- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ebola blood test question...(sorry for another Ebola thread)
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:06 pm to Winkface
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:06 pm to Winkface
quote:
Hopeful Doc will be along shortly with his essay.
quote:
1. How quickly would ebola show up in a blood test? (ie if people thought they had been infected, yesterday, say on a plane, how long would it take for that to show up in a blood test?)
Test can be negative for the first 3-5 days of the patient showing symptoms.
ETA: The patient is actually infected 2-21 days before showing symptoms though. It's possibly negative for up to the first 5 days of the patient showing symptoms, so, to answer your question more accurately, 2-26 days after infection.
quote:
2. How long does it take to get blood test results back for ebola?
PCR tests usually take several hours at the fastest, a few days at slowest. Probably 12-36 hours, if I'm guessing.
quote:
Just seems like given the over-reaction panic this is causing, it'd be a good idea to test everyone they can as soon as possible and rule them out.
This is a very expensive test, and it will be negative in every single person that does not show symptoms. This would be a colossal waste of money. It's what's referred to as a "confirmatory" test. What we want/need/would be what you're describing would be a good "screening" test. There is currently no good screening test for Ebola. There are several in the works, and at least one by the US Navy that will be faster but likely less sensitive.
This post was edited on 10/16/14 at 2:08 pm
3
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:09 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
This is a very expensive test, and it will be negative in every single person that does not show symptoms. This would be a colossal waste of money. It's what's referred to as a "confirmatory" test. What we want/need/would be what you're describing would be a good "screening" test. There is currently no good screening test for Ebola. There are several in the works, and at least one by the US Navy that will be faster but likely less sensitive.
/end thread.
Thanks for the definitive answer.
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:13 pm to Hopeful Doc
Why haven't they whipped up more batches of the "experimental" drug that they gave the two missionaries in Atlanta? Or have they, and I just haven't heard about it?
Posted on 10/16/14 at 2:16 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
“The current test requires that you take a tube of blood from a person’s arm, first of all that’s a risk for the person drawing the blood. What our test allows you to do is just use a finger prick; very safe device, small drop of blood, you can put a band-aid over it. You don’t have to expose the person drawing the blood to the risk of a needle or a needle stick. Then you take that small drop of blood, put it on this device, 15 minutes later you have a result,” explains Dr. Garry.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News