Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Epidemic only in three countries

The article first paragraphs implies that the epidemic started in three countries but now is observed in several countries. However, the definition of an epidemic is more than 10 cases per 150 000 people. The epidemic level has only been reached in the three west-african countries where it started. Outside of west-africa, there has been a minor outbreak in Nigeria, but not an epidemy, and it ceased. In other countries there has only been single cases reported.

Experts have started to complain over that the outbirst often is descreibed as an epidemy in many countires, and Wikipedia is one of the channels to be blamed here. I tried to change the article but it was reversed. Mange01 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is not convincing. Read the Wiki epidemy link again and this source: [1] which our article is using. What may be considered an epidemic for one disease may not carry over for the next. As for Nigeria, etc., they are all part of the epidemic and do not stand alone. Can you give a link that shows which "experts have started to complain..."? Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The current status in the three countries should be emphasized in the first sentences, but okay, it may be expressed in many alternative ways. Examples:

• "epidemic in three countries" [2][3][4]
• "epidemic conditions ...[in] Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone"[5]
• three "countries with widespread transmission", three "previously affected countries" and two "countries with an initial case or cases and/or localized transmission"[6]
• "the three west African nations where the Ebola virus is widespread"[7]
• "In all three countries, [Ebola] transmission remains persistent and widespread, particularly in the capital cities"[8]
• "the current epidemic, hitting primarily three countries, is the worst the world has known" [9][10]
• "the three countries hardest hit by the Ebola outbreak".[11][12]
• "the three nations in West Africa that are struggling with the Ebola outbreak"[13]
• " It is unlikely that a sustained epidemic will occur in the USA"[14]

(An expert was interviewed in Swedish television yesterday, complaining that media presents Ebola as if it was an epidemic in more than three countries. I don't think the weblink to a Swedish news-cast is interesting at english Wikipedia.)Mange01 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably a more convincing argument for changing the language is to just state that 99.8% of the cases have occurred in three countries. Relatively, it's obvious that the other 0.2% of the cases are insignificant (at least currently). But these discussions have previously devolved into arguments over semantics... You'll probably have to provide a WHO/CDC-supported update of the nomenclature with very clear definitions to get support. Snd0 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the virus has affected more than "3" countries, to state otherwise is not consistent with fact--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The words "affected" and "epidemic" mean different things. See above. Snd0 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

invariably it (the virus' reach) is wider than Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We all agree that Ebola has "reached" or "affected" Mali, so please address the previous discussion about the word "epidemic". Art LaPella (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

it would be no different than what is mentioned above 1. "The word 'epidemic' is an emotionally charged term. It means different things to different people, and professionals using the term may have an intended meaning quite different from the public's perception of the word. It may also imply different things when translated into other languages. We believe there is a need to define a more understandable official lexicon for``epidemics, particularly when attempting to communicate risk to the population. While recognizing that epidemiologists will continue to use the words ``outbreak and ``epidemic inter-changeably, for risk communication the term ``outbreak should be used according to its standard general dictionary definition as being a more limited type of epidemic. Furthermore, descriptive words should be used to better define the epidemic. The nature of the spread, number of cases, case-fatality, and area affected should be included. Thus, the disease should be described as contagious or non-contagious, with mild, moderate or severe clinical manifestations. The size of the epidemic could be described as small, medium or large, depending on the percentage of the population affected. Finally,the distribution of the epidemic should be classified as widespread or localized. As an example, the West Nile fever epidemic in Israel in 2000 could be described as a medium- sized, relatively widespread epidemic of a non-contagious disease with generally mild to moderate clinical manifestations and a significant death rate only in very elderly people. While this approach will require us to expand our terminology in order to be more specific, it should make risk communication much more effective." [15] and 2. the definition of Epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Timeline Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The timeline section has multiple problems. First, it contains an indiscriminate collection of data, which violates WP:NOT. It is based on one source and is WP:OR because of the attempt to synthesize a chronological progression and a series of graphs based on these periodic WHO reports. Lastly, the tone and style of the section is way out of whack with the rest of the article.

The goal of the timeline section is to characterize the numeric progression of the disease, but it has turned into an academic exercise of sorts.

I propose to remove the section; in its place, let's cite secondary-source research that describes the progression of the disease, for example [16] and move it inline into the appropriate places in the main article. Lastly, as several have already pointed out, as the WHO revises its numbers, they're actually going DOWN in some cases which makes the raw table that much more inappropriate in this article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:DISCRIMINATE, the section is a discriminate collection, and thus not in violation of Wiki policy. As explained in earlier sections, I and others disagree that it is WP:OR for reasons explained in the RfC above.

The cited secondary source would be no improvement. It appears to be a one-off chart that was produced for its article, it is already out-of-date, and there is nothing to suggest that it would be kept up-to-date. Additionally, the cited source exhibits exactly the same artefacts that are objected to but makes no effort to explain those artefacts, other than by providing a disclaimer at the very end of its article which makes it clear that it is no better than what currently exists. -- Kirbett (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberia numbers have not been updated in days for one, but the big massive drop came in Sierra leone who drop a lot of suspected cases and only report on lab confirmed death. This Inconsistencies is only temporary for now. the head of WHO Africa was replaced in the week and i believe Unmeer is going to take a leading role in reporting. Hoping this will solve the problem in future reports. BrianGroen (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While its 100% true that the data is a mess its still best available collection of this data anywhere. Any other part of the article can be found somewhere else, this cannot. That pretty much makes Timeline section most valuable part of this article. While the epidemic is ongoing there is not going to be a better collection of this data. While situation keeps developing this section should be kept as is. Once researchers have a chance to look back at the event and compile better chronology, contents of this section can be replaced.89.235.226.134 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so I think it's kinda inappropriate for us to be treating this as something that is being updated day to day as if it were live coverage. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this is true, and following this convention we enter information that is of long-term interest. And the numbers are an important fact. But would it be better if we give only old values here? For me Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is also a source of encyclopedic information, that readers search for because they need it. And many readers need this information now and not in a year when the epidemic may be over. And some graphics for instance are of high relevance for some readers, so why delete them? I for instance do not react when I see a linear plot of cases. Even if it grows heavily. And then I see a linear plot with a linear line on it, and I understand geometrical growth, and I am shocked. The reason that I am active here is the logarithmic plot of cases that showed a straight line in mid september. The same is with the rate graphs, many readers may not understand it. People like me are trained not to care so much on absolute case numbers. But when I see a graph where 0.16 % of all liberian people are reported ill with Ebola, I think "1 out of 625 people". And as it is not possible to display all relevant information in a single graph, we are forced to make more. Malanoqa (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. According to Wikipedia is not a newspaper, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage . WP:NOTNEWS identifies particular types of newspaper content (such as Journalism) that should be avoided, but I don't see any category in WP:NOTNEWS that would exclude the timeline section of the article.

Given the billions being spent on this epidemic, this event must be one of the, if not the, most extensively reported, monitored, and analyzed epidemics in human history. This makes it uniquely deserving of documenting as it progresses. Just because this event is long running does not mean that efforts should not be made to keep the documenting of it up-to-date. After all, it was presumably considered quite appropriate to maintain up-to-date documentation on other long-running events as they progressed - such as the Olympics, or the Scottish Referendum Campaign, for example. The public interest in and demand for information about the Ebola epidemic is intense, at the moment, exactly because the event is current. That interest and demand will wane once the epidemic is over. It seems to me that it is quite appropriate for the wiki to strive to cater to that public interest while that demand for information is at its most intense. -- Kirbett (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Would you provide me both the day-to-day data and the best available data? Especially after the epidemic is over this, and discussion of the difference between the two, will be of interest to me. Sphere1952 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am hugely in support of removing this section. I can't see any way for it to become anything other than a collection of unparsed, likely OR, hard-to-read graphs and charts. After the discussion about the charts, I thought maybe if I generated a prose version of the section that would alleviate a lot of concerns, but it was clear that there was no way to do that. From a purely editorial perspective I think it should be removed, even if it technically doesn't violate any policies (about which there is much concern). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The data is the best available, and there is a section which clearly explains its limitations (thanks, Greenbe and BrianGroen!). In the absence of better data, it's the basis which WHO, UMEER and other agencies are using to direct resources. The data table, so far as I know, is unique and a valuable resource for anyone researching the out break. The graphs, wahtever their limitations, show the trend clearly. Robertpedley (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the chart will only make WHO information harder to find. There is no substitute for this information. People are using to track the limit of our knowledge about the virus; Jimbo posted on this talk page to say that he himself had done so. I see it as a valuable addition to the article. Shii (tock) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

oppose it might be best to wait for a couple of "sitreps" to come out, see if numerical stability reestablishes itself. We don't really have another true source other than WHO , if it continues to be eratic, then a radical change might be needed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• A number of you have argued that the section can be kept because "it's not available anywhere else". If it's not available anywhere else, it's WP:OR. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not OR, it's WHO information. Shii (tock) 04:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons as those given above, and many thanks to the editors that have worked so hard to bring us this information. Gandydancer (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The Liberian numbers and Sierra Leone numbers are a bit in a a disarray at the moment, but this will be corrected in due course. Our stats are used by a lot of newspapers etc. I don't see any reason to drop it now. We have more coverage and page views as the CDC or WHO at the moment . on the 15 October we had 15 Million page views. the cdc had 200 thousand views on that day.BrianGroen (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that the information is available elsewhere, because it's all attributed. What is the case is that the information is not necessarily easily accessible or easily digestible - as Eric Morecambe would say "all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right places". One of the Wiki's great strengths, applicable to thousands of its topics, is the way it can pull together information from a multiplicity of sources into a single article, and this is what is not available anywhere else -- Kirbett (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have written my position at length in the archives, feel free to go back. My only new comment about not being a newspaper is that this is exactly the kind of information you would never find in a newspaper or the online equivalent of that medium. Those publications tend to sensationalize a headline that either implies "we're all going to die" or "it's not that bad compared to xyz" and then throws out one or two spurious "facts" to support that position. Yes I'm generalizing, but I think people will get my drift. We're putting out the best, cross-checked information available, with suitable restraint and explanation. Thanks to all for the incredible effort this is not easy data to curate.Greenbe (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not come here if the timeline section were removed. Removing it, and any arguments in favor of removing it are a disservice to Wikipedia. The people proposing removal need to rethink just what Wikipedia is. However, the explanation of this data is very unclear. I cannot tell from the explanation if the graphs and numbers, once plotted, will change over time. Sphere1952 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handling of "jump" in numbers for Liberia in week 26 October

For 19 October 2014 Liberia reported 4665 cases, on 24 October 6253 cases where reported. In the weekly graphic this caused a peak of about 2500 total cases for the week ending 26 October (Interpolated between 24 October and 30 October).

User Delphi234 (talk) replaced the graphic now with a version, where he replaced the data for the week ending 2 November with a much smaller value and he removed the "peak" for the week ending 26 October 2014:

• 

See the history of this image for my original version. My problem is, that we have no other data to be used as a base for the graphs than the one that are displayed in the tables of this article. I have also no time to ask WHO for corrected historical numbers.

Any opinions on how to handle this graphic and the related graphic with liberian numbers, which is not changed at the time I write this post:

• 

With kind regards, --Malanoqa (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see [[17]] for the discussion on this on my personal talk page on Wikimedia --Malanoqa (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove. It's case in point why this graph does not belong in the article. Graphing of governmental reports does not make sense. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove both Delphi234 is a sockpuppet of blocked user Apteva so they will not be able to discuss the changes here. As for the graph itself, I'm not sure if either version is useful any longer. At the minimum, it is a demonstration of how graphing "cases reported per week" does not correspond to anything that readers might be interested in, like the growth or decline of the epidemic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

remove for similar reasons stated above, the point is the graph cant logically absorb the 2500 cases --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk to me talk

User Delphi234 (talk) just told me on my Wikimedia talk page, that the WHO now also publishes the numbers. So the original dispute regarding the peak is solved. I will just base the next versions of the weekly graphs on this official numbers.

My main question was about handling the peak. Not stay or remove. I doubt that we will remove the diagrams with weekly cases, as this kind of graph is commonly used to describe epidemics. Why remove here when WHO uses them?--Malanoqa (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ZeLonewolf removed the weekly graphic from the article 30 hours after I started this talk. Do we really have a consensus here? This chapter is titled "Handling of the jump", not "Remove weekly graphic". So maybe some editors not yet noticed that the removing of this graphic is now discussed here. --Malanoqa (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

How many graphs does this article really need to express the same concept? The entire section is a data dump and needs a major refactor to make it encyclopedic. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion/crusade a while ago. ZeLonewolf does not like any of the graphs and will jump on any pretext to get rid of them. I would prefer to keep them, including the weekly changes. I've been reading about a new jump in Sierra Leone numbers on a news site and came here looking for the graphs to get an impression how it would fit in the historic sequence. Of course all the numbers are unreliable, partly politically motivated, partly because they are overwhelmed. The numbers reflect the cumulative effect of all these sources of bias. The graphs do a good job to visualize it. And if the growth of the outbreak still is exponential, it will catch up with all the machinations and show up in the graphs rather sooner than later. Stupid girl (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that the epidemic is still ongoing, and in most cases there are yet no better sources we can cite. The weekly graphics can be found in the WHO report. The best timeline with case numbers (together with references!) is still only to be found here. It will be near to impossible for our readers to find statements together with references outside of scientific articles, so we should do our best here. Wikipedia is still near to the only place in the internet, where all statements are given with reliable sources. And this is more important, than the quality of presentation. Why shall a complex monster like this epidemic be presented in an easy to read and understandable article? I prefer if our readers can decide what they need and what not. And if we remove tables and graphics we make it more difficult to find the information the reader is searching for.

To place the timeline into a separate article does not really help. Most editors can monitor only one or two articles. But not a dozen. We risk, that the quality of informations in this separate articles will decay. Or the time of the editors is blocked with monitoring this separate articles too. I prefer if the editors have more time for improving the content of the article. The fine tuning we can do also later. But our readers need important and relevant content very soon after it is published the first time, because they are faced with the epidemic now. And they need this information for proper action. And helping people to act based on reliable informations is one of the main motivations for writing an encyclopedia.

This is not just a nice text, this is real live. It is an ongoing event where people suffer and no one of us knows the end. If we do our best in providing the readers with reliable and well sourced informations, I can live with imperfections in this article. We have to wait for the end of the epidemic before we can clean it. In the moments the content of many important chapters cannot even be written, because people struggle to get the knowledge first.--Malanoqa (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Malanoqa I think you put it well, "on reliable information", for readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto Malanoqa and Ozzie10aaaa it is rekliable info, and with very few jumps in totals... BrianGroen (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stupid girl and Malanoqa for your excellent comments. "This will put an end to all of the grumbling", Gandy says as she struggles to not laugh. :) Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tidying up

Hi everyone, I've tidied up the Experimental Treatments and Sierra Leone sections a bit. Please let me know if this causes any problems. Robertpedley (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh well, it looks as if all my edits have been reverted without discussion or justification. Dommage. Robertpedley (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved a lot of info to the main articles - maybe best to keep it there rather than this article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking the word "acute"

I have replaced the "acute" link which I feel is appropriate. The link reads, "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". This has been discussed awhile back. It is my feeling that while the link is not perfect, it does help to understand why the WHO might call it "the worst" while millions in Africa are dying of other diseases such as malaria. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though EVD can certainly be described as "acute" I am not sure that is the best term for the outbreak/epidemic since it has been ongoing for nearly a year. Perhaps "urgent" would be more suitable.Jaerik (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But the word is part of a direct quote. Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"acute" should have a link, and is the correct word, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the full sentence is "The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times." The use of the word "acute" here is the broad dictionary definition - "acute : adjective : very serious or dangerous : requiring serious attention or action" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute). So the sentence can be rephrased as "The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe public health emergency, requiring serious attention or action, seen in modern times."

The wikilink does not substantiate this meaning of the word. Instead the linked page says "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". You can't substitute that definition into the sentence while retaining the original meaning. Even more, the page goes on to say that in the medical context "acute" does not necessarily mean "severe" and it gives a stubbed toe as an illustrative example.

If the sentence had been "Ebola is a acute disease" the link would be technically OK.

Robertpedley (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are correct - It's an acute emergency, not an acute disease. I'll revert my edit. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I had added the Wikilink is because they are using it in precisely that medical sense - it is not the most severe medical emergency in general in modern times (that would probably be the HIV pandemic, or possibly the flu), but it is the most severe acute one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Robertpedley and Gandydancer. Influenza is itself an acute disease. Presumably the quoted party knows this, and thus believes ebola is the more severe - i.e., urgent, or acute in the non-clinical sense - medical emergency of the two. 206.230.179.162 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

3 instances today, so far. Should we ask for protection (PS I don't know how to do it!) Robertpedley (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not recommend it— Of the three instances, Cluebot got one, the second was from an autoconfirmed user (so semi protection wouldn't have helped) and the other was reverted immediately anyway. In the same time period there were two good faith IP edits. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Add them to the vandal noticeboard, and they'll be dealt with quick. (I reported an IP yesterday, and it earned a 3mo block within minutes.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline article

As a gentle reminder, the timeline article exists for "daily trivia" type facts. It has not been updated in a few days.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What with both a timeline and several main articles, there is no reason to add anything but major happenings to this article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Раціональне анархіст The timeline was last updated on 30 Nov as per latest WHO report.. i only received new data today and added it. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Time line and infobox totals

This is a small note to all new editors... Please take note before adding data that the correct date is added to the timeline and the date is to one specific date. I know you all mean well to add the data but it is a tedious process and please read the report for the the correct data... the data on the timeline is the number of cases on that date and not the report date.. i.e the report date is released 10 Dec but the data is for 7 Dec. Thanks all it makes updating the graphs the so much easier and the data is correct. The timeline data is as per who situation reports and not the latest data. The timeline is structured per epidemic week ...The infobox is per latest available data per country and also check the dateBrianGroen (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone please also note that "cases" refers to confirmed cases only, as per an official report. For example, the just-reported American nurse case is not yet confirmed (and even if it were, say by the hospital, we'd still have to wait for the official inclusion to avoid double-counting it). Secondly, a reminder again to the existence of the timeline article, where "daily trivia" is not only more welcome, but the actual primary focus of that page.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Material for the lede

This article "more time needed" contains material which probably deserves to be mentioned in the lede, e.g. The UN Ebola chief said on Thursday it will take several more months before the outbreak in West Africa is under control, an assessment that makes clear the UN's goal of isolating 100 percent of Ebola cases by January 1 won't be met. Dr David Nabarro said there has been “a massive shift” over the last four months in the way affected governments have taken the lead in responding to the epidemic, communities are taking action and the international community has pitched in. I don't normally edit in the lede, (+ I don't have time at the moment) would someone else consider doing this please? Robertpedley (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

interesting read...

there was an earlier Washington Post article on this, but I found this more concise, "the year’s outbreak in west Africa follows that template. A July Washington Post article reported that the three countries hit hardest by the epidemic also have experienced massive deforestation. In Guinea, the rainforest has shrunk to less than a fifth of its original size, and in Liberia, more than half of forests have been sold off to loggers. Sierra Leone has lost a quarter of its wooded land, according to the U.S. Forest Service", [18].....?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a correlation/causation fallacy to me. (AFAIK, all countries in Africa with forests have experienced "massive deforestation" relative to, say, 1950.) Also, the outbreak's index case occurred in a heavily-forested part of Guinea.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

you could be right, however the Washington Post[19] had the same opinion of deforestation, it reads in part, “The increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is frequently associated with drastic changes in forest ecosystems in tropical Africa, wrote researchers in a 2012 study in the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. Extensive deforestation and human activities in the depth of the forests may have promoted direct or indirect contact between humans and a natural reservoir of the virus. Such a conclusion is particularly troublesome for West Africa, which has never before experienced an Ebola outbreak like this one, and is reported to have one of the world’s highest rates of regional deforestation. The Guinea Rainforest has been ravaged by deforestation...in Liberia, more than half of the forests have been sold off to logging companies, according to the Guardian. And Sierra Leone is “seriously threatened” by deforestation, according to Chatham House’s Illegal Logging Portal."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that Ozzie has made some good points - he has not suggested that deforestation caused the epidemic, but rather that it may have contributed to it. Keep in mind that researchers are looking for the reasons that this particular outbreak spread so rapidly and, unlike the previous outbreaks, turned from an outbreak into an epidemic. I see no reason to believe that deforestation did not play a part.

Incidentally, thinking back to the beginning of the outbreak and along the lines of why it took so long for anyone to take action, those of us who have been working with this article from the start can well remember how the WHO appeared to be dragging their feet every inch of the way, giving the disease a chance to take hold before any action was started to combat it - not that we could add that to the article since we had no RS for our feelings. So I'd guess that I was not the only editor that felt comfort when the WHO's report admitting mistakes was published, even though they had no intention of admitting them until the emergency had ceased (oh great...). We have added some of that to the article but I have been working through the Time article and as time (no pun intended) permits, I hope to add some of this criticism to the lead as one of the reasons that the outbreak turned into an epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

well said(better than I would have)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Graphs from Timeline

Considering that the most recent graphs are more than two weeks out of date, and the majority are almost a month out of date, should these still be represented? I understand the table has been widely debated, and still continues to be updated. Though, with the graphs being left to age, I am not sure their value. Locke411 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I updated now the graphics per country. I also added a weekly graphic where total and values per country are shown. This shows clearly that the majority of cases occurs now in Sierra Leone. I remember a contact person from Liberia saying: "It is a moving target". You build treatment centers, and the epidemic goes to another place. --Malanoqa (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated graph(s)! Even those from November 18th have been updated now. Locke411 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Project looking for treatments and cure

Anyone wants to add this: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org

They have a project where everyone can participate, looking for an Ebola treatment or cure. It's run by the Scripps Research Institute and a scientist who has been working on Ebola for 11 years - http://www.scripps.edu/ollmann-saphire/

It is a way for ordinary people to help.

Whoever you are, please sign your posts by adding four tildes.

I don't think it belongs in the West Africa article. You could try one of the related pages - the EVD page for example - but it's so nebulous that I don't think the editors over there would accept it. Robertpedley (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This now has a Time article dedicated to it http://time.com/3634732/ibm-ebola-cure/ Siuenti (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Experimental treatments section

As we are all well-aware, our article far exceeds the recommended length. What would other editors think of creating a split that includes the experimental treatments information? Gandydancer (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if a new page is justified. There's a long and detailed section here Ebola_virus_disease#Research covering medications, blood products, and vaccines, while there's another whole page dedicated to just Ebola_vaccine. Maybe some material could be moved across to the other pages, and this page reduced to a bare minimum with pointers to the other pages. Robertpedley (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea Robert. Using my own interest to judge that of most others, all I want to know as far as medications is sort of, "yeah, they're working on different stuff...". I'd certainly want to include the mini lab info that Ozzie added since, if it's working, would be a huge help to be able to judge whether or not an ill person needed isolation or just had some other (of the many that exist in that area) illness. Gandydancer (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

if there is agreement to shorten, compress, do sub-articles and so on it should be done. However there shouldn't be a compromise of quality for quantity ("the article should meet a certain length to therefore...") However you look at it the reason why there is more information is because the virus hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem immediately prone to do so[20] whatever you decide is fine, remember though while we sit comfortably on our PC, these people have to live in it with little end in sight [21]..... merry christmas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am well aware that the epidemic just goes on and on but I am sick of being the one to mention that that does not mean that our article can go on and on. I do not like being the one to always be complaining and moving stuff out of the article. I'm going to leave the article for now and let others do what they want with it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

the only way the article has a shot at "Good Article " status is with you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many CRFs

CRF references are sprinkled throughout the article, and they're mostly different. The latest official numbers (December 10) are 76% in the three outbreak nations and 61% in "hospitalized cases" (it isn't explicitly clear whether "hospitalized" refers to a level of care above the ETCs, but I assume so).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст - Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it over the weekend. All the quoted CFR's come from WHO (| Ref 1, | Ref 2) so they are probably subsets of the same data. It'll take some time to sort it out! There was a debate on this page about confidence intervals a couple of months ago & the quoted figures were changed a couple of times I think.Robertpedley (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I can't track down any published source for the 10 December WHO sitrep so for the time being, no change. I expect they have access to material which has not yet been formally published, so let's wait for a bit. Robertpedley (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the University of Edinburgh there are two potential reasons for problems with CFR's, it says "case fatality rate (CFR) or case fatality risk is a property of an infectious disease in a particular population which states the risk of fatality due to the disease per case. The first thing to note is that it can't be reliably be calculated for an ongoing epidemic by dividing the reported number of deaths due to a disease by the reported number of cases. There are a number of reasons why this will be a poor estimate: Firstly, this doesn't take into account infections that have yet to run their course (ending in recovery or death). If many new cases are being reported, then this will under estimate the CFR. A more reliable estimate can be made if the number of recoveries is also being reported. Secondly, the estimate will be poor if there is a bias in reporting or diagnosis towards severe cases of the disease. This is the case with MERS-CoV in the Middle East where there are many instances of mild or asymptomatic cases (discovered through contact tracing) but most primary cases are only tested if the patients are hospitalized. This will overestimate the CFR. With ebolavirus, bias may occur if patients are being looked after at home and only being hospitalized or recorded if the disease becomes very severe or if the patient dies."[22] I hope this information helps--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another set of CFR statistics in the latest WHO sitrep.″The case fatality rate in the three intense-transmission countries among all cases for whom a definitive outcome is recorded is 70%. For those patients recorded as hospitalized, the case fatality rate is 60% in each of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and 58% in Liberia.″ Robertpedley (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes...I was going to post about this as well. In the December 11 situation report they used two figures, both 76% and 71%. I only found the 71% figure today after reading the entire report. See here [23] I had not yet seen the 70% figure... Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what should we do? Any ideas on why the WHO jumped around with the figures? I'd guess that the 76% that I added a few days ago should be changed? BTW, I tried and tried to get the ref in correctly but was not able, so someone else should add a new figure. Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Another set of CFR figures from a different location [24] Robertpedley (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Request semi-protection

Too much ongoing vandalism by IPs. Existing "lock" is green (protection against page moves only)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, (I just don't know how to)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Have unauthorized page-moves been a problem? (Or was the wrong protection level fatfingered during the last implement?)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

no to both(as best I know),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa,Раціональне анархіст i have ask for a semi edit protect. Will see if they grant it BrianGroen (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa,Раціональне анархіст semiprotected for two weeks till 11 Jan. Should help.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks Brian--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

R₀

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Statistical measures says: "R₀ is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 ... R₀ of 2 means one person infects two individuals, who infect four, 8, 16, 32, 64 – and so on. The R₀ is accumulated over the time when an individual is infectious. For example with HIV, this could be years, but for Ebola, that time is a week." Doctors know enough math to know that the 33rd term of the series 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... exceeds the population of the earth. The epidemic started a year ago (which is over 33 weeks) and we aren't all dead yet, so what does everyone else know that I don't know? Art LaPella (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

right, however this would have to be "that" 1 individual over 33 terms- in other words its hypothetical, one individual wont

linearly go that far.i'll remove it to be clearer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed it [25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe R₀ is the number expected to be infected at the beginning of the outbreak, before any response has been made. Siuenti (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or more exactly (I think I got this now) basic reproduction number says "... in an otherwise uninfected population". R is expected to change, with or without modern medicine; hence R_t is at time t, and R₀ is at time 0. Art LaPella (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a decent explanation of the statistical measures on the Basic reproduction number page. It doesn't mention R_t so maybe someone with a decent statistical background should add an extra paragraph. However all that's needed in this page is a 2 sentence summary of the West Africa situation, with appropriate links if a readers wants to know more. Robertpedley (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done a few calculations on this and AFAICS the R₀ was at ~1.2_ave in May-June, and has dropped to ~0.9_ave for Nov-Dec, with Liberia currently at ~0.5, Guinea ~1.14 and Liberia ~1.08.. _Gremlin^SA 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If R₀ is "... in an otherwise uninfected population", then I think you mean R_May–June and R_Nov–Dec, and 1.08 is presumably Sierra Leone. Art LaPella (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the sorry veracity of case and death tabulation in the three mainly affected nations so far, it might be a good idea to just leave R_t analysis off the table until the epidemic is over and more reliable numbers are produced. I'd argue that R_t also tends to fly over the head of the casual reader, and hence is best left to the more scientific Ebola article, whereas CRF percentages are more intuitive.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"food for thought"[26]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't there more Western countries?

I thought there were more Western countries infected by Ebola, and that they weren't included. Lucasjohansson (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that all the countries which have had local transmission (Spain and US) and all the countries with medically evacuated cases have been included. Which countries do you think are missing, and can you provide a source? Siuenti (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Scotland caught the hot potato today.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've added more material regarding the case in Scotland: soon to be transferred to a specialist treatment centre London, according to news sources. -- The Anome (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Countries with limited local transmission

Why is the United Kingdom here? As best I can find out, and as written, there is no local transmission. Yes, someone was diagnosed with it in the United Kingdom, but there is no local transmission. Either this section on the UK should be moved, or this category should be renamed to Countries with limited local diagnoses or some such. Locke411 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right: "transmission" is not the right term for this case. I've changed it to "Countries with limited local cases". By the way, a second patient is being investigated for possible Ebola infection in Scotland at the moment ([27],[28]) but reports say they are considered to be low risk and unlikely to be actually infected. -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another person is being tested in Cornwall[29]. However by 4 December 113 people had been tested in England,[30] of which 112 were negative. Martin451 14:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WHO figures

Finally the WHO got the figures right for Sierra leone. BrianGroen (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New CDC Figures as of Dec

There are 1400 cases in the USA that are being monitored according to CDC reported by Sharyl Atkisson Dec 21, 2014 on Fox News, Howard Kutz's Media Buzz program. Sharyl said that these numbers are not reflected on the CDC website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzeG40o9GVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:615C:581F:B991:6BF7 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Does a youtube video meet WP:RS? 74.75.5.195 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure but as a consequence of Sharyl Atkisson's phone call to the CDC stated in this news video, we know that there are 1400 possible cases being monitored in the USA. If there is another source other than the CDC itself, then that would be ideal. Since the CDC was the source of the information, it should be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:615C:581F:B991:6BF7 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

we follow WHO for figures, however before placing anything of this nature regarding the CDC or any other organization, first there must be consensus and you must discuss it here since the article is semiprotected--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ebola in Iraq-isis fighter contracted ebola

Not sure if we should report, seems highly speculative but who knows [31] BrianGroen (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, seems more like psychological warfare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep User:Fred Bauder agreed, although several news media are running with it, we are not a newspaper and till it becomes fact then we can react.BrianGroen (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New York Times investigation

After a two month's investigation The New York Times released this long detailed article about the origins and explosive growth of the epidemic. I have it in the article as a source for a well-known fact. If that cite is removed this cite should be preserved as it is a comprehensive survey of the early progress of the epidemic and how it escaped early control. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

this is actually a remarkable and very complete piece, I included it on the talk page wikiproject Med for viewing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The story behind the story from NYT Insider. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Never before" claim

My removal of the errant "never before" claim has been reverted. As explained in my edit comment, this claim is erroneous and so should be excised regardless of its notable sourcing. (The Black Death is also "within recorded history".)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

if you look under "WHO quote" on this talk page (third subject from top) I argued more or less the same, I gave an exhaustive explanation of Spanish influenza and Bubonic plague in contrast to the current outbreak, so I agree with you, having said that lets talk it out, there is no point in an edit war between anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, although I have RV'd the RV one time. It is blatantly erroneous.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote from the "background" section of the WHO report is accurately quoted, just not thought through; I suggest replacement of "Never before in recorded history has a" with "No" and add a "has." The quote would then read, "The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times. [No] biosafety level four pathogen [has] infected so many people so quickly, over such a broad geographical area, for so long." I suppose Spanish flu and Black Death are biosafety level four pathogens but it is anachronistic to identify them as such. Checking for some article which defines biosafety level four pathogen also with this edit. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lassa Fever is listed as a Biosafety Level 4 pathogen and has "300,000–500,000 cases annually", which is quicker, broader and over a longer period than this Ebola outbreak. Donners (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish flu and Black Death are not biosafety level four pathogens unless I'm reading the information in Wikipedia at Biosafety_level wrong. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Flu is level 2, plague level 3. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Some researchers maintain the Black Death was caused by an Ebola-like virus, not a bacillus.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The argument that fleas cannot live in Scandinavia is specious; fleas do quite well where I live, one of the coldest places in the lower 48, in very cold weather on both natural hosts and inside buildings. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bubonic Plague is endemic in the San Luis Valley, by the way, which is where I live. Rare, but nevertheless carried by wild animals. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[33]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ebola could have been responsible for the death of 70% of the population wipe out in Athens in 425 BC.. I have found other reference to this as well. Looking into it.. [34] this is from the cdcBrianGroen (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets take it from the top, the following indicates it was not bubonic, and reads, "by extracting the DNA of the disease bacterium, Yersinia pestis, from the largest teeth in some of the skulls retrieved from the square, the scientists were able to compare the strain of bubonic plague preserved there with that which was recently responsible for killing 60 people in Madagascar. To their surprise, the 14th-century strain, the cause of the most lethal catastrophe in recorded history, was no more virulent than today's disease. The DNA codes were an almost perfect match.According to scientists working at Public Health England in Porton Down, for any plague to spread at such a pace it must have got into the lungs of victims who were malnourished and then been spread by coughs and sneezes. It was therefore a pneumonic plague rather than a bubonic plague. Infection was spread human to human, rather than by rat fleas that bit a sick person and then bit another victim. As an explanation [rat fleas] for the Black Death in its own right, it simply isn't... it cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics."[35] Furthermore, the History.com (History channel) is even more convincing, "now, analysis of skeletal remains found by construction workers digging railway tunnels in central London has led scientists to a stunning new conclusion: The Black Death was not transmitted through flea bites at all, but was an airborne plague spread through the coughs, sneezes and breath of infected human victims, the source adds, "according to Dr. Tim Brooks... transmission by rat fleas as an explanation for the Black Death “simply isn’t good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics" [36] The Black Death has many more articles dedicated to it that go a different culprit than the "bubonic" conclusion.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Moderns are likely to underestimate the volume of rats that can live in an invested city that is discarding manure and garbage in the streets. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The plague first infects the rats who die; the fleas then look for new hosts. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

that could be,(and I agree with you partly) but look at these two articles as well as the prior one provided, molecular biologist are saying the DNA evidence is conclusive with what we have today, and that would not be enough to do the damage the "Black Death " did. However, if it were airborne, that's a different story, a pneumonic plague (as cited in the second article above) could get the number of victims that Europe experienced.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggest splitting treatment

Hi All this article is getting long i there fore suggest a split of treatments to a new article .. Not only will it reduce this article but also improve the main virus article. The split can also be linked to other countries. BrianGroen (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That section needs editing badly. For one thing, the treatment offered to European health workers and victims who travel to the US or Europe should be briefly noted but should not be extensively covered in this article. What belongs here are the treatments and choices available to Africans in the affected countries. This article, Ebola Doctors Are Divided on IV Therapy in Africa, for example, illustrates the problems on the ground. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree brian, splitting treatments is a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We already have Ebola_virus_disease#Research and Ebola_vaccine. There is, at the moment, no approved treatment. I agree with User:Fred Bauder - material on this page should be restricted to treatments and events relevant to West Africa. There are now individual pages for each proposed treatment and vaccine, for example, so no benefit to creating a new page. Robertpedley (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The Ebola_virus_disease#Research creates a circular loop back to this article.. BrianGroen (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is set up just need to make it life [37]BrianGroen (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

<Picard> "Make it so!" --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:bold split done and applied to Ebola virus page as well..BrianGroen (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

i have to apolgise for a few editors, i split the article without moving it, but the page is move protected , hence i had to copy and paste.. Please accept my apologie...BrianGroen (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Rmk5002x9 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 16:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the Talk page archiving algorithm broken?

It looks like it's set to ten days (which is probably too short; twenty would be better), but I'm seeing threads not contributed to since November. Pax 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pax i have also notice this, but i see no problem in the bot setup.. not sure why it is not archiving. Perhaps some one with more exp. could look into it.. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A user messed up the archive target page string whilst trying to slow it down. I have reset the string, and set the bot to 30 days, feel free to speed up the bot if need be. The bot should hit this article around 3am GMT. Martin451 18:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ebola in Mali

The epidemic in Mali has been successfully contained and as such the image needs to change and references to this in the article. Luxure Σ 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luxure, let's wait until January 18. According to this source, among others, that's the date that Mali will be officially declared Ebola-free if no new cases are detected. Riverhugger (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, did not realise this. Luxure Σ 09:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The third lead paragraph

This paragraph is a rambling mess of rapidly obsolescing and obsolesced bits (For example, there obviously aren't going to be enough beds right now if the case count jumped 2,000 in one week, etc.)

Can we just get rid of it, or move what pieces are worth keeping to elsewhere in the article? That would get us down to three paragraphs in the lead. Pax 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

it could use more conciseness--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria split

Anyone got any objections if i split Nigeria off.. BrianGroen (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

sounds good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

BrianGroen, I could go either way on that, depending on the group consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@BrianGroen: - no problem with that, it will help bring this page down to a more conventional size. Robertpedley (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection, and FYI, to help expand the Nigeria article check this Salt Hoax deaths, plus more info and links on Cultural effects of the Ebola crisis#General _Gremlin^SA 08:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Do it. Pax 06:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks i'll get to it in a day or so, just a bit pre-occupied by computers being whacked by lightning here BrianGroen (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Re salt hoax, etc., hopefully we can keep trivia and poorly sourced information out of the Nigeria section. Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in case counts

Hi, the infobox contains this "Note: the CDC estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers." This was certainly true back in September, but I haven't seen it in any recent press so maybe we should remove it? Robertpedley (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley i grre with that it seems that the situation has stabilised now..BrianGroen (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove that. Everything I've read by boots-on-the-ground sources outside of ETCs indicates both massive under-reporting in death cases and massive under-attribution to the likely (but untested) cause of death in known cases, and that such and under-counts will likely remain in place even long after the outbreak is quelled. Pax 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pax i just removed it from the info box but it is still in the lead section.BrianGroen (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer it remained in the info box as well, especially since it is the "5 second take-away" by the click-and-run reader. (With official CRF 76%, and likely over 80% in reality to match earlier large EBOV outbreaks, we know the death statistics in particular are undercounted just by comparing them to the case number. These are tropical countries and corpses rot fast; anywhere outside of major cities, the imperative is to get them underground quickly. When I read reports of all women or every baby dying in a particular village, or entire villages appearing abandoned, or of giant piles of bodies being buried without testing, I not only have reason to believe that x3 undercounting is plausible, but even conservative. On top of that, we have governments not known for track-records of either competence or ethics, with that scurrilousness extending into the present situation with repeated news pieces involving Ebola personnel going on strike to protest not being paid. Not to mention the communication issues involved when Ebola sweeps through a region occupied by political or religious malcontents or rebels, e.g., many Muslims areas have not been eager to share news with non-Muslim governments, or take advice or help from them.) Pax 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that there is a lot of truth in what Pax says and one can add to that the fact that these countries do, of course, want this nightmare to go away - their economies, as bad as they already were, are now in complete ruin and under-reporting would not be surprising. We know as a matter fact that in Sierra Leone it was a national policy to under-report. And to some extent I have wondered if the WHO, what with so much blame for not reacting sooner to stop the spread, is keen to show that their Ebola Plan is working and thus tending to prefer good news to bad. Also, in the many, many times that I have been through this article to do updates I have thought that surely by now hiding ill persons, hiding bodies, and continuing to use traditional burials must be a thing of the past only to come across a new report that says that that is not the case. Furthermore, to vaguely say "considerably under-reported" in the article is so meaningless - I know that without some sort of number I would never guess that that means perhaps only a half of the cases have been reported.

And yet, saying all that, I was the one to delete a number percentage and use the term "vastly under-reported" (or whatever we've got right now) in the lead a few weeks ago. We do know that at one time the CDC suggested under-reported by 3 times, but they they also suggested the possibility of a million cases by January... The main reason that I changed it was because I did not feel that the source was good enough.

Does anyone remember the latest WHO under-reporting number? I'd suggest that we return the info box note with something to suggest that the numbers are known to not be correct. I think that it's a mistake to just leave the bare numbers. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

a better "guesstimate" of the actual fatality totals/sierra leone

[38] ,,,,,,,and it reads, "exactly how many of the 4,400 corpses laid to rest here since August are victims of Ebola is impossible to say, as the city's overwhelmed authorities lack the time to analyse every death.",,a far cry from WHO barely 3,000 count--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the average lifespan in Sierra Leone is only 45 years, and the population of Freetown is about 1 million, one would expect about 60 deaths / day in that city from non-Ebola causes. Now Ebola is probably adding noticeably to that, but it is still likely that more than half of those recent burials died from anything other than Ebola. In an effort to contain Ebola, the city of Freetown is now sending all burials to a single cemetery. That makes for extraordinary activity at that cemetery, but it would be wrong to assume that all deaths were therefore caused by Ebola. Dragons flight (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

you're right, not all, but a significant amount, probably an amount greater than the established 3,000 the WHO states--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

semi protection requested.

Hi all i have requested a new semi protect on the page [39]BrianGroen (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the old one still working? (It should be good until April.) Pax 20:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we got a month, thanks Brian--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a bug which prevents the semi from working if there is also a page-move protect concurrently in place. The easy way to test is to remove the page-move lock and see if the semi starts working. Pax 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

hi Pax the old semi expired on the 11 Jan, hence i requested a new one - greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Need a new map

Now that Mali is officially Ebola-free, this map needs an update (Mali pink).

Done. Heitordp (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(?) ...I thought Wikipedia wasn't taking .svg files anymore after 11/20. (At least I hadn't been able to upload .svg of the world map since.) Pax 08:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When will Scotland be declared Ebola-free?

Now Pauline Cafferkey is no longer in Scotland, there have been no other cases reported in Scotland, and it's looking less and less probable that there will be more as more time passes. Does anyone know the date that Scotland will be declared Ebola-free (and thus turned from yellow to green on the world map), provided there are no other cases reported? -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

42 days. It sounds stupid, but it is what it is. A couple US states when through the same deal. Pax 18:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So that would be 42 days after 30 December 2014, then, the day she was medevac'd from Scotland to the Royal Free Hospiral in London? -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag stack

Not a super huge problem to page-down past on every visit, but does this TP really need a mile-high stack of tags on top of it? Pax 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken out a couple which didn't seem necessary at the moment (not a ballot, not a forum). I don't know if the "in the news" ones can be merged. Siuenti (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also the Wikiprojects could be collapsed to one line with a "show" link. Siuenti (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I got rid of the dead-link obsolete news items as well as the old failed GA tag. I couldn't figure out how to format the show command here without making a mess, so left that alone. Pax 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that was a great idea it makes the talk page look more efficient, if the article gets GA nominated again they'll probably put one of the tags back, I guess--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dates without years

Coming back to this page after the new year I noticed it was sometimes difficult to tell what year was being talked about as many dates in the text had no year. The page now covers the period December 2013 to 2015, so I went through and added the year where it seemed appropriate. I may have missed some, or added them where on another reading it may not be needed. Suggest others have a read through and add/remove as required. Diff here. I also altered DMY to MDY when needed for consistency. Dates without years-"war without tears"? - 220 of ^Borg 12:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

your right many times what happens, especially when it was oct-nov (2014) one would just put the days ebola news, be it a new case in a new country, a new treatment, now that its calmed down a little bit you wonder if it might kick up again?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Case fatality rate of 70%?

The page says in the second sentence of the lead:

"It has caused significant mortality, with a reported case fatality rate of 70%."

This WHO 'fact sheet' is also relevant. It says:

"The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks."

However the "70%" figure is not explicitly stated in the cited source anywhere that I could find. Has someone calculated this themselves? :-o They seem to be quoting from another source actually Which does support 70% (in Liberia only) though not for a very large sample. It was updated 23 September 2014, so may even be out of date, the upper CFR may be higher than 71%! 220 of ^Borg 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The CFR stats are continually being revised. Early in the outbreak before there were sufficient treatment centres it was estimated on the basis of # of deaths and # of cases both of which were very rough estimates (check the archives of this talk page for discussion). The sources for those early stats may have disappeared or been updated. The first set of reliable stats gave 70.8% for cases in treatment centres [40] (outside ETCs, diagnosis is not certain nor are deaths properly recorded). The current figures are here [41] in tables 4,5, and 6 and it's around 57-59% now. It's likely the rate is dropping as more medical facilities become available and treatment improves with experience.

I think the citation for the lead has been updated but the statistic has not.Robertpedley (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2015

The initial, and wrong, report was of 90% mortality, see "How Bad Data Fed the Ebola Epidemic". User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Leone was burying mounds of bodies without testing them, and it's pretty much taken for granted that undercounting is an endemic problem. Previous larger-scale outbreaks of EBOV had CRFs as high as 88% and 90%. ...I would leave the 70% number alone. Pax 00:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

References

@Раціональне анархіст: - undercounting was a problem, but it's not been mentioned by WHO or MSF for a couple of months now. I think that improved community awareness, improved national infrastructure (both UNMEER targets) backed up by with large numbers of foreign workers has got on top of this problem. In parts of Sierra Leone all unexplained deaths are buried as if they are EVD on a precautionary basis, hence the "mounds of bodies" you quoted. [42] As part of efforts to stop the spread of the virus, King Tom is where every single person who has died in Freetown now ends up, whether they were killed by the virus or not.Robertpedley (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Given past CRFs of the EBOV strain where case/death ratios are known, given haphazard data collection in the present event, it makes sense to err toward the known prior results. In all prior EBOV outbreaks which surpassed 100 cases, CRF was at least 71% (and averages 80%). Pax 09:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The WHO never made a 90% estimate. That figure represents the highest CRF ever recorded, not this outbreak. The WHO's first "official" report for this epidemic was 52%, which, to me, seemed way off. And it turned out to be way too low. Around 70% is probably about right. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for this outbreak 70% --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The no. of outbreaks.

It says "this is the 26th outbreak", but how about the 25th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

[List_of_Ebola_outbreaks] Robertpedley (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

i think you meant to put ..List of Ebola outbreaks... _Gremlin^SA 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cite error

This edit somehow caused a red "Cite error" at the end of the article. I could just revert it, but for one thing it would likely go back in automatically, and for another thing, why is there a reference down in the categories anyway? Art LaPella (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It happened again without explanation. So I removed the references, and notified the user who added them. Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Art LaPella. I took a look but I couldn't figure it out. Robertpedley (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Short answer (not an expert) the ref is in a "Out Of Bounds" area, where the code for Ref list building code does not 'work'? looking at the Wiki layout guide Ref's must always be above cat's... _Gremlin^SA 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at it much closer now.. check a few previous versions of the page [43], right at the bottom you will see a Second list of Ref's, so yup, the ref is in a Out of Bounds area. AND.. the culprit.. IS ...Ser Amantio di Nicolao, in this edit..._Gremlin^SA 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio's answer here (first paragraph) referring to my question here Art LaPella (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

UK

Should the UK be listed in countries with "isolated cases"? Probably, because the WHO report still lists it as "COUNTRIES WITH AN INITIAL CASE OR CASES, OR WITH LOCALIZED TRANSMISSION". Our infobox lists the UK as "isolated cases", but our map doesn't. So you would think we would be consistent in our own article. Art LaPella (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Art, I changed it, now when you click the image it says United Kingdom=isolated cases...however the color on the map did not turn yellow?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been ~50 days since the Scottish nurse was "in the wild" (i.e., before going to the hospital). I made Scotland green several days ago, and fixed the UK references in this article a few minutes ago. Pax 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both I guess, but my original observation remains: the infobox says
"Nations with isolated cases
United Kingdom"
and the map says
"Isolated cases"
[blank].
Art LaPella (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes on world map colors

Liberia reported only one case (in a known chain) over the last week. Normally I'd consider changing its color from orange to yellow on that basis, but I simply do not trust the reporting out of that place (and have no reason to), and am going to wait another week (or more) just to be sure. Guinea and Sierra Leone both have bounced off their lows and the majority of cases are from unknown vectors, so no orange for them anytime soon. Pax 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's lots of encouraging news coming out of Liberia at the moment, from people who are in a position to know, eg [44]. But the official statistics do not as yet bear that out -- perhaps from historical reporting adjustments. A wait-and-see approach to updating the article seems like the prudent thing to do here. -- Impsswoon (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

having/fighting ebola dr. spencer -nejm

[45] this article came out very recently, it seems very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Very informative.. I add it on the Cultural effects of the Ebola crisis in the "In print" section.. _Gremlin^SA 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for a fuller cite, that's Spencer, C. (2015). "Having and Fighting Ebola — Public Health Lessons from a Clinician Turned Patient". New England Journal of Medicine. 372 (12): 150225140020003. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1501355. -- Karada (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

heres the original complete text... Ebola — Public Health Lessons from a Clinician Turned Patient Craig Spencer, M.D., M.P.H. February 25, 2015DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1501355 ArticleReferences

While treating patients with Ebola in Guinea, I kept a journal to record my perceived level of risk of being infected with the deadly virus. A friend who'd volunteered previously had told me that such a journal comforted him when he looked back and saw no serious breach of protocol or significant exposure. On a spreadsheet delineating three levels of risk — minimal, moderate, and high — I'd been able to check off minimal risk every day after caring for patients. Yet on October 23, 2014, I entered Bellevue Hospital as New York City's first Ebola patient.

Though I didn't know it then — I had no television and was too weak to read the news — during the first few days of my hospitalization, I was being vilified in the media even as my liver was failing and my fiancée was quarantined in our apartment. One day, I ate only a cup of fruit — and held it down for less than an hour. I lost 20 lb, was febrile for 2 weeks, and struggled to the bathroom up to a dozen times a day. But these details of my illness are not unique. For months, we've heard how infected West Africans, running high fevers and too weak to move, were dying at the doorsteps of treatment centers. We've seen pictures of dying children crippled by vomiting and diarrhea and unable to drink.

Yet for clinicians, striving and repeatedly failing to cure Ebola is brutal, too. The Ebola treatment center in Guéckédou, Guinea, was the most challenging place I've ever worked. Ebola is frightening not just because of its high fatality rate, but also because of how little we know about it. We cannot explain exactly what it does to our bodies, nor tell patients who survive it how it may affect them in the future. As a clinician and epidemiologist, I've worked in places just miles from active conflict and managed to grow used to the sight of soldiers and the sound of gunfire. But this microscopic virus, an invisible enemy, made me uneasy.

While in Guinea, I often woke up sweating in the middle of the night, my heart racing. I might have felt warm, but my thermometer would read 97.7°F — perhaps it was broken? I started diagnosing myself with gastritis, amebiasis, peptic ulcer disease. Though I understood the connection between psychological stress and physical pain, I'd never experienced it like this. As an emergency physician, I try to approach challenging situations rationally and remain calm under pressure. But my work made it hard for me to relax and feel like myself.

Nevertheless, when I was at the treatment center, I was fueled by compassion and the immense challenge of caring for patients with Ebola. I'd never felt so deeply that my decisions could have a measurable impact on other people's lives. Difficult decisions were the norm: for many patients, there were no applicable algorithms or best-practice guidelines. Creating safe discharge plans for pregnant Ebola survivors in their third trimester or advising lactating mothers when it was safe to resume breast-feeding required hours of discussion and planning with colleagues, health promoters, and patients. Every day, I looked forward to putting on the personal protective equipment and entering the treatment center. No matter how exhausted I felt when I woke up, an hour of profuse sweating in the suit and the satisfaction I got from treating ill patients washed away my fear and made me feel new again. Yet I also remember the calm that settled over me the last time I left the center, knowing that I'd no longer be exposed to Ebola. I left Guinea focusing on the socially trying 21 days ahead of me.

Back in New York, the suffering I'd seen, combined with exhaustion, made me feel depressed for the first time in my life. I slept long hours and had a hard time connecting with old friends. I became fearful of the incredibly remote possibility that I could become sick and infect my fiancée, the person I love the most. Touching others and shaking hands — forbidden actions throughout West Africa — still made me uncomfortable. Twice a day, I held my breath in fear when I put a thermometer in my mouth. I did all this worrying well before I ever had a fever or showed any symptoms of Ebola.

The morning of my hospitalization, I woke up knowing something was wrong. I felt different than I had since my return — I was more tired, warm, breathing fast. When I took my temperature and called to report that it was elevated, in some bizarre way I felt almost relieved. Although my worst fear had been realized, having the disease briefly seemed easier than constantly fearing it.

My activities before I was hospitalized were widely reported and highly criticized. People feared riding the subway or going bowling because of me. The whole country soon knew where I like to walk, eat, and unwind. People excoriated me for going out in the city when I was symptomatic, but I hadn't been symptomatic — just sad. I was labeled a fraud, a hipster, and a hero. The truth is I am none of those things. I'm just someone who answered a call for help and was lucky enough to survive.

I understand the fear that gripped the country after I fell ill, because I felt it on a personal level. People fear the unknown, and fear in measured doses can be therapeutic and inform rational responses, but in excess, it fosters poor decision making that can be harmful. After my diagnosis, the media and politicians could have educated the public about Ebola. Instead, they spent hours retracing my steps through New York and debating whether Ebola can be transmitted through a bowling ball. Little attention was devoted to the fact that the science of disease transmission and the experience in previous Ebola outbreaks suggested that it was nearly impossible for me to have transmitted the virus before I had a fever. The media sold hype with flashy headlines — “Ebola: `The ISIS of Biological Agents?'”; “Nurses in safety gear got Ebola, why wouldn't you?”; “Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen”1-3 — and fabricated stories about my personal life and the threat I posed to public health, abdicating their responsibility for informing public opinion and influencing public policy.

Meanwhile, politicians, caught up in the election season, took advantage of the panic to try to appear presidential instead of supporting a sound, science-based public health response. The governors of New York and New Jersey, followed by others, enacted strict home quarantine rules without sufficiently considering the unintended side effects. The threat of quarantine may cause sick people to defer seeking treatment, and both nationals of affected countries and health care responders returning from those countries may alter their travel plans or misreport their exposure to avoid quarantine. Implementing restrictions that don't accord with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4 also undermines and erodes confidence in our ability to respond cohesively to public health crises. At times of threat to our public health, we need one pragmatic response, not 50 viewpoints that shift with the proximity of the next election. Moreover, if the U.S. public policy response undermined efforts to send more volunteers to West Africa, and thus allowed the outbreak to continue longer than it might have, we would all be culpable.

Instead of being welcomed as respected humanitarians, my U.S. colleagues who have returned home from battling Ebola have been treated as pariahs. I believe we send the wrong message by imposing a 21-day waiting period before they can transition from public health hazard to hero. As a society, we recognize the need for some of our best-trained physicians and public health professionals to participate in a potentially fatal mission because failing to stop the epidemic at its source threatens everyone. We should also have faith that these professionals will follow proven, science-based protocols and protect their loved ones by monitoring themselves. It worked for me, and it has worked for hundreds of my colleagues who have returned from this and past Ebola outbreaks without infecting anyone.

For many politicians, the current Ebola epidemic ended on November 4, 2014, the day of midterm elections (and, coincidentally, the day my fever broke). For the U.S. media, it ended a week later, when I walked out of Bellevue Hospital and the country was officially Ebola-free. But the real Ebola epidemic still rages in West Africa. The number of new cases is stabilizing in some areas and declining in others, but more than 23,000 people have been infected,5 and many are still dying from this disease.

When we look back on this epidemic, I hope we'll recognize that fear caused our initial hesitance to respond — and caused us to respond poorly when we finally did. I know how real the fear of Ebola is, but we need to overcome it. We all lose when we allow irrational fear, fueled in part by prime-time ratings and political expediency, to supersede pragmatic public health preparedness.

the reason its being printed here is so that we can have a first hand look at a Ebola fighter/survivor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Instead of being welcomed as respected humanitarians, my U.S. colleagues who have returned home from battling Ebola have been treated as pariahs..." - No; you were treated like a pariah, and that impression only compounds when you whine about it. After the Dallas debacle, it was perfectly natural for people to freak the flip out, and rightly so. (Not that anyone cares, but this Spencer guy just gives me the winds. Of all the potentially interesting people out there to take stories from, the press won't interview anybody but the crybabies.) Pax 05:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

sierra leone "cases acting up again"

[46] there seems to be a sharp increase in and around the capital area of Sierra Leone,[47] as the latest WHO sit-rep indicates, it might be a momentary "flare up" but with such a proven killer as the virus has shown to be, at the very least this country should be kept an eye on until/whenever its over--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We saw it last year as well..a lull in figures in the dry season, but we are going into the rainy summer season soon...hope the numbers does not jump again.BrianGroen (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The rains are returning early to the Guinea forest region; you can watch a satellite loop here. Pax 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

excellent loop and info on your part Pax...it could mean the beginning of another surge in cases for Guinea (due to the favorable conditions) time will tell...

A total of 116 new confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were reported in the week to 8 March, compared with 132 the previous week. Liberia reported no new confirmed cases for the second consecutive week. New cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone occurred in a geographically contiguous arc around the coastal capital cities of Conakry and Freetown, with a total of 11 districts reporting cases. Although there has been no significant decline in overall case incidence since late January, the recent contraction in the geographical distribution of cases is a positive development, enabling response efforts to be focused on a smaller area....per WHO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Outbreak resumed in the US?(no, evacuated from sierra leone)

This happened today. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

read it again, especially the last para... "CDC workers in Sierra Leone are involved in investigating the illness of the first patient, including looking for other people the person was in contact with. It's possible other people will be transported to the United States for monitoring, said the spokesman, Tom Skinner." no one in the US has contracted Ebola.. The outbreak has not resumed.. Volunteers from the US got it in S.L., and been Evaced back for treatment.. This is just baseless sensationalism... _Gremlin^SA 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. As long as its valid, then the link I posted shall be disregarded as such. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why cumulative cases in the graphs?

I would suggest that log-scale graphs of weekly cases would be far more interesting than cumulative graphs if you want to understand whether the disease is being contained. The cumulative graph is misleading because the spread could actually accelerate while looking like it is slowing down on a cumulative graph. To me the choice is between graph of weekly new cases (absolute spread rate) and weekly new cases divided by 3 week case counts (spread rate per infected).Sf jeff2 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sf jeff2, you are right. The cumulative graphs are questionable now as the grow is not geometric. There is also now a signifanct risk, that changes in the rate of cases are overlooked in the cumulative graphs. I look in the moment mainly to the graph with weekly cases. That are also the graphs the WHO publish on their situation reports. I would therefore start to rethink the usage of the graphs, maybe we remove all except the graphs with weekly cases. --Malanoqa (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I support the cumulative graph, I dont see any gain on removing it if the weekly is shown. BTW Im plotting but not uploading a graph that is new cases/day/(total cases) that can be changed to cases/day/last 3 weeks. Of course, every time you do a division, the plot is noisier. Do you think it will be helpful? --Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leopoldo Martin R, hard to answer your question without seeing the graph. You may upload it to wikimedia in the category "2014 Ebola outbreak statistics". That is the same category the other graphs here use. And then you can link it on the talk page of the article. Best regards, --Malanoqa (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

yes I believe that's the best thing to do...need to see the graph--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect Request

This page should be semi-protected, as it covers a current event. Iamahashtag (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried, by copying in the old tag and upgrading the date, but the lock icon didn't appear even with a cache refresh, so I assume it's above my pay-grade. Pax 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

do you think we need one?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am noticing an increase in IP editors who modify the infobox totals without leaving edit comments. Frankly, I'd like to see the article marked a "high profile" topic and perma-protected on that basis until the outbreak is over. (As soon as rains come pouring down and the numbers spike, there's going to be a flood of new, disuptive activity.) Pax 11:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

your probably right....Brian always does the semi-protection request--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, Pax the level of ip vandilsm is still a bit low. They will decline it .. i am keeping an eye on it and will ask for a semi protect if the need arise.. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Evac cases

Could someone inform if the world map presently has listed all of the places that have had medically-evacuated cases? Thanks. Pax 05:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe brian will add it?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue area looks ok; England, Norway, central Europe, and a couple of US states. Spain & Texas also took medevacs but they are in green because of transmission. Robertpedley (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So...none are missing? (That's what I was getting at originally.) Pax 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Liberia

Is the epidemic over in Liberia, as the text says? Or are there 10–20 new cases and deaths per day in Liberia, as the table says? It can't be both. Art LaPella (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

its an ebb and flow, apparently rainy season is starting in that area of Africa, (which is discussed in the "sierra leone cases acting up" section on this page above) so while they were going down, they'll be making a probable small comeback. As for sierra leone that's an entirely different "ball game" anything can happen given enough time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But do you understand the problem? The article doesn't say Ebola in Liberia is an ebb and flow that will spread faster in rainy season. It says "On 5 March 2015, the assistant health minister of Liberia reported that the country has released its last confirmed case of Ebola." If that is true, the table should show zero new cases and deaths. Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

your right, !. there is a Liberian government report that says zero cases, 2. there is a WHO report that says otherwise, I will therefore revert myself as you are correct, they (LIberia) are "saying" and "doing" two different things.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On March 11 the WHO said that there had been no new cases for 2 weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we report it both ways? "Source A said the epidemic in Liberia has stopped, but Source B said there were 50 new cases last week." Art LaPella (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

no...we go by , WHO numbers, and wait and see (I wont be adding any information to the Liberia section in the near future so we can gain clarity, unless they pass two 21 day periods) http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Sitrep%20294%20March%205th%202015.pdf --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeppers. I held my nose and changed the Liberia map color to yellow, even though I expect it to be short-lived as the rains have returned. Pax 03:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

first confirmed [48] case in just about two weeks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The table is being updated as confirmed case gets add on.. Liberia held back on reporting suspected case.. This is only as time delay effect from the samplass being sent and then confirmed... BrianGroen (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize/ Ebola photography (images)

Daniel Berehulak was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography on Monday for his coverage of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa for The New York Times. The staff of the St Louis Post-Dispatch won the prize for Breaking News Photography for their coverage of the aftermath of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Berehulak, a freelance photographer who works mostly for the Times, has spent four months since August covering the Ebola crisis in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. As he covered the story’s full arc, he took few breaks and many precautions. “This award makes me think of all the people that shared their lives with me so that I was able to document this ghastly and horrible virus,” Mr. Berehulak said. “It preys on our humanity — on everything that makes us human. People can’t hold their loved ones in their last dying moments because that’s when the virus is the most potent.” At one point, he set up a makeshift studio at a treatment center to make portraits of those on the front lines of the disease, from doctors to gravediggers.

“Daniel’s images are those that have become the most memorable of the tragedy,” said Michele McNally, the Times’s director of photography. “He would not let go of the story, spent as much time as he could and was very patient in letting the situations unfold before him. It is a combination of superb photography, impactful storytelling and persistence and bravery that makes these pictures resonate.”

Monday’s announcement by Columbia University, which administers the prizes, marks the seventh photography Pulitzer for the Times. The Times also had two finalists in the breaking news category with group entries from Gaza (Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Wissam Nassar) and from Ukraine (Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev and Uriel Sinai). David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships.

David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships. “Daniel was a veteran of war zones, but this was a new kind of danger,” Mr. Furst said. “He had to face senseless death day after day, and it was soul crushing. He was not ever able to let his guard down and was working in excruciating heat with layers of protection.”

Despite the global attention, he said he was “shocked” at the time that few news organizations were sending journalists to cover the outbreak. There were people who did very important work, he said, but there were “many organizations that didn’t devote their efforts and journalistic abilities to this important story.” Mr. Berehulak grew up on a farm an hour and a half from Sydney, Australia, where his parents settled after emigrating from Ukraine after World War II. He became interested in photography as a child and took pictures as he traveled as a college volleyball player. After his sister died of Lupus when he was 23, he said he “realized that life was short” and decided to turn his passion for photography into a career.

He was hired by Getty in 2005 in London and transferred to India four years later. He resigned in 2013 to be able to “pursue more long-term projects,” and started freelancing, mostly for Times. Represented by Getty Images Reportage, Mr. Berehulak has worked in more than 50 countries and won three World Press Photo awards, as well as the John Faber Award from the Overseas Press Club. In February, he was named photographer of the year in the reportage category in the Pictures of the Year International Contest. “You need to spend time and treat the people you photograph with the utmost respect and show them in the most dignified way possible,” Mr. Berehulak said. “Everyone is human and I don’t see any hierarchy. That’s a fundamental part of portraying people and people’s lives.”

And for him, covering Ebola so intensively was ultimately about portraying people, to show not just the bodies, but how the disease tore apart families and communities. It was, he said, daunting. “Covering the spread and devastating impact of the Ebola virus in West Africa is by far the most challenging and important assignment of my career,” he said in remarks to the Times newsroom. “It was not war in the conventional sense, it was not a conflict that was wholly visible. But it was in so many ways a battle that captivated and frightened the world. And I would be lying to say I was not also afraid at times.” But it was the strength and resilience that he witnessed among people that kept him going. “I watched a father attempt to care for his 8-year-old son, not being able to hold him, to comfort him in the last moments of his young life,” he said. “I saw families struggle with the devastation of not being able to respectfully bury and say farewell to their loved ones, and the overwhelming fear of stigma. Pictures make connections between people regardless of culture, language or geography. A camera is a voice to share somebodys story, and each picture is proof that our jobs do matter.”[49]

I though this was worthy of the talk page here are the pictures [50] now that we know something of the person who took them. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

World map colors

Sierra Leone stayed under 10 cases/week for two sequential reports. Unless someone objects, I'm going to drop them to orange. Pax 10:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

is that enough time?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguably <10/week could be yellow and <50/week orange ("arbitrarily moderate number"), but I've been letting the colors lag quite a bit even though numbers in all three are down substantially from the height. I don't think nine cases a week in a few pockets meets the definition of "widespread and intense". But let's go one more reporting cycle. Pax 01:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Map Colors

With Sierra Leone not having reported a case in over a week, I think it can be moved to yellow. Guinea is under 10 per week- orange or even yellow seems right. Italy also needs to be colored in yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.237.3 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

intro is untimely and dumb

It says currently but should say 2015.Ebola blood (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean "epidemic ... occurred in 2015"? 2013 to 2015 if we're lucky. 2013 to 2016 or beyond if we aren't. We don't know yet. Art LaPella (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree Art--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

a couple of things...

Re this edit in the Liberia section:

Comparing the data previously reported on this page to the present data shows an increase from April 5, 2015 to May 5, 2015 of 702 new cases and 308 deaths.

Why does our table show these deaths?

Also, the info box with all of the Ebola related articles is missing - could someone replace it? Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again, can someone replace this box? I have tried but can't figure out how to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would however im not too practical at it either (however Brian is, ill leave a note on his page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the box Art *a red-faced Gandy chuckles to herself*. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is too long

I've tagged the article for length - it is well over twice the length that is considered acceptable. I suggest that we split the Ebola info re any outbreaks (or disease related to a person that was transferred to another country for treatment) that occurred outside of West Africa into another article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

sounds good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I like splitting off articles. Since I also like statistics, if you're comparing the article to Wikipedia:Article size, it refers to "readable prose size" and User:Dr pda/prosesize, which says 75,905 bytes. Art LaPella (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Art, that could as well be written in another language for me. I just don't understand any of it. So, what does it say? Are we too long? Also, do you know how to bring the info box back? And to Ozzie, thanks for leaving a note for Brian - long time no see... I wonder how he's doing. I hope he's OK. Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, I thought your "well over twice the length that is considered acceptable" phrase probably refers to the WP:TOOBIG section. That section places this article in the "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" category. I also checked the length of some random Featured Articles; a median Featured Article length is 55,000, or a "readable prose size" of about half that much. I'll go look at article history to see where an infobox disappeared (I hadn't noticed). Art LaPella (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The nearest mirror is the key to locating the blackguard who removed the infobox, with this edit removing {{Ebola virus disease epidemic}}. Therefore, I will presume there is a consensus for putting it back, and go do it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is meant to be a comprehensive reference and thus should remain its size. I do think that additional pages should link to individual outbreaks, however.

This article was built progressively over the course of the last year, with new info generally just added. I'm sure a lot of summarizing can be done... a lot! As for what Art LaPella was referencing, a lot of the "size" of this article comes from the tables that summarize statistics, and not the actual paragraphs of text. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on summarizing and have trimmed a lot, however I feel that we need to keep in mind that this article is of great importance in that it has outlined exactly what can happen when a health emergency suddenly breaks out and the world is not prepared for it. You were here in the beginning, and I remember how we all were almost gnashing our teeth wondering what on earth was taking the WHO so long to do something - which has now been exposed. I'd like to keep a good document of this epidemic as it is the first of modern times and may be an example for future reference. To read the predictions, now as the epidemic is winding down, makes it seem like surly the sky was almost ready to fall, and yet I hesitate to go ahead and delete them because they demonstrate a real fear that was present at that time. Also, even though only a few cases are now being reported it sounds like the serious chronic syndrome will continue to be an issue for years to come, plus, of course, the fact that the economic integrity of the region is pretty much in shambles... On the other hand, I sure do agree that we no longer need all of those graphs that were so interesting at the height of the epidemic. I'd like to see the sections that record the spread outside of West Africa go to a split article as well - they were important while there was genuine fear that the disease could go from an epidemic to a pandemic. For now a brief summary would be better. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer agree (with everything you said)...BTW I respect your opinion and would appreciate it at Thrombocytopenia talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the evac cases to one para with links and refs to all the individual cases. I hope it's OK with everyone. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I try to keep the article from getting too long it seems that I need to constantly make decisions about information that I believe should go into the splits that we have created. This info for instance:

On 25 May, 6 individuals were placed in prison isolation after travelling with a corpse who had died of the virus.[64]

I feel that this sort of info would be better placed in the split for Guinea than in this article. I'd like some feedback please because it is not pleasant for me to need to constantly delete other's work. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer and summary style, specifically WP:Summary style#Rationale and WP:SYNC. Art LaPella (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Art. Gandydancer (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example of information that does not belong in this article, a Primary study on mice that was just published:

On 20 May, it was reported that USAMRIID had identified the molecular “lock” that the virus must open to gain entry to cells.[167] See the study info here: [51] Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you (partially), though it isn't a review article per MEDRS (reviews, position statements and books) I though it important, however you are correct its a primary ref so I agree (will look to see if any reviews secondary references have been made available thru PubMed on related subject) and will move forward looking to subtract bytes from the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie, it isn't only that it is a primary, it is something that should go in the Ebola article (if anywhere) rather than the West Africa Ebola article. BTW Ozzie, on a personal note, I do not agree with what is apparently the prevailing opinion of the med community in that there is no place for primary studies in med-related articles and Ebola virus disease is a perfect example. This outbreak (finally) brought a great deal of study of the Ebola virus and, what?, we should wait five years till reviews come in before we do any reporting of the new information? This is just another example of what has been a tremendous improvement of medical articles on one hand and the drift away from just plain common sense on the other. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I happen to think your right, not only in this instance (where we have to know now, if you will) but many other medical instances where time is lost because people play it safe...unfortunately it is what it is...at least we can research Ebola (there was a time late last year where it looked real "serious", and still is for many Guineans)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ebola-primary article

this is in regards to an early discussion with Gandydancer in regards to how many times one must wait 5 years for a review to come out to prove a primary study done so much early (per MEDRS)

Systematic Genome-wide Screening and Prediction of microRNAs in EBOV During the 2014 Ebolavirus Outbreak Published 26 May 2015

I believe the most relevant sentence is "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to systemic genome-wide analyze and predict the potential non-coding RNAs in the 2014 outbreak EBOVs along with their target genes." One year, not five. I also believe that this discussion (especially one this long) belongs at the MEDRS talk page. 5 years came up in a more relevant discussion: how the summary guideline should be applied to this article. Art LaPella (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, first off I was being sarcastic when I said "5 years" when I should have said "a few years" and I should have known better - sarcasm never works very well here. So Ozzie, you and Art believe that this is a systematic review...or what? Art, I looked (and looked) but I can't find a discussion re this study (or review, which I doubt) at MEDRS or MED. Could you please point me to the discussion. And, BTW, it is a copy vio to print this study on this talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

no not a systemic review, however a very good article, that will have to wait until a review comes out to legitamize it...IMO (is it a copyvio on the talk page, ill remove if so?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I eraser everything in the section, per Gandydancers advice heres the link[52]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that a discussion already exists at MEDRS, nor did I mean to debate whether it's a study, review, or systematic review. I meant that if you want to change a MEDRS rule (if it even IS a MEDRS rule) then it should be discussed there, not here (especially when the discussion is more than just a few sentences). Art LaPella (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Article seems to contradict itself with regard to containment in Liberia

The section on Liberia describes how there were no new cases after a specific date, but the table of total cases shows the number of cases in Liberia going up multiple times after this date. As a causal, non-expert reader, this seems like it needs to be clarified. ike9898 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're the third person to complain. The WHO report has the same problem. If the incoming case reports are months old, then one wonders why they are used without even mentioning the problem. A guess would be that we're trying to avoid embarrassing the Liberian government (which would be opposite to Wikipedia's usual WP:NOTCENSORED arrogance, and I almost have to wonder if there are other countries they aren't telling us about). Art LaPella (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Who's "we" in this context? If you think an edit needs making, make it. -- Impsswoon (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would, if the consensus has changed since this and the more recent edit war. Art LaPella (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd change it if I knew how - the WHO says this: [53] Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read anything in the report that recognizes the problem at all, so I don't see why we can't mention it. The phrase you keep reverting is "Comparing the data previously reported on this page to the present data shows an increase from April 5, 2015 to May 5, 2015 of 702 new cases and 308 deaths." Or we could more directly attribute the problem to the WHO report: "However, the WHO reports show a steady increase in total cases and deaths despite the Ebola-free status." Sierra Leone and Guinea have a similar problem, and we could mention it again in the text before the table. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

These charts contain official information from WHO, CDC and Ministries of Health, and thus must coordinate with what is being correlated. Note, however that this content should be clarified through text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8680:F680:80E2:17B0:1FC4:CE3 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Art, the current WHO says 4,769 with 0 new cases. Where does the 4,806 from 4/17 (as we show) come from? Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Opps, I meant to say 5/17. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I disagree with your figures. I believe the current WHO report is the May 20 report, which says 4806 not 4769. It's the May 13 report that says 4,769 (although our corresponding table entry says 10 May). And the 4,806 we show in the infobox says 20 May not 4/17, and the 4,806 we show in the table says 17 May not 4/17 and not 20 May, although its reference is dated 20 May. I also noticed that the table entries for April 26 and April 19 go to dead links.

Once all that is straightened out, your question remains: where did it come from? That is, how can there be more deaths every week if Liberia is Ebola free? Puzzling, because you're just re-asking my own question. I could re-offer some conspiracy theories (I might be more willing to join the cabal if I knew its purpose without having to guess) or I could just attribute the entire snafu to bureaucratic bungling from WHO (and wonder why Wikipedia seems to be covering for them). Since I don't know, I'm losing patience with an article that confidently announces 2+2=5 without mentioning why we have to say that. Art LaPella (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The extra cases could, of course, be retrospective adjustments as previously unrecorded older cases come to the attention of the statisticians. Has anyone considered contacting the WHO themselves directly with a question about this? -- The Anome (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they could, as discussed above, along with the question why we are using such figures without explanation if they are so completely misleading, especially in Ebola-free Liberia. (Contacting the WHO? I believe others here have a relationship with them.) Art LaPella (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if I get nominated to ask WHO, then as a copyeditor I will need some guidance on using a WHO email as a "Reliable Source". Art LaPella (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Art, I've never paid any attention to the numbers or charts and have no desire to start. I watch the article like a hawk as far as the copy goes, and that's enough for me. All I'd do is embarrass myself (more?) if I'd attempt to make intelligent suggestions re the numbers. However, as far as emails go, I feel certain that it would be a waste of time and not acceptable for the article's use either. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Too late, I just emailed them. Art LaPella (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't hurt to try! (I never could resist a good mystery) I'm glad that you did. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No response to my email. Can we fix the article? Art LaPella (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Still no response, but the latest WHO report shows no increase in cases or deaths for Liberia. Art LaPella (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much

The title does not match with the information within; this page also covers the US, Italy, the UK, and other non-West African countries. Non-WA information should be removed, moved, or the entire page should be renamed[moved.] -Mr. Man (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

New Liberia outbreak?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/world/africa/liberia-new-ebola-death-is-reported.html 72.187.46.255 (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The interesting question is whether this counts as an outbreak, or an imported case from elsewhere, and that in turn probably depends on whether he gave it to anyone else before he died. Time will tell, I guess. -- The Anome (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/611224/liberia-confirms-third-ebola-case-in-new-outbreak

I think time has told that this is another outbreak... 72.187.46.255 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It certainly has, and the article has been updated accordingly. As an outbreak in the contiguous area containing the other two countries where the epidemic is still established, it's certainly pretty much by definition part of the overall West African epidemic (as it must have come from somewhere), but it appears to be being limited successfully, with as yet no sign that there is any second epidemic in Liberia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference to underreporting

The image at the top right of the article contains the following: "Note: the CDC currently estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers". The sources cited are from September and October 2014. As with the references to the supposed substantially higher mutation rate, which was refuted by several recent studies, this is a relic of a more hysterical time. It was refuted in a matter of months by a study - endorsed by the CDC - which showed under-reporting was substantially lower - more like 17%, and certainly not double, let alone triple. It is certainly not a "current" estimate by the CDC. See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/fewer-ebola-cases-go-unreported-than-thought-study-finds-.html Donners (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Ozzie, you have left hundreds of edits, usually one small edit a day even if it means just changing one word, and you never leave edit summaries. Since I watch this article very closely and do updates in a timely manner, this means that I must check your edits every day since I have no idea what may have been added. That you now finally leave an edit summary saying, "please any editor ,should indicate in future reason for any reversion, thank you)," regarding the removal of one of your edits is extremely frustrating for me. I have had to again and again remove edits that would have bloated this article to a totally unacceptable length, edits that should have been put in the article splits rather than this one, and I have again and again used edit summaries each time. My patience has now run out. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

have answered at talk page/Gandydancer, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Countries with a single evacuee

@Gandydancer: About this - the current text "A single patient was evacuated to Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom" made me chuckle, as it sounded like one poor individual being carted off to all of those different countries. If I was that patient, I would ask them to just leave me alone after I got to the third country or so. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

So sorry! Here's what I thought happened: I did not note that Italy was kept and thought that you misunderstood that the patient in Italy was mentioned twice because he represented a case that resulted in the infection of another person. But yes, I agree that even if it would be to help science to better understand the epidemic that would be far too much to expect of one person, expecially while they were already quite sick! I reverted to your edit (with a red face :)) Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to be embarrassed. :) My edit summary wasn't exactly the most descriptive one, so I can see now that it would be easy to miss the double meaning and mistake the purpose of my edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2 cases

Should we mention somewhere, like the top of the infobox, that there are only 2 remaining known cases of Ebola? I think that's what readers want to know, not how many thousands of cases occurred last year as of this date and that date. Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Art, I'm not sure how to handle this. I agree that now as this winds down the total remaining cases in West Africa should be listed. Also, I wonder if the wording in the info box should be changed to read Nations that have experienced widespread transmission and include all three in that section? It currently reads: Nations with widespread transmission: Guinea • Sierra Leone and Nations with isolated cases: Liberia -- which no longer makes much sense. At least to me... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Yes, "Nations with widespread transmission" is clearly wrong. "Nations that experienced widespread transmission" (without "have") will be better when we get to zero, so jumping the gun a few days would be OK (it's possible there is no more transmission now). And change "Formerly affected nations" to "Other affected nations" because the word "formerly" applies to everything but the last two cases. Art LaPella (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, as the epidemic becomes history (like next year), "Nations with widespread transmission" would sound OK if we were discussing the Black Death. Art LaPella (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this a contradiction?

"There is as yet no known confirmed medication, vaccine, or treatment." but "all people at risk will now receive the new vaccine" Art LaPella (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

yes it is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

After this edit (and my comma edit) it says "There is as yet no known confirmed medication or treatment for Ebola virus disease" so I'm leaving it alone. Art LaPella (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

yes that improves it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)