There were a few comments floating around yesterday that it was thought that she was more advanced in the course of the disease than her symptoms indicated. Today, obviously something has changed.
I think they are making decisions based on her "viral load". I know from reading various articles that the patient starts out with a small amount of virus that then keeps increasing exponentially. We have not yet been told, of course, anything about the specifics of her laboratory tests upon admission. She could be having an atypical case, with atypical symptoms. This is a rare but known phenomenon. Perhaps the initial measurement of her viral load was more like what they see in a patient who is much further along in the process of the disease than her symptoms indicated. Serial follow up measurements would then confirm this finding.
That article about the dogs in Africa who were tested was very interesting. It talked about how the dogs had no symptoms of ebola, yet they had the virus. And that article also mentioned that very rarely a human was found who was asymptomatic but had the virus. And it was not one of the other ebola viruses, it was the zaire virus only that they were testing for.
Also, so far at least, the zaire ebola virus has not mutated over the years. And the three U.S. patients do have the zaire virus.
Last but not least, is anyone other than me getting sick of hearing "this should never have happened"?