You're correct. For instance, there's a lot of ill-founded concern around the flight the patient took into the US. The CDC is doing its damnedest to quell fears around it -- the patient wasn't symptomatic until four days after arrival -- but reason isn't always effective at moderating hysteria. The New York Times' headline, for instance, is currently "Airline Passenger With Ebola Is Under Treatment in Dallas," which is downright irresponsible.
As for "bad news," the patient self-referred to the hospital, Ebola was not suspected, and the patient was initially sent home to recover. (S)he returned once conditions worsened and was then diagnosed with Ebola.
Specifically, the patient arrived in the US on the 20th, became ill on the 24th, visited the hospital on the 26th, and was admitted on the 28th. Which means that Dallas had someone symptomatic in its midst for four days, which is rather unfortunate.
As for "bad news," the patient self-referred to the hospital, Ebola was not suspected, and the patient was initially sent home to recover. (S)he returned once conditions worsened and was then diagnosed with Ebola.
Specifically, the patient arrived in the US on the 20th, became ill on the 24th, visited the hospital on the 26th, and was admitted on the 28th. Which means that Dallas had someone symptomatic in its midst for four days, which is rather unfortunate.
Cite: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/s930-ebola-confirmed-...