frank lee bent wrote:Your info is old. WHO cites 42 days.

I'm guessing this is not the Who on first base?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.621343

WHO. Who is that?

You're really funny! Seriously.

Alstublieft.

Possible case in Australia:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 18873.html

Looks like Australia have things under control - containing possible infection without panic or scare tactics:

http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/ebola- ... 1c5ay.html

"Dr Young said the women's fever had abated, however that did not mean she was in the clear and testing would take place over the next three days to determine whether she had the Ebola virus.

She said the family's actions in minimising the potential for spreading the virus had been "highly responsible", ensuring that the risk of the disease spreading was low even if the woman tested positive for the Ebola virus.

Dr Young said the "risk of getting the Ebola virus disease in Australia is extraordinarily low"."

And people from other nations mock Australia's border protection...

StroppyChops wrote:And people from other nations mock Australia's border protection...

And these "immigrants" have behaved in a highly responsible manner : "She ( Dr Young) said the family's actions in minimising the potential for spreading the virus had been "highly responsible", ensuring that the risk of the disease spreading was low even if the woman tested positive for the Ebola virus.

So +1 for both Australian immigrants and the state health services

(But we can still disagree with Australia's border "protection" methods IMO )