyes, nose, or mouth?


abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I already posted that.

Dude, chill out. I've posted plenty of breaking stories in this thread that someone comes along hours later and reposts as "breaking news". This thread is long, info gets overlooked. No one is getting any gold stars for being "the first."

a reply to: 00nunya00

LOL no kidding.

But I do try point out stuff other people and even I have posted so people can read for more info if they want to.

I think we all need to chill out. It take 21 days to show symptoms. Wait a month and then come back, the Walking Dead will still be here when you get back.

Okay...the fibbies must be in the white SUV.

They brought her in a whole different way.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

A few people said they are following better protocol this time. That is not the case. It appears the exact same protocol is being followed.

a reply to: 00nunya00

Chill out? Who's excited? I was elaborating that the timing of the "breaking news" and the "all clear" are so close together it seems quite a few news agencies made a mistake in picking it up in the first place.

Edit: Also note, no national news sites picked it up, meaning they probably couldn't source the story. That would be HUGE news and would draw viewers.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

A few people said they are following better protocol this time. That is not the case. It appears the exact same protocol is being followed.

There is firmly established CDC protocol for ickies like ebola. Then there is what they do kinda within protocol because it's easier or someone above them told them to do it that way. Protocol should be a set in stone set of guidelines.

Looks like protocol is a rubber line with wiggle room...huh.

Des

a reply to: 00nunya00

I agree. I think he was just reporting what he heard. They may have suspected it was Ebola?

It would be interesting to know what hospital this lady is at.

Wondering why they wont release that information?

a reply to: 00nunya00

Even if it is coincidental or if he was actually relaying what he was told, he did nothing to source or confirm the data. His MIL is either a liar or a very bad medical worker. By relaying panic inducing information with no source or confirmation, he lied to get some stars. He knew it would be juicy for this thread so he ran with it. he could have asked questions of his MIL: Are you sure? How do you know? Who did the test? How long has she been sick? When was she admitted? Armed with no valid data he ran with information that is detrimental to the situation, and meant to insight fear. I stand by my calling him a liar, as he came here with wrong information and attempted to pass it off as truth.

Either way I have attempted to contact the hospital and am awaiting a call back. The hospital actually denied ever having an Ebola patient when I called, so I am trying to find the source for where the story was picked up. The wording is identical on all news sites so it had to be something like AP or Reuters, but neither of them have anything that I can find. I get the feeling that the news ticket says "unnamed hospital" because no hospitals will admit that it was them.

I am wondering if it was a story blown out of proportion because of a medical workers over active imagination, combined with a paranoid lady who had the flu and big mouths...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

@6:06.

Well, at least I wasn't the only one shocked about the gravel and freakin' lumber.

For perspective, here are the two entrances used:

a reply to: MrLimpet

Add to that the fact that in that "false negative" Ebola test report, in some samples they not only had to dilute the sample but also add in some yellow fever to get the test to actually show positive. I'm taking all of the "negative" results with a grain of salt as well, seeing as there seems to be some serious holes in the results they provide.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You know from those videos, It is plausible that the patient may be Dr. Brantly and the one at Emory was Writebol his assistant. Wasn't he in worse condition than her? That patient was on stretcher, at Emory, the person was walking. And if he was worse than she was, he wouldn't be walking at all. Just a thought.

a reply to: raymundoko

He gave us the name and location of the hospital, that's pretty good. There would be no source to cite before it's reported in the news. And most hospitals are not prioritizing running to the press over caring for a patient and keeping the calm. And you can call a million hospitals, none of them are going to tell you anything more than what you read in the news. Plus, disparaging him or his MIl is overkill, she might be a great nurse that got info from the telephone-game grapevine and the info just got hyped more and more with every person between her and the source. Again, I would rather we get unsourced on-the-ground reports so we can take reasonable precautions before the media is let in on the secret. By the time the media gets it, it could have spread throughout out the community. One of these days, an unsourced report is going to turn out to be true. If someone says "a kid from CYZ school in XYZ Town was admitted for Ebola" I would appreciate the chance to take reasonable precautions to protect my kids. Better safe than sorry.