Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Temporal evolution

The numbers in the "Guinea" column of this table appear to be inconsistent. Why? -- 109.193.15.4 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Numbers are regularly reassessed. They included suspected and probable cases - some turn out to be negative. Also, some turn out to be double-counted on review.Donners (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noted that the latest edit contained figures not reported by the CDC. I initially reverted it, but I decided to change the reference to the WHO, as the CDC link (which is ostensibly relied upon for the table) is lagging behind. Donners (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

30 July WHO Numbers don't add up.

Literally. Take previous numbers, add to them the number of new cases. They don't add up to the new numbers --66.41.154.0 (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Numbers are constantly reviewed. If suspected and probable cases test negative, they are removed. If previously unknown cases turn out to be Ebola, they are retrospectively added. Donners (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that adding the new cases to the previously reported total number of cases isn't even close to what they're now reporting for the new totals. It's not like they're reducing the previous number via case they found weren't ebola. They're increasing them. There's nothing we can do about it I guess. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Total deaths between April 10 to May 23 are also off by 2, clearly this data is to be taken as rough indicator at best 84.52.42.33 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola-Like Symptoms

Should the article cover suspected cases at all? Ebola symptoms are very similar with a wide variety of illness, thus i don't see the need to add reports on symptoms, without confirmation (i.e. see recent addition of New York case). prokaryotes (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say a little mention would be warranted, if we have sources discussing outbreak-related hype and hysteria: have one thing on people imagining outbreaks all over the world, and have another on the lunatics who think that Mr Brantly's disease is a national emergency for the USA. For example, 2009 flu pandemic in the United States has comments about crazy responses (e.g. a school district closing all schools after one student was found with the disease), and Oklahoma City bombing mentions the fact that investigators originally thought that it was the work of some Middle Eastern men. In the same way, we might as well mention the inaccurate initial assessments and off-the-wall ideas that spread among some members of the general population. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not unless they're reported by WHO, in my view. There have been over 10 countries reporting "suspected" cases which turned out to be false, including Spain, England, Gambia (three times!), Mali (13 cases) and Canada. It'll just become a mess, especially with the media hype at the moment. Donners (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's my point — mentioning it amid a section discussing the media hype. WHO probably won't pay that much attention to the media hype; if we cover it (which I say we most definitely should), we'll have to depend on sources that aren't primarily medical. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, for that use I agree. I was concerned about it being conflated with the facts of the outbreak, especially as some media reports of suspected cases had been creeping into the casualty list. A section on the media coverage, and the high level of awareness to potential cases (to put it politely) is certainly relevant. Donners (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And at the same time, we ought to mention the use of the media to fight the disease. Here's where the rap song belongs, for example. At the same time, see today's Heritage article, "As the Fight Against Ebola Intensifies: Ellen Pleads with the Media"; President Sirleaf is calling for the media to do more to increase awareness, in part to persuade people who think it's all a hoax. By the way, I apologise for relying so heavily on Heritage; it's been carrying more articles with wide-scale relevance than competitors such as The New Dawn (today's biggest headline) or The New Democrat (today's biggest headline, three weeks old), while I've not seen any recent coverage in The Inquirer, and the website of The Analyst is currently under major maintenance. I really know nothing about Leonese or Guinean publications, so I can't bring in anything but Liberian. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

CDC

Please remember the context in which this is occurring, and do not use American abbreviations with separate local meanings. "CDC" occurs with great frequency in Liberian publications, but virtually always as a reference to the Congress for Democratic Change. I can't remember ever seeing "CDC" used for the Centers for Disease Control in any Liberian publication. Regardless of the usage of "CDC" in publications from other countries, the full name is unambiguous in all contexts. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use WHO updates, not CDC. CDC updates are a copy of WHO updates, but later and whit some mistakes. For example, the WHO 5 June update reports 81 cases in Sierra Leone (31 confirmed, 3 probable, and 47 suspected), but the CDC update talks of 31 cases confirmed and 81 unconfirmed! Can someone update the map? http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resources/distribution-map-guinea-outbreak.html Mtchief (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New map available as of August 8, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/images/outbreaks/guinea-liberia-sierra-leone-2014-current.jpg 132.216.227.13 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties List Clean Up?

So we think that these totals should reflect the WHO/CDC numbers like the timeline? (It would be cleaner and official, not speculation). Also the notes that are added after some countries really don't need to be there as that information can be added in the main article. (And why is the note of the Nigerian case of the Liberian that traveled to Lagos there, but not, for example the notes of the many Guinean cases that travlled to Sierra Leone and Liberia? added too). And Finally the US being added, aren't those cases of the health workers counted by WHO/CDC (and that list) as Liberian cases already?, so why do they need to be added twice. Shouldn't we count the WHO/CDC, as they will only count them once, and where they are first registered. Rump1234 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be a quick-reference to the latest data in the table. Having conflicting numbers is confusing, especially when there is no citation for the casualty list. At present, it is unsourced and contradictory to the offical numbers, which is particularly bad when it's the first thing page visitors see. Donners (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the superfluous info. already prior to reading this (what's it they say about "great minds" ;) ?), but those numbers should absolutely be consistent with the table and based on the same reliable sources too. -Oosh (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah official numbers are best. I edited the tally to reflect the latest WHO/CDC info like the timeline. So hopefully it stays consistent with the timeline now.Rump1234 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WHO can take several days to release a new update. Any numbers confirmed by a country's ministry of health should go on the table - such as the second Nigerian death and the Saudi death.70.209.201.191 (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Then you wind up with a table from multiple sources, reliant on the mainstream media which is often outdated or inaccurate. See the Moroccan "case" as a prime example. Media were still publishing it as a confirmed case - and people were adding it to this page - based on an old and refuted announcement. The Saudi case is not confirmed as being Ebola. Donners (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that Wikipedia should be able to get accurate information out quicker than the WHO, but I'm not convinced. We will see whether the WHO confirms that Saudi case. As mentioned elsewhere on this page, suspected cases in new countries come and go with alarming regularity. For now I think I'll enforce the policy agreed above Armouredduck (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia could get information out quicker, but that is explicitly not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:notnews.--Taylornate (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Type of English

I've just put {{Use British English}} in the article, as I believe it's the most appropriate, but it probably is up for debate... My case is that the language variant used falls along colonial lines, Sierra Leone & Nigeria were British, Liberia American, and Guinea French (so we can safely ignore that for the purposes of this discussion). Given it's 2 vs. 1, and there are (slightly) more cases/deaths (as of 12 August 2014), UK should win out over US in this instance. -Oosh (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as Leonese English? West African Commonwealth English? Liberian English is well recognised, but it's a weird mix of US and UK along with occasional influences from Mandingo and other native languages, and I'd advise against attempting to declare it our standard here. I've read lots of Liberian publications from the 1960s to the present (including checking the major newspapers' websites daily), but I still can't write in their style — let alone writing in a more-rustic style with vocabulary from Warren d'Azavedo's Some Terms from Liberian Speech, which I can't do at all. The best I can do is the use of occasional weird-in-other-contexts terms, such as "boss" twice in Drug Enforcement Agency, and I doubt that people less familiar with LR English could easily do better. It might be equally hard writing in Leonese English, if it's even a recognised variety. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an (albeit spartan) article on Sierra Leonean English, as there is for Nigerian English, but I'm not suggesting we use either (or Liberian English). This choice is, as I see it, between British and American to simply avoid "fights" over -ise/ize, -or/-our, etc. -Oosh (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear: I was attempting to say "I agree, and here's why". Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Examination of sources for determination of strain

I'm a writer who has researched Ebola as a hobby for almost 10 years. I have zero Wikipedia experience other than using it for research. I often follow sources randomly and is how I found this oddity. I had to make an account to just post this and did so because I consider it so important.

This is what I found when I looked at the sources saying this is Ebola Zaire and I believe it needs more eyes on it.

There were 3 reports listed as sources 11-13.

11. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1404505?query=featured_home&&#t=article) This source is the initial study done to determine the strain. It's dated 4.16.14. It appears to be solid research backed by a large number of doctors. It shows this not to be Zaire, but something 97% similar and shows where those differences are in the genome.

12. (http://epidemic.bio.ed.ac.uk/ebolavirus_phylogeny) This is the second source and the first one that says it's Zaire. It seems to be a more general, much less precise reanalysis of the data. It also seems to reference the first study and is dated only the day after.

13. (http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/dpc/epidemic-a-pandemic-alert-and-response/outbreak-news/4071-ebola-haemorrhagic-fever-guinea-30-march-2014.html) This source is the whole reason I'm typing this. This source is listed as the source for the third/last study, yet is dated more than two weeks before the extensive April 16th study. What would be a real source for this doesn't seem to exist.

It appears that there was an initial study, then a quick relook, and the 3rd was never done in any form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The first source says explicitly that it is Zaire, not least in the title. It is a 97% match for particular Zaire strains in the past (that's based on analysis at the Pasteur Institute at the very early stages). All Zaire strains vary a bit because of genetic drift. What it concludes is that it is an new clade; ie. a strain of Zaire which evolved parallel to the others in the rest of Africa. However, that conclusion has been twice refuted by later studies which place it in the known lineage of Zaire. Donners (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand what I'm saying. This second study you say refutes it doesn't exist. That's source 13. The April 16th study was the first study and shows only 97% similarity to Zaire. Then the source 12 link is the second study that was completed within 24 hours of the first that shows opposite results. (Edit: Opposite results here meaning not diff strain but Zaire.) Then the source for the third study is dated March 30. That's 17 days BEFORE the second study. Upon further study, I can't find anything on the internet that would be a legitimate source for the last/3rd study. All sources for it leads back to this fake source dated 18 days before it could have been done.--jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're said, in reference to source 11, "It shows this not to be Zaire, but something 97% similar". Read the source. It says explicitly in the abstract "Virologic investigation identified **Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV)** as the causative agent." How can you say it shows it not to be Zaire when it explicitly says that it is?! The studies which refute its conclusions about the **clade** are these, which were published subsequently:

http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/phylogenetic-analysis-of-guinea-2014-ebov-ebolavirus-outbreak-2/

http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/clock-rooting-further-demonstrates-that-guinea-2014-ebov-is-a-member-of-the-zaire-lineage/

The sources have been mixed up. They should be the ones cited, not 12 and 13. I have corrected them. Donners (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, very interesting links there. But still, nothing is saying the 3% isn't right. 'The overall genetic diversity within the Zaire ebolavirus species is low, with a maximum 2.7% nucleotide difference between sequences. Within a single outbreak, genetic diversity was even lower.' According to that, 3% is more than it should be and would make a new strain. Source: http://jvi.asm.org/content/87/5/2608.full --jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

CDC still has 97% stated as the similarity percent on the newest update page: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/guinea/index.html They stand by that number, so why not stand by it being outside its normal genetic range according to research? No one seems to argue with the amount of difference, only what that difference means.--jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

All known Zaire ebolaviruses seem to have evolved from the 1976 isolate. That time period doesn't give much room for diversity, but it will only increase with time. This graph makes it very clear: http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/files/2014/04/EBOV_cds_mb_path.png Donners (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's close. And interesting. The next mutation will almost certainly be far outside the criteria for a new one. Thanks.--jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I swear, I'm not a nut or conspiracy theory person. The actual sources given in this Wikipedia article don't show a third study. If someone has a real source for #13 then I would love to see it. I'm trying to find one and can't. Been trying all day.--jerry

Edit: This is the sentence clearly showing that #13 is the 3rd study, aka the second to refute. (An initial report suggested that it was a new strain of ebolavirus,[11] but this was refuted by later studies which placed it within the lineage of the Zaire strain.[12][13]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please. If anyone reading this who doesn't think I'm a nut can get a message to them over there. It's got to be tested again.--jerry www.ephiroll.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Got to be" - why? All viruses drift somewhat, that's why the criteria say things like "> or < 50% difference" rather than "is identical". A virus that drifts slightly more or less is probably going to be no different for vaccine or treatment purposes - the treatment so far for all species (which are a lot more than a few percent different) is identical: rehydrate etc. Any current vaccine will surely be developed and tested against this strain and not some arbitrary reference strain, or target commonalities between all 4 species. So I'm not sure what "has" to be said, or has "got to be tested again", ore why anyone needs to "get a message through". Even if it is more of a drift than a few percent I'm pretty sure that will be within spec for research on the virus as explained. If not, then Wikipedia is not the place to look for communication on it, we just write articles based on current recognized information. As above, currently this is that it's firmly within EBOV as of now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Table suggestion

Can we please modify the table of cases and fatalities to add an extra column for each nation and in aggregate showing a mortality percentage? It would be really useful. Neukenjezelf (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But we don't know the mortality percentage. It's not a simple deaths/cases: some patients alive today may die tomorrow. Neither is it deaths / cases-delayed-by-n-days because there isn't a magic value of n. The mortality rate may also depend on the condition of the patient when first treated: those entering a hospital early may have a much better chance than those who come in very ill. We need a source for the mortality rate. Glrx (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The mortality rate is really unreliable, so it wouldn't be useful information. There's an article discussing that here: http://epidemic.bio.ed.ac.uk/ebolavirus_fatality_rate Donners (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How does case reporting work?

I am worried that case reporting is so difficult that we don't know the extent of the Ebola outbreak. Can anyone provide a description of how the reporting system is supposed to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.35.33 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they(WHO) just provide a SWAG. (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) --Aflafla1 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, news sources are starting to discuss the likelihood that the "official" WHO numbers substantially understate the size of the outbreak, because of widespread reluctance to report cases. I just added this point to the article with a citation. —Patrug (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another important Sierra Leone doctor is infected

'Dr Modupe Cole, a senior physician at the country`s main referral facility, Connaught Hospital, was infected after treating a patient who died and was later found to have had the virus, the ministry of Health and Sanitation said Saturday.' http://www.africareview.com/News/Another-Sierra-Leone-doctor-contracts-Ebola/-/979180/2414158/-/kfkk7cz/-/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephiroll (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good info, thanks. I added this to the article, with the corrected ref link. –Patrug (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

The article has material about patient 0 that is closely paraphrased from the New York Times article that was its source. Is this permitted?

• Denise Grady; Sheri Fink (Aug. 9, 2014). "Tracing Ebola's Breakout to an African 2-Year-Old". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

states

Patient Zero in the Ebola outbreak, researchers suspect, was a 2-year-old boy who died on Dec. 6, just a few days after falling ill in a village in Guéckédou, in southeastern Guinea. Bordering Sierra Leone and Liberia, Guéckédou is at the intersection of three nations, where the disease found an easy entry point to the region.

A week later, it killed the boy’s mother, then his 3-year-old sister, then his grandmother. All had fever, vomiting and diarrhea, but no one knew what had sickened them.

Two mourners at the grandmother’s funeral took the virus home to their village.

The WP article states

Researchers believe that the first human case of the Ebola virus disease leading to the 2014 outbreak was a 2-year-old boy who died on 6 December a few days after falling ill in the Guinean village of Guéckédou. A week later the same illness killed his mother, then his three year-old sister became ill and died, and then his grandmother. They all had fever, vomiting, and diarrhea, but it was as yet unknown what had caused their illness. Next two people who had attended the grandmother's funeral carried the disease to their village and a health worker carried it to yet another village.

The original insertion of the material.

Glrx (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It maybe could use some editing so as to reorder information or use additonal sources. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry... I really am... Ugh... I am so sorry... I wish i could repair it... I am so sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:E000:7:6680:280:AEFF:FE27:502D (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now had a go at recounting the same facts without the use of as much literal copying / close paraphrase as the previous wording. It now reads:

Researchers believe that the first human case of the Ebola virus disease leading to the 2014 outbreak was a 2-year-old boy who died in December 2013 in Guéckédou Prefecture, Guinea.[9] His mother, sister and grandmother then died shortly afterward, after falling ill with symptoms consistent with Ebola infection. Following this, the disease was carried to other villages by people infected by this first outbreak.[1]

The only remaining duplicated fragment, other than individual nouns, is now the text "was a 2-year-old boy", which is pretty much dictated by the combination of the facts and the constraints of normal English grammar and word ordering. Any extra sources that can be provided so that this text can be multi-sourced would be greatly appreciated. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you accidentally reverted my addition of the actual name of the patient zero village, which I got from another source [1] -- Tim Starling (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Anome. Good job. There's no problem with repeating facts. There's a problem when the presentation follows original outline and says the same thing. Simple substitutions don't avoid copyright problems. Thanks. I think 3-year old sister is important because they probably played together. Glrx (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Censored news about real reasons for Liberian outbreak?

Yesterday the office of the National Chronicle of Liberia newspaper was raided by the police "Police Besiege Chronicle Newspaper". Daily Observer. and their publisher arrested "Liberia: Chronicle Publisher Arrested - Newspaper Shutdown". . Their newest articles informing about the coming coup and likely reasons for the ebola outbreak (corruption, incompetence) have been pulled down. I have quickly archived them (e.g. here) and compiled them all together here, with a quick intro: http://futurepresent-past.blogspot.com/2014/08/true-stories-about-ebola-part-4.html Do you think we should dig into such reports of the underlying cause here? National Chronicle of Liberia is not a newspaper of record by far, but e.g. the All Africa newspaper would foot the bill.

outlandish opening line

How can anyone state this was a leaked bioweapon from the CIA - see second line of this article and use a crazy conspiracy web site as "the proof".

This is outrageous.

How can you state such things with no proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.195.81 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by an IP-hopping vandal who will be blocked in due course.--ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ireland

There was an Ebola scare today/yesterday in Ireland, which looks to be negative. However, if Ghana is included, Ireland probably should be. BBC, BBC, UTV. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of Possible US Government Role in Ebola Outbreak!

Numerous times today, I attempted to shed some light on a very underreported yet IMPORTANT aspect of the Ebola tragedy, namely the research done by US Department of Defense agencies on Ebola vaccines and bioweapons applications. It is very unfair for close minded people to CENSOR even mentioning this possibility. It seems unlikely that the US government deliberately started the epidemic, but there are numerous indicators that they opened a Pandoras Box, and a lab accident unleashed this. Here are sources:

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-defense-department-spent-140m-ebola-treatment-research-theyre-getting-close-1566666

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-08-2014/128247-ebola_biological_weapon-0/

http://themorningconsult.com/2014/08/federal-governments-ebola-story-rife-inconsistencies/

http://www.blackherbals.com/Emerging_Viruses.html

http://www.economicphttp://www.ufo-blogger.com/2014/08/ebola-virus-bioweapon-us-government.htmlolicyjournal.com/2014/07/a-link-between-ebola-outbreak-and-us.html

http://www.rense.com/general96/ebostrain.html

http://www.waykiwayki.com/2014/08/ebola-man-made-biological-weapon.html

http://www.astrofreaks.net/2013/01/31/how-ebola-aids-cancer-were-created-in-the-cia-labs/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-troubling-truth-behind-the-ebola-outbreak/5377653

http://www.intellihub.com/u-s-government-patent-ebola-virus-2009/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/05/Ebola-Across-America

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/05/us-government-military-research-program-helped-identify-experimental-ebola/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6F00:538:F4D4:F8C7:7239:B7E0 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The concern with this has been that these sources are not considered reliable, and that the edits appear to constitute original research or original synthesis. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Or, to put it bluntly, it's conspiracy theory bullshit.--ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. That too, obviously. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently not able to check the what the sources actually say, but wouldn't Fox News count as reliable? I'm just an IP, but would like to know more about our Wiki's policy. Thanks.72.224.172.14 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fox article might be reliable, but it doesn't support the assertion that a DoD lab accident caused the current outbreak, or that the US was involved in the outbreak inany way. It seems to have been used speciously to support a conspiracy theory. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Shouldn't we have a 'Conspiracy Theory' section though?72.224.172.14 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Only if the theory was notable enough to have widespread recognition and be noted as such in RS. A fringe theory on a couple websites is not the same as, say, the theories regarding JFK's death, moon landing etc. The latter may be equally crazy, but they're notable, if for nothing more than they have staying power crazy. Until this theory starts showing up in discussion as RS's, I think it's superbly fringe.12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources referenced aren't supporting the conspiracy theory's claims. That Fox News article is entirely logical but says nothing about a current US bioweapons program. The US and Soviet bioweapons programs were closed (as far as I know) prior to Ebola having been well-studied. The DoD, DTRA, DARPA, and others fund Ebola research (and research for many other Select Agents), and that's public knowledge. (The NIH has very little interest.) But researching the weaponization of Ebola and others isn't be performed. On top of that, most of the research isn't done with the infectious agent, but with less infectious models, since BSL-4 work is so expensive. Snd0 (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cases table,,,real numbers

"Under-reporting of cases is a problem especially in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The WHO said it was now working with Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to produce "more realistic estimates"......http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/22/us-health-ebola-who-idUSKBN0GM0RW20140822....... there is a real concern, cited in this reliable source, should we not note this on the ongoing- CASES _table_ -to give the reader a better appreciation of where the virus is in real numbers?,,,,,,,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The fourth sentence in the section "Timeline of the outbreak" already states:

WHO has stated the reported numbers "vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak".

I will add your ref to that statement.

Glrx (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

West Point?

Why is there no mention of the events in West Point, Monrovia? Have the regular editors of this article all gone on vacation? Abductive (reasoning) 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's under the Rumours and Denial section. I added it days ago. Donners (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional clarification for timeline table

It seems that there is a lot of confusion about several aspects of the Cases/Mortality table---for example, search this edit page for occurrences of the word 'probable'. The article doesn't note that 'probable' cases are included in the cases estimate, and thus we get weird numbers. At the time of writing, there were 13 cases in Nigeria on 9 August, and then only 12 cases on 11 August. People posting queries for clarifications to this talk page probably represents only a small fraction of people confused by the table.

Might I suggest that some additional notes are added below the table, to the effect of what several people have already stated on this talk page? Something like: "Numbers for cases and deaths are in constant flux. Numbers reported for cases may include probable or suspected cases; numbers are revised downward if a suspected case turns out to be negative". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.29.210 (talk • contribs)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Better title?

I edited the box a little bit, just wanted to say it's great that an article about this event finally exists and I hope more information becomes avaliable so we can expand it. Does anyone think that "2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak" or "2014 West African Ebola outbreak" might be better options for the article's title? I was going to move it at first, but decided to go ahead and ask others before doing so. Skycycle (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I support your suggestion Skycycle. I felt this article was important to share for the awareness factor and welcome help from more experienced contributors. Lozion (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I also support the move proposal, the outbreak isn't confined in Guinea anymore.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd go with "2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving the article to 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, for any further ideas or suggestions please keep the discussion under this heading. Skycycle (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be renamed "2014 Ebola Outbreak" given the cases in Nigeria and suspected cases elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.206.12 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that Nigeria is in West Africa so the geographical part of the article name still seems accurate. However, shouldn't the name of the article be renamed "2013-14 West Africa Ebola virus Outbreak" as it is now believed it originated in December 2013? Saxmund (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

More Information on Purported Biological Weapons (BW) Origin of Ebola Pandemic

This really merits inclusion, given the vast number of sources and emerging information that strongly suggests Ebola has either been engineered, deliberately released, and/or is the subject/product of weaponization research by various governments, the USA, or a non governmental entity.

1. From Nigeria: https://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/2014/08/17/a-virus-called-ebola-and-the-secret-club-from-hell-by-femi-fani-kayode/
2. Testimony of UK and Russian experts: http://rt.com/news/178992-ebola-biological-weapon-terrorists/
3. Statements by world renowned former chief medical officer of Russia: http://www.allvoices.com/article/17630470
4. Exploration of profit motive in Ebola release: http://www.4thmedia.org/2014/08/corporate-genocide-ebola-bioweapon-loosed-for-drug-co-profit/
5. Relation of Soros Foundation and Gates Foundation to Ebola: http://humansarefree.com/2014/08/george-soros-and-bill-melinda-gates.html
6. Federation of American Scientists declares Ebola an effective bioweapon: http://fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/factsheets/ebolafactsheet.html
7. Future Use of Ebola by Terrorists: http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letter-ebola-could-be-used-as-a-terrorist-weapon-20140809
8. Ebola, BioTerror, and theUSA : http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article47032.html
9. CDC and Ebola: http://drleonardcoldwell.com/2014/08/08/dual-story-ebola-virus-is-a-hybrid-bio-weapon-invented-by-cdc-what-to-do/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6f00:538:c6a:a0c6:3e5b:2901 (talk • contribs)

1. is a conspiracy blog
2. is rt.com, which I believe has a low rating as an RS
3. is 2. rewritten
4. is a conspiracy post "In a 24-minute Special Report prepared for public broadcasting on Vimeo’s Revolution Television channel, "
5. is a conspiracy post
6. says "it might be possible" and "Ebola has not been used as a bioweapon"
7. a random letter to the editor of a local paper
8. "Politics / Conspiracy Theory"
9. self-published conspiracy theory site

Net RS result: some people in the field have considered the possibility that Ebola could be used as a bio-weapon and not ruled it out. Not relevant for this article, and a stretch even for the Ebola article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Agree with User:Rich Farmbrough, the claim fails RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The above does not meet WP:RS. Since the Ebolavirus has been knocking about since at least 1976, presumably the conspiracy theorists believe that whatever evil mastermind they think is behind it has been playing this as a long game -- and keeping it a secret -- over 40 or more years. Regardless of the plausibility or otherwise of any other aspect of these theories, keeping any kind of secret over that sort of timespan is an absolutely extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. _{(On another note, it's nice to see IPv6 deployment is at last getting real traction.)} -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is an occurring event which is far from played out yet, therefore it is inherently unstable, and fails the GA criteria. I will therefore quickfail this nomination. Feel free to nominate it again once the outbreak is over. See also.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cases before casualties

There seem to be certain users who constantly switch the cases/deaths infobox, so that it mentions the number of deaths before the number of cases. Considering that this infobox is based on the official statistical announcements by the WHO, it should also list the number of cases and deaths in the same way the WHO does, with cases before deaths. Wackelkopp (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I understand people wanting to put number of deaths first since it seems a lot more intuitive that way (it implicitly hints at a case fatality rate I guess - which of course can in fact be quite misleading for reasons already discussed on this Talk page). 132.216.234.227 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Title no longer accurate

Now that two separate EVD outbreaks have occurred in west Africa in 2014, Guinea in spring, D.R. Congo now, the current title of the article is probably no longer specific enough to distinguish between the two separate outbreaks. It will probably be the case that a separate article for the D.R. Congo outbreak is created (if it hasn't already). So I'm proposing that the article be renamed something like 2014 Ebola virus outbreak (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone) or Spring 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. --Aflafla1 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh - On second thought, since D.R. Congo is not really in West Africa, but in Southern Africa, maybe the title is still accurate enough. --Aflafla1 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been confusing perhaps because the WHO refused to confirm an epidemic until they had done their own testing. But they did finally come out with a statement on 8/26. I did take the info we had and create a new section with it because even though it is not part of the current outbreak people will want to know its status. I'm going to clean up the section now that we have some sound information when I have time, though of course anyone is welcome to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the Guinea outbreak start in 2013, not 2014? Or is that being too pedantic. And if the DR Congo outbreak is identified as being genetically similar to the Guinea one, should we then regard it as still being part of the same outbreak? Saxmund (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We are using the year it was first diagnosed. Here is the info about the Congo outbreak: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WHO casualty count has stopped incremently

Why has the body count stopped tallying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.70.120 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They had to close a lab in Sierra Leone, which may be affecting their ability to process numbers. Liberia has reported 300+ cases between 20 and 24 August - http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20101%20%20August%2024%202014.pdf Donners (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Aug 26th WHO update

Seen at WHO press page. Those numbers are pretty much the same as the ones that came out a day or so ago for figures from the 21st to the 24th, and not for the 25th or after. Just 2 sources to verify that are here and here. Not sure why the WHO report suggests that it includes the 25th and 26th unless they removed enough cases from the official count to come suspiciously close to the 24th numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blehair (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Containment section

I removed this copy:

Animal to human transmission through contact with dead/alive animals (bush meat) infected with the Ebola virus is an added complication. Animal to human transmission is indicated as the initial source of the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This type of transmission is an important risk factor at the beginning of an Ebola outbreak.

This is not a containment problem. It is suspected that all of the outbreaks begin with an initial contact with a wild animal and then spread from human to human. Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy

I Agree with you on this statement. It is covered under the Ebola page.

BrianGroen (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New article for DRC outbreak

I propose moving the current section about the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo into a new article. The outbreak has been confirmed to be unrelated (at least to the best of our knowledge), so it does not belong in this article, especially since it's clearly been shown (even in this article) to be completely unrelated. Thoughts? Llightex (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The WHO update - http://www.who.int/csr/don/2014_08_27_ebola/en/ - makes it clear that it is a distinct outbreak, arising from a person having contact with the meat of an infected animal and then proceeding to infect others. Donners (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. It is not at all unusual for an outbreak to occur in this area every few years and unless this one becomes large, which is less likely than as has occurred in West Africa, it is not notable of and by itself. It is, however, appropriate to include a brief section in this article because the spread to other areas is a great concern for this outbreak. Gandydancer (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy. This outbreak might be related to the west African outbreak due to the migration paterns of the fruit bats. I have seen it in a article . will see if i can find the source.

BrianGroen (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove countries after incubation period.

I suggest we remove countries after 21 (incubation Period).days of possible cases if no case is confirmed. BrianGroen (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any countries to which this applies? I would think that there might be value in keeping track of the responses of the countries, even if no cases? For example, the article states that Ghana built special facilities in response to 'suspected' cases. I think that even if the cases do not turn out to be accurate, the information is still relevant. So then maybe instead of "removing" countries, they can be *moved* to the "Other" section? F Camp (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed ghana can be moved "responses" as there are relevant sections, however the first reported case was dated 11 August.. Will move it after 21 days or confirmation of no active case. BrianGroen (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

typo: President Sirleaf,s office said

Should be

President Sirleaf's office said

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 August 2014‎

Done. Glrx (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Deaths/cases graph

Could be intesesting to have a graph with the deaths and cases vs date. The source should be Center for Dis. Cont. But should be splitt by country or add all to one? I can do it fast in Mathematica but I think is better to use a Wikimedia SVG Chart in order to let anyone update it. Could anyone help me on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopoldo Martin R (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

new numbers, april 17th: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2014_04_17_ebola/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozion (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new one, but prior to reading this and Wikimedia SVG Chart's in general, so it's SVG but not easily updatable unfortunately (converted from Excel). I'll try to keep it up-to-date until I can get my head around these or someone beats me to it. -Oosh (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've created an SVG plot that also has switch translations for several languages. The data is plotted as points rather than a piecewise linear function. New points can be added by following the pattern in the SVG file. That is, download the most recent SVG file from Commons, edit it in a text editor, and then upload the changed file. The data portion looks like:

    <!-- Data points -->
    <!-- x coordinate = Julian Day * 2  (1 Jan 14 = 0, 2 Jan 14 = 2) -->
    <!-- y coordinate = -0.1 * individuals -->

    <!-- 1 Aug 2014 1604 887 -->
    <use xlink:href="#markCt" x="424" y="-160.4"><title>1604</title></use>
    <use xlink:href="#markXt" x="424" y="-88.7" ><title> 887</title></use>

edited to use specific marks. Glrx (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional languages or partial translations can slso be added. Glrx (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be great to see graphs for each individual country. I have done so in Excel for Liberia and Sierra Leone, and they are really different, L seems like a curve, SL a straight line. Dekritischelezer (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting ready a new one by using OpenOffice Calc to be able to update easily, as your language detection didn't seem to work out properly (and for personal use to detect bad updates through lots of rules). It's taking some more time though, as I'm reviewing all data according to CDC, thus having to cope with lots of issues, even with some incorrect sums. Sums are sums, I can't believe CDC making this kind of mistakes with such an international official media plus such an important matter that is reviewed million times! -.-

Anyway, thanks. --Guarddon (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean the language detection didn't seem to work out properly? WP requires language to be selected specifically with lang="zh"; I added a Chinese language version above.

Yes, the data is buggy. I'd like to include earlier points from CDC, but I'm about to give up on that data.

The country plots are very different. I thought I could throw all of them on a semilog plot, but they ran over each other.

Glrx (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have plotted cases on semilog too. I encourage someone to set it up, maybe just the cases is enough and plot up to 4 countries for comparison. Liberia looks to be dominant now and different infection patterns - unless the graph reflects under-reporting.

Cjacooper (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've relocated the graphic to the semi-log discussion below. Didn't see it initially. Apologies. Cjacooper (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cases per day and Deaths per day graphs are both wrong. They should be bar graphs. For example, look at the highest peak of "Deaths per day". It's plotted as 60.5 deaths on Aug 18th and it slopes downwards on both sides -- as though on the preceding day, and on the following day, there were fewer deaths. That's absolutely false! The WHO reported 121 new deaths for the two-day interval of Aug 17-18. That gives 60.5 deaths for each day: Aug 17th and Aug 18th. The graph shows the correct number, 60.5, but it fails to plot it on each of the 2 days! Instead, it's shown for just one day! Those sharp peaks should **all** be histogram bars, and both Aug 17 and Aug 18 should be plotted as having 60.5 deaths each. I can provide a correct bar graph, to replace this one, and which could be updated by any Wikipedia contributor or editor. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Trend/Fit line

This is WP:OR and should be removed. Only the WP:RS data should be represented. -Oosh (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What is not realiable, the fit, the derivative, the the points of cases vs time or the points cases per day vs time?

The fitting was done to the cases vs time and the derivative of this fit was shown as cases per day line, and the points are what some people is asking to add as the cases per day of each data step.--Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

All of it. I'm not questioning the accuracy of your work. The problem is it is your work (WP:OR). It is not taken from a reliable source in the wiki sense of the term(WP:RS).

I suggest you remove the fit on the cases, make it a simple scatter plot, the trend is self-evident anyway so we lose nothing and remain within the bounds of wii.

-Oosh (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Deseased per day Ebola 2014

Thanks! Now I understand the issue. Please take a look to the new version and let me know if it looks suitable fow wii.--Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the data for the per day chart coming from? -Oosh (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a poor graph. The data is discrete, so it should not use a piecewise linear graph. There's also a problem with timing. If there are no reports for 3 days, and then there's a report of 60 cases, should those cases be assigned to the day of the report or spread out over the three days? The graph has too many problems. Glrx (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I count two problems. That's not very many problems... and I'm not even convinced they are actually problems. I don't understand why you think a piecewise linear graph is inappropriate for discrete data. For timing, I think it's obvious that the proper thing to do is have one data point for each report, in units of new cases per day. So, 60 cases over 3 days would give you 20. I assume that is what he's been doing. I support updating the chart and putting it back in the article.--Taylornate (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The graph is done in Mathematica using this:

DateListPlot[{Unexy[Drop[datess, 1],Differences[cases]/Differences[datess]*1.*3600*24],Unexy[Drop[datess, 1],Differences[deaths]/Differences[datess]*1.*3600*24]}, PlotRange -> All, Frame -> True, FrameLabel -> {"Date", "Casualties per day"}, LabelStyle -> {Medium}, Joined -> True, PlotLegends -> Placed[{"Cases per Day", "Deaths per day"}, Right], PlotStyle -> {Directive[Thick, Red], Directive[Black, Thick]}]

Where Unexy just mergue x data to y data inside a single array {{x1,y1},{x2,y2},...}

Drop delete the first point.

Differences take the difference between consecutive data points

And datess is the absolute timing in seconds with is the way that I like more to work with temporal data.

All the other is just format for the plot.

Feel free to draw it again or ask me to change it. Add it to the article if you want.--Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Be advised that this discussion has continued below under #Ambiguity_in_Timeline_Graph.--Taylornate (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Total mortality

The article claims "Total mortality" is "729 deaths / 1323+ cases (55.1%)". This seems original and, in fact, pretty bad research. You simply can't calculate mortality like that, since it takes a while for a patient to die after diagnosis. So for real mortality, you need to divide the number of deaths today by the number of cases x days earlier (not today!), where x is the average number of days from diagnosis it takes a doomed patient (a patient who will be killed by the disease) to die. Such a calculcation, if done correctly, would obviously be too complicated for being WP:NOR compliant. Please consider deleting the misleading mortality percentage. It can be added back once the outbreak has stopped and the last patient has died. The alleged "mortality" percentage currently depends a lot more on the speed with which the disease is spreading (case growith) than on mortality. Because the speed is still increasing, we see this claimed "total mortality" percentage dropping every day... which is of course nonsense. --rtc (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As i understand this figure could be used as an indicator about the virus evolution. So the graph shows how the mortality changes over time. However, it is unclear how reliable the numbers are, since it has been reported that people do not report when ill. And it could be different for Europeans or Asians etc. See also this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#Prognosis prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please actually read what I wrote before you reply. Even assuming perfectly reliable numbers, the calulated "total mortality" can be "used as an indicator about the virus evolution" only after the outbreak has ceased and the last victim has died. This is a mathematical fact! Please remove the number for now. It's original research and bad research. --rtc (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The article claimed no such thing. It claimed a lower bound on the fatality rate of 55.1%. The rest of the (still included) section on mortality rate certainly does do a lot of hand waving original research to suggest a fatality rate of 65% for the current outbreak. The section deleted did no such thing, and should be restored, suitably updated as new figures come in. I'd hapily add 'apparent' or 'probable' lower bound to the description of the figure. In fact, added back in updated with latest figures Pmpdurrant (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An estimated fatality rate of 55.1% is completely inaccurate for a myriad of reasons. These are outlined in the Wikipedia article under "Fatality Rate." To reiterate, the inaccuracy of a current Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is due to: Differences in testing policies, the inclusion of probable and suspected cases (these figures ebb and flow as some are confirmed to be/not to be Ebola), the rate of new cases, and actual cases that have not run their course. The rate of new cases to cases that have not run their course (people who have either succumbed to the disease or been declared disease-free) is possibly the most important aspect as to why there are accuracy problems with coming up with a CFR for a current epidemic. As Ebola takes an average of 10 days to kill someone who has become symptomatic, an exceedingly more accurate way to come up with a CFR would be to divide the most recent death toll by the infected toll from 10 days prior. This, throughout the outbreak, has displayed an approximate death toll of 70-75%. This CFR figure, while still far more accurate than a simple division of current epidemic figures, still has accuracy issues. The best way to figure the fatality rate is either once the epidemic has concluded, or by looking at the comparative percentage of those dismissed from Ebola clinics to those who have succumbed. I have yet to see any figures on the percentage of people who recover from confirmed Ebola virus disease.--Conker The King (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that section doe not say what you suggest, and none of your criticisms apply. The figure was given as a _lower bound_, derived from the number of cases confirmed by laboratory tests and the number of those cases that have died. Yes, the figure will likely increase, as those who have only recently caught the disease either die or recover, but it is very unlikely to decrease, making it a valid lower bound. It could only decrease if there was a large number of new cases and the majority of them recover. A valid criticism would be the precision. 51% might be a more sensible number than 51.1%. Pmpdurrant (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See: http://epidemic.bio.ed.ac.uk/ebolavirus_fatality_rate You can't get the CFR by dividing the current deaths by the current cases in an ongoing epidemic. The disease takes time to kill people after they have been diagnosed. As a direct result of this the number of deaths will rise even after the virus has stopped creating new cases. The only time a CFR can be accurately made from dividing the most recent figures on Deaths by the most recent figures on Cases is when the epidemic is over and all infected individuals have either died or recovered. To reteriate: when a living patient is diagnosed with Ebola, they are placed in the "Cases" category. As they are living with the disease, they throw off the current Cases/Deaths ratio, giving an inaccurate appearance of a "lower bound."--Conker The King (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what Pmpdurrant is saying with his lower bound comment, and I understand what Conker The King is saying. For the article, I don't think we need to provide a figure for the lower bound. The figure that we are interested in is an accurate CFR. We cannot calculate that ourselves right now, so we should only used sourced CFR figures. Even when a CFR figure is sourced, that does not mean we should include it in the article; if the source gives a naive estimate, I would not use it. Glrx (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually misunderstood what Pmpdurrant was saying, due to my misconception of what a "lower bound" is. After re-reading his most recent edit to "Fatality Rate" I see my mistake, that a "lower bound" is the minimum fatality rate in this case, as opposed to an "upper bound" which would be a figure for the maximum fatality rate. That being said, I don't think the article necessarily needs a "lower bound" figure, as I think it is unnecessary and misleading, but I certainly think it's up for discussion.--Conker The King (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While it is not possible to give an accurate fatality rate for an ongoing outbreak without much more detailed information, I think it is useful to give bounds where possible. Ebola has a very well known upper bound of 90%. This is quoted very widely in numerous sources. I think it is very useful to give, in this article, a lower bound on the fatality rate for this outbreak, which is easy to do from the figures provided by WHO on confirmed cases and deaths of confirmed cases. Again, I don't think a division counts as original research. If the general opinion is against providing a lower bound, we should at least remove the comment about the rate in this section, which is not official and is unsourced (the reference being just to WHO news). Pmpdurrant (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that I understand what a lower bound is, I am much more inclined to agree. Perhaps it would be better to include the information on the lower bound after the statement in "Fatality Rate" on why it is difficult to create an accurate CFR rather than before and follow the lower bound statement with a reiteration of the upper bound approximation for clarity.--Conker The King (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation reports on their Facebook page that there are 333 confirmed deaths and 236 confirmed cases which have survived and been discharged. That is a fatality rate around 58%. Whether those numbers are accurate is anyone's guess. Donners (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Donners! That is very interesting. It is also interesting that Ebola spread quicker in Sierra Leone than it did in any of the other affected countries in this outbreak, and yet their recovery rate is immensely better than that of Guinea and Liberia. I have read reports that say Nigeria has confirmed 5 deaths from Ebola and released 5 patients. If recent recovery rates for Guinea and Liberia are also available, then a more accurate CFR could possibly be made. Whether or not creating a CFR from separate sources counts as original research and whether or not a CFR belongs on the page while the outbreak is ongoing is up for discussion. --Conker The King (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that gave an unreferenced 65% mortality rate in view of the fact that we now have official figures from WHO. Of course, these figures are wrong, since they don't take into account the number of newly infected people in the numbers whose lives are still in the balance. Looking back at the 16th June update, we had figures from Guinea of 394 cases, 263 deaths, 113 recovered and discharged, leading the the assumption that there were only 18 still hospitalised. This gives (ignoring the 18 still in hospital) a mortality rate of 70%. I fear that that is likely to turn out to be closer to the final mortality rate than the 52% overall the Who have just published. Either way, it's an astonishingly deadly disease, if you catch it. Pmpdurrant (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on new possible cases reported in other countries

I suggest we refrain reporting possible cases on new countries by 48 hours. There was a possible case reported in Canada of a child, but turned out negative on the following day. i refrained from adding it as we are not here to create fear, but rather report facts.BrianGroen (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) A young man who recently had traveled in an Ebola-hit African country was placed in medical isolation in Stockholm after developing a high fever Sunday evening, local media reported.

Sweden possible case will wait for results.BrianGroen (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Should data for Guinea/Sierra Leon/Libearia be graphed (continuation Graph discussion)

If I understand correctly Ilasamper has requested that this information be plotted on a log scale. The data that's come out of WHO for the last week doesn't look promising for getting this thing (as a whole) under control. It looks that things are ok in Guinea and Nigeria, but things are looking bad in Liberia. The rate is actually slightly worse than exponential, if you examine the data closely. The doubling time is roughly 24 days, down from around 30.66.41.154.0 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I Think it's out of control everywhere, maybe Sierra Leona is starting to control it a bit, it's just that in Guinea the spread is not in the cities and their infected has never reached the exponentinal phase yet. That's Why I would like to represent this data. I would do it by myself but i'm not very good at excel work. 31.221.226.72 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

fitting different curves to Ebola case number

Yeah, the exponential line doesn't fit very well. A log scale could be useful in the near future (unfortunately). Of course the best fitting line are higher-order polynomials. Snd0 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There's more to a good fit. Polynomials are poor choices for flat sections. This figure makes projections for future cases, and that treads on OR. Glrx (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but currently the exponential curve doesn't fit the data well. It's expected that it will eventually fit to an exponential trend (even in the Congo and Uganda outbreaks the initial growth didn't fit that line) [4]. Maybe curve fitting is premature. You're right though, I shouldn't have included any projection. Snd0 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The projection certainly takes it a step further, but I think even without that, a trend line would be WP:OR.--Taylornate (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking at the WHO data for about 2 weeks now and have come to the conclusion that that a model of the form C(t)= A exp(B t) (C(t) is total cases at time t) fits the data very well and is statistically significant. Early on in the outbreak it looks like efforts to control it were working - the rate of increase in cases was decreasing. Around May 23 something changed and the rate of change started increasing rapidly. I decided to run log linear regression from May 23 to the current date. I used the Analysis ToolPak add-in for Excel because it includes ANOVA for the regression model. Here are the results:

Regression Statistics								
Multiple R	        0.997814618							
R Square	        0.995634012							
Adjusted R Square	0.995426108							
Standard Error	        0.043899408							
Observations	        23							
								
ANOVA								
	        df	SS	        MS	         F	        Significance F			
Regression	1	9.228983058	9.228983058	4788.908202	2.86679E-26			
Residual	21	0.040470319	0.001927158					
Total	22	9.269453377						
								
	        Coefficients	Standard Error	t Stat	        P-value	        Lower 95%Upper  95%	        Lower 99.0%	Upper 99.0%
Intercept	4.227729909	0.038913634	108.6439232	2.26515E-30	4.146804576	4.308655242	4.117551418	4.3379084
Day	        0.024098764	0.000348238	69.20193785	2.86679E-26	0.023374563	0.024822966	0.023112777	0.025084752

The regression model is C(t)= 68.56141 exp(0.024099 t). The data follows this line quite closely and results in very small residuals and a small standard error. This is important because the standard error is used in calculating prediction intervals which statistically bound model predictions with an upper and lower bounds. The value 0.024099 corresponds to a doubling time of 28.8 days. If this growth continues unabated in ten months the total number of cases will grow from thousands to millions. The doubling time is a good metric to use in evaluating the success of current efforts to control this outbreak.

I think that plotting data on a log scale is a good option because exponential relationships show up as straight lines and because it will keep things simple if the number of case grow into the millions.

Regards Marty §Martyc1967 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marty. While interesting, this is not really a proper place to publish your work. We don't put WP:Original_Research into articles, and the talk pages are used only for discussion on how to improve the associated article.--Taylornate (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taylornate, Thanks for the complement!! I hadn't considered what I wrote as "original research" in the sense something that would be published in a journal. I been using Wikipedia for years and this was my first experience in editing. Is there a better forum for discussion of these results? With that said my strong recommendation for improving the article is to also display the data (total cases and deaths) in a log linear plots. The data presented in this format will speak for itself and it is a also practical step if one anticipates that the range in data will span several orders of magnitude (LOL, I obvious do).

Thanks for you comment! Best Regards, Marty Martyc1967 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Marty, for one thing, finding a function that is "significantly" correlated by ANOVA (or t-test, chi-squared, whatever) to already observed data is trivial unless you have reasons for choosing certain parameters in the function based on some or other theoretical model(s). Just because you can fit an exponential function with arbitrary coefficients to the observed data and get a small p-value does not mean anything has been discovered. Sure, the growth in cases and fatalities has been roughly exponential or otherwise of polynomial order greater than 1, but that is not a surprise given what we know about contagious disease dynamics. Although perhaps the doubling time in your regression model reminds you of a particular horror movie. Supporting the use of a log scale plot primarily to accommodate the millions of cases of EVD you expect from this outbreak is disturbing and in poor taste. I suggest you go back to studying statistics and spend less time imagining the possibilities of million-person epidemics. The people in this region have suffered enough at the hands of callous Euro-Asian hegemony. They should not be further used to stoke your 28 days-later, zombieland, apocalyptic fetish. -178.196.22.237 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone shouldn't be branded as having an "apocalyptic fetish" for simply noticing the trend could quickly extend to a large number of cases. The "several orders of magnitude" Marty suggests is also predicted by the WHO [5], but that could be months from now. It seems like the scale of the plot should be changed when it's necessary. Snd0 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright CDC

In certain cases it may be necessary to use CDC wording. The CDC is not copy right protected and in public domain.

CDC copy right rules

Emerging Infectious Diseases is published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a U.S. Government agency. Therefore, all materials published in Emerging Infectious Diseases are in the public domain and can be used without permission. Proper citation, however, is required.

BrianGroen (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I would prefer time plots of cases/deaths originating at CDC. I understand that failing those existing we must attempt to reconstruct said same as best we can. Still.... Juan Riley (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Viral Mutation

I would add this myself, but the article is locked up. The article is currently focused on the human affects of the virus, but additionally, this "large" scale outbreak is also having an effect on the virus, causing it to evolve quite rapidly. This risk factor is not included in the article, and could drastically alter the transmission rates, or the lethality. http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/28/343734184/ebola-is-rapidly-mutating-as-it-spreads-across-west-africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.118.88 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, the findings published in Science would seem noteworthy enough to be added to the article. F Camp (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Working on virology. Mutation happens in the infected persons. I've got a link to a medical journal, but the link is only open to paid users. Will add as soon as i get an open reference BrianGroen (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Science is making the research articles on Ebola openly available. The article I think you are referring to is http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/08/27/science.1259657.full.pdf. Juan Riley (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Juan, with other references i can now start on the virology edit. The common reservoir would indicate that the initial outbreak might have occurred way earlier, but the genetic patterns differs due to rapid mutations. this in essence it might be likely that the congo outbreak is related to this and was carried due to bat migration. Will work on it this week.BrianGroen (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What you may already know, the grim aside to that Science article is that 5 of the 50 co-authors were dead of Ebola by the time of publication. This is discussed in other science mag articles as well as news media stories and may be sufficiently notable to include in the Health Care Workers subsection. Juan Riley (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(opps, edit conflict) Yes, thanks Juan. I see that they lost five researchers to the disease. Do you all think that that is noteworthy for our article? Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is if in the correct section...though if in Health Care Workers it may have to be renamed "...Workers and Researchers". Though that might be pure semantics and unnecessary. Juan Riley (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for saying this all not at once...but the article I gave a link to above is already secondarily referenced in the Virology section (i.e., via an International Business Time reference). Though in some sense primary, I also think the reference to this article should also be given. Note I hesitate to do these myself because I only have a glancing familiarity with WP articles organization. Juan Riley (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And one more: the following link will take you to the Science page with the collection of open access recent articles on Ebola...also the ZMapp research. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/ebola/ Juan Riley (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Another note...on experimental treatments: The very promising recent (Aug 21) lab research results on ZMapp are in Nature..and the article appears to be for the most part open access at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature13777.html. A secondary reference for this is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/world/africa/study-says-zmapp-works-against-ebola-but-making-it-takes-time.html?_r=0. Juan Riley (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Juan I understand you very well. Though a primary source, I agree that the actual study should go in the virology section as it is obviously too soon to find a review of it. My preference would be to include the deaths in the virology section, but if others feel that the other section that discusses the deaths of health workers is better, I feel no need to change the heading (though I could certainly change my thinking on that). Incidentally, I note that neither the Ebola nor the Ebola virus articles have picked up on this yet. It should be in those articles as well. I view the study as quite important and it was fortunate that the researchers had a chance to follow the genetic changes from early in the start of the outbreak. Did you notice that the death rate is below both the Zaire and the Sudan strains? Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer: that would be OR (and I know you are just asking)...perhaps more importantly am sufficiently research orientated not to jump to conclusions with numbers that may be at this stage questionable. Moreover, being a physical scientist, I have always cocked an eyebrow at epidemiological conclusions. This however is now POV. Having violated the first two commandments of WP I am laughing. Suffice it to say I would wait for any such conclusions. Juan Riley (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Juan, enjoy your private joke, but I am well aware that it is too soon to come to a conclusion regarding the death rate. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy/Juan with regard to the fatality rate. I have glanced over the figures and it seems the percentage is calculated on the current as of Who report. Bearing in mind that from contraction to death, the time span may vary from 5 to 21 days. In essence that place the death rate at about 75% if we work in a factor of 14 day to death. I assume we will only know the final figure once the final tally is known, but lets keep it at WHO for now.BrianGroen (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Aliko Dangote financial contribution

Can someone change the sentence "On 14 August, the Nigerian government said Aliko Dangote had donated $150 million to halt the spread of the Ebola virus outbreak.[117]". The reuters source given is actually incorrect. The correct amount was $150 million Nigerian Naira (approx $923,000 USD) as reported everywhere in Nigerian press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.167.234 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Robertpedley (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is Aliko Dangote, the Dangote Foundation, or the Dangote group. Also not sure if it's appropriate to record individual contributions. Robertpedley (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Airlines?

Responses by airlines were removed on the basis that "airlines are not organizations in the sense that WHO, etc. are". I am not sure I see how an airline is a different type of organisation than Samaritan's Purse, etc. (I mean, there are different types of organisations: non-governmental, not-for-profit, etc., but, in essence, the point here was about non-governmental actions). Putting the information about airlines under the 'response by country' heading seems misguided to me because 1) many airlines are not nationally owned, so the 'national response' is not directly related to them (unless a country explicitly tells an airline to stop service to specific regions) and 2) it is unintuitive because it makes it difficult to find the information. I suggest reverting back to the previous layout where airline responses were separated from national response and easily accessible. F Camp (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing that might help: what if we created subheadings like for the 'response by country' section? Say: United Nations organisations, Aid organisations, etc.? That way, it would be more consistent and maybe deal with the unease of associating airlines with UN organisations? F Camp (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no question but that it did not fit in the same section as the WHO, the CDC and NGOs and it is not of enough interest to the average reader that it needs its own section. Gandydancer (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems a rather arbitrary decision about what the "average" reader cares about, Gandydancer. If anything, the "average reader" is more affected by airline disruption than what Samaritan Purse does. Your answer does not seem to take into consideration my suggestion re: separating by types of organisations. WHO and CDC aren't the same type of organisations at all either. Let's see what others think, but so far, I'm standing by my proposal - your change seems too arbitrary to me. F Camp (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that most people check with their airlines rather than check Wikipedia. Furthermore, WP should keep information up to date rather than hit or miss. If this issue were important we would have a source to check to keep the info current, but there is none, at least that I know of. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Gandydancer. Let's get additional input from the rest of the community, as I think we might not come to an agreement. I am not suggesting that people should check here to see if their flight is cancelled, just that 1) I personally think it noteworthy to see what airlines do (written from a 'historical' perspective; not as "X airline is currently not flying"); and 2) news outlets seem to consider this noteworthy as well if one is to judge by the amount of articles published on the topic. As for having a source "to keep the info current", it'd be easy to set up a website to do just that and then claim that it exists so we should use it, but that wouldn't really be good faith, right? ;-) In any case, here's a recent source that sums up the info on airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F Camp (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good info. We'll see what others think but I was thinking that maybe we could combine the WHO's (and other's) plea that airlines not shut down with this info? Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the responses of individual airlines were relevant earlier in the outbreak, as an indication of a developing trend. It's now reached the point where it's more appropriate to treat it as generic - very few airlines are flying into the area which affects both the economy and the humanitarian response. Robertpedley (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Senegal case

Hi all i think this should go on the subsequent spread. On 29 August the Senegalese,Health minister, Awa Marie Coll Seck, announced the first case of Ebola in the country. The patient arrived from the neighbouring country Guinea, where the virus was first reported. The case has been confirmed in Senegal. BrianGroen (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The previous report is very unreliable as the publishing editor was fined on a previous report. Also if translated it states the passenger carried the virus in it's luggage. On 29 August, the Ministry of Health and Social Action reported that the first confirmed case of Ebola virus has now been discovered in Senegal. The young Guinean national carrying the infection is being treated in Dakar, and all measures are being taken to prevent the infection from spreading.["(Audio) Urgent: Le premier cas d'Ebola au Sénégal confirmé". Carrapide Xibar. 29 August 2014. Retrieved 29 August 2014.] BrianGroen (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Until there is local transmission in Senegal, it should not be in the same section as Nigeria et al. Let's wait until the next WHO report to change the subheading if necessary. F Camp (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy,F Camp i was searching for previous cases in Senegal. There was 6 unconfirmed from a very unreliable web source. Agreed let's keep in the same section as Nigeria et al till further confirmation. Was planning to move it but i net dropped. BrianGroen (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Now confirmed. F Camp (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll move it up. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Map

I have removed this map to the talk page for discussion.

Countries with active transmissions, as of 26 August 2014.

For one thing, we already have a good map with the names of the involved countries on it. Also, we should not include the Congo on it as that outbreak is not related to this one and it's confusing to include it here. BTW, what is the third area? Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy the first map was very unclear so i updated it with a new clearer map. The third district is Nigeria who now have confirmed cases from the original outbreak. .

Perhaps we should add it back. Your call

BrianGroen (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 West Africa Ebola Outbreat. The WHO has made it very clear that the Congo outbreak is not related to this outbreak. Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy i haver added a new map to the Congo indicating the current region of spread. As soon as CDC or WHO release a map i will add that one. BrianGroen (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

False statement of WHO 20,000 prediction - actually reverses what they have said

This article now contains the false statement:

"The WHO stated that the acceleration could see the number of cases reported exceed 20,000."

If you go to the WHO site and read the documents that several sloppy news stories are referencing, you'll see this is the REVERSE of what WHO have predicted - they are saying that a reasonable guess at the minimum cases, if upwards of half a billion is spent immediately, is 20,000 - NOT the maximum cases that might occur under present circumstances! The figure 20,000 is the projected EVD caseload *necessary for containment* - that is to say that containment requires the ability to professionally isolate and treat 20,000 people, far more than the present capacity. It is precisely NOT a prediction of the maximum extent of the outbreak, even if (as is unlikely) the EVD treatment and isolation capacity can reach this level soon enough. It is how low the caseload COULD be, if and only if the most optimistic (and expensive) "roadmap" were followed - which it can't be as things stand, because those resources (a half billion dollars) haven't been provided.

See for example: "The aim is to stop ongoing Ebola transmission worldwide within 6–9 months" http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-roadmap/en/

Note, in this WHO statement, six months isn't the maximum pessimistic downside as this Wikipedia article now states, *it's the minimum optimistic upside.*

Reversing the truth about this (as even the NYTimes has done in a recent story) obviously makes it even more unlikely that governments will commit the half-billion ($489,850) in additional resources, almost immediately, that WHO and MSF say is needed for containment. See http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf for the $489,850 estimate. And note that this is an estimate for what it would take to contain the outbreak at six months and 20,000 cases, if that half-million is made available now - but WHO money doesn't have that money, it's asking (and hoping) for that money.

As just one example of what isn't being done (and can't be with their present budget) now that would need to be done, according to WHO, to keep the caseload at or under 20,000 and avoid millions of deaths over the next decade or two: "In total it is estimated that the equivalent of approximately 158 such referring/isolation centres will need to be established." http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf

Other inadequacies in the current response, such as insufficient capacity for testing, that would derail the 20,000 roadmap are cited here: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/29-august-2014.pdf

The figure of 20,000 is, to quote WHO: "Total cases managed, including with complementary approaches - Cases scenarios (for a 6-month period)" [That is, in the most optimistic 6-month scenario, which requires a half-billion to be donated now, and for nothing went wrong with implementing the roadmap] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf

The WHO's statements could certainly have been clearer, but of course they have to try to walk a delicate tightrope, and provide hope that containment is still very possible, in order for them to get get that voluntary half-billion from governments.

The clear logical implication of WHO and MSF statements is that at this point, given present and likely resource commitments, Ebola will not be contained, will become endemic in Africa, and will kill millions.

184.66.139.194 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

just a penny for my thoughts. I suggest we refrain from speculative numbers and rather stick to the facts, The disease is scary as is already and we are not here to add fuel to that fire, unless the situation change drastically we can consider a new course of of reporting these facts. BrianGroen (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A big problem with these predictions, beyond the fact that they're frightening, is that they quickly become irrelevant as the trends of the epidemic shift, the interventions alter the spread, or the economic/political situations change. Things can quickly get better or worse. W. Africa is an effective PR campaign away to fixing a lot of problems, so the WHO should stay away from projecting # of cases/deaths.

Thanks for the PDF links, I hadn't seen all of those Snd0 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the point, but I don't think the statement is technically false. The statement simply states that it could exceed 20,000, not that 20,000 is the maximum expected cases. Maybe changing "could" by "is likely" would be more helpful. But I don't think that the statement as is is false. 24.97.182.162 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Containment & Control

We have a section on difficulties of containment, but we don't have a section on recommended methods of containment (e.g. this FAQ from WHO: "Frequently asked questions about eboa virus disease". WHO. Retrieved 1 September 2014. ) Would this be better placed on this page or in the Ebola Virus Disease page? Robertpedley Robertpedley (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

hi Robert , the only actual recourse for containment and prevention is covered under Ebola virus disease under prevention.BrianGroen (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I'll see if I can tidy it up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola is in Congo

You people keep on saying that Congo should not be excluded because it is a different kind of Ebola that is killing people there. Ebola is Ebola, no one cares about the kind of ebola except doctors. wikipedia is not made for doctors but for everybody, and everybody sees EBOLA as EBOLA!!!...Why can't you people add congo then explain d kind of ebola in d subsection. the title of this article is on 2014 Ebola outbreak in west africa and not a particular kind of ebola. I came to wikipedia to read about the 30 dead people in congo just to find out that you people refused to add it. I believe congo shud be added. many people do not care about the type of ebola in congo except doctors. majority carries the vote on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanord (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two major reasons for not adding Congo

1. The strain of the Ebolavirus causing the deaths in Congo is another then the one in westafrica, so the two outbreaks are not linked together

2. DRC isn't even in westafrica.

Halbarath (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also - there is a long section in this article titled 'Unrelated Outbreak in D. R. Congo' (too large for this article imho). Your assertion that D.R. Congo is excluded from this article is baseless. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Map Nigeria

I will have a map of the Nigerian regions affected up today some time..BrianGroen (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Map request

Could we get a copy of this map of involved laboratories? It helps understand some of the time constraints involved in getting confirmation of cases. Maybe relevant in the "Complications in containment efforts" section? Thanks for considering! 132.216.234.227 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am busy adding a map of all labs/treatments and referral centers.BrianGroen (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This graph needs to lead, in upper right hand position, to make point cases are going parabolic

• 
  Cumulative totals of cases and deaths over time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

"Parabolic" isn't the right term in this case. I don't think we need the graph at the top, either -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is actually exponential. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding facetious: It is a plot of data...characterization is OR. Juan Riley (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's fine where its at. And the correct term is, as others have said, 'exponential'.--66.41.154.0 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a research journal...so it doesn't matter what you or I think is correct. Juan Riley (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not OR.

“ It is the largest known EVD outbreak and is expanding exponentially with a doubling period of 34.8 days (Fig.1B) ”

from 2014 Gire et al. Ruslik_Zero 07:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If properly cited and dated, Ruslik's answer is acceptable. Juan Riley (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

New call for Semi protection.

Could we please reinstate the semi protection to contributing editors to the whole article. I spent hours looking for reference changed by an i.p user.BrianGroen (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why timeline numbers is to be empty for 3rd September? Who is not exposing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak#Timeline_of_the_outbreak

Who do you think you are concealing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are asking. But there are numbers for 3 September, just not broken down by country as that information isn't in the source given. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope there will be an update from WHO soon, so we can correct these estimates. --Halbarath (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO has released the numbers but not in the usual spot. You can download the pdf (http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html) to see the breakdown. Totals, including DRC and Senegal, are 3475/1849 as of Aug 31. 18.127.7.26 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So we have to substract the DRC numbers from the totals because they are not related. This gives 3403/1801. And the report is from August 31st as you stated. --Halbarath (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While writing this, WHO posted an update on the usual place: (http://who.int/csr/don/2014_09_04_ebola/en/) providing new numbers as of August 31st: 3685/1841. Additionally, they provided data about the spread in Nigeria and Senegal totalling in 22/7. This gives new totals as 3707/1848. --Halbarath (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We use as of numbers as per WHO or CDC reports.BrianGroen (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

Add information about number of hospitals in united states that are able to treat ebola patients. Information includes site to MSN article. http://news.msn.com/us/atlanta-hospital-deemed-1-of-safest-for-ebola-care 67.58.77.109 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change - and why only the US?
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. If we start with the USA we need to add all countries. To much info will cause cluttering. BrianGroen (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

New WHO Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report: 5 September 2014

Available (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/5-september-2014-en.pdf?ua=1) As of Sept 5: 3967/2105 18.127.7.26 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This report quoted by the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/09/05/ebola_death_toll_passes_2000_un.html) with numbers not including Nigeria and Senegal. 18.127.7.26 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also used by this report (http://www.challenges.fr/monde/20140905.REU8275/le-bilan-de-l-epidemie-d-ebola-depasse-2-000-morts.html) 18.127.7.26 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone used it to update the figures on the List of Ebola outbreaks. Should consistency be restored by reverting that update, or by updating this article?

WHO documentation is subject to Copyright therefor we will have to request usage, but i believe it is fair use. On of my file has been earmark for deletion from the previous sit/reps. The fatalities map. I will post there response for my request for usage here. BrianGroen (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Senegal

Why is Senegal currently listed as a country with active transmission? I would suggest the fact that there is only one reported case means that there has been no transmission so far... 90.205.54.181 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

the case is still alive and in isolation in other words still a source of transmission. Been discussed before See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak#Senegal_caseBrianGroen (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved Spain

I moved the Spanish death to health care workers as Spain has no more active cases. Original below

Spain

On 5 August, the Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God confirmed that the Spanish Brother Miguel Pajares was infected with the Ebola virus while volunteering in Liberia. His repatriation, coordinated by the Spanish Ministry of Defence, occurred on 6 August 2014. Spanish authorities confirmed that the patient would be treated in the 'Carlos III' hospital in Madrid. The decision attracted some controversy, amid questions as to the authorities' ability to guarantee no risk of transmission. Brother Pajares died from the virus on 12 August.

BrianGroen (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems an unwise decision to me. The fact that Brother Pajares died does not seem relevant to containment efforts. The information about Spain could simply have been moved to "other countries", given that there is relevant information about a national response. I would encourage you to at least partially undo this edit. (Plus, Spain already was in a section about 'non-transmissive' cases, so it didn't need to be moved.) 35.2.241.165 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with 35.2.241.165, restore Spain to where it was; the UK also has no active cases now (as the only confirmed case is considered non-infectious now and has been discharged from hospital), but it is still in the non-transmissive cases list. One day this will be a historical event, it makes no sense to move countries out of the 'suspected cases' list as soon as no active cases are known. 90.205.54.181 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the two above suggestions. Brian please respond. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer i will add certain portions back. I can see the reasoning now. BrianGroen (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Another picture

Hi Mikael User:Mikael_Häggström sorry had to undo your revision. WHO is copyright. I'm waiting for permission to use. I know this is very important information but let's get clarity first.BrianGroen (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The map is derived from File:BlankMap-World6.svg, which is Public Domain. Apart from that, numbers are not copyrightable. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mikael User:Mikael_Häggström sorry i reverted back to yours after seeing it is totally not as per sit/rep .BrianGroen (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem I think it's good to have an svg image that we can easily update when new data is reported. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Congo should be added to list

The table with the ebola cases should be extended by a new country: the Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo. There are four cases confirmed by now.

Read this BBC report here: RDC : quatre personnes mortes d’Ebola

Zezen (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But it's not related to this outbreak. One tested positive for the Sudan ebolavirus, not the Zaire ebolavirus which is responsible for the West Africa outbreak, the other tested positive for a mix between Sudan and Zaire (which seems unlikely; perhaps an issue with the testing, but we shall see). Donners (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

now in Congo

http://news.yahoo.com/congo-says-two-samples-test-positive-ebola-northern-173006999.html;_ylt=AwrBJR8AWPpTqW0AgxvQtDMD

Not related to this outbreak, though. It should only be mentioned on this page for context. It's actually a bit misleading to have it under the "subsequent spread" section as it is now. Donners (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to verify the existence of any "National Institute of Biomedical Research" cited in the article. Statement by Numbi may be designed to prevent panic. Better to wait for a statement by WHO or MSF. Robertpedley (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be cautious, apparently we have 70 people dying of hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, and two of the eight tested show different Ebola "mixtures". I share Robertpedley and Donner's trepidation over taking this initial report at face value. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/world/africa/ebola-outbreak/...... one is to be objective it would seem this source is clear in its indication of Ebola, in Congo,no one wants to report another case or country, logic however dictates it has; granted of the strains of Ebola this seems to be the Zaire EBOV , however, since one is unaware as to the exact source or sources (of reservoir) it would be wise to include it in the table .......--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi talk i have updated Congo, and it is clear it is not the same variant of the Zaire strain as per WHO http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/2-september-2014/en/ . Tables should not be added to at this stage, but the section must remain. BrianGroen (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Page direct

I think that we have created an excellent article but today I note that there is not a direct to this page when one searches for "Ebola". Does anyone here know how to fix that by adding this article to the list? We'd get a lot more views...I think. Gandydancer (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Google algorithms follow a pattern of key words . The page is named 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak . hence the first keyword is 2014

Change the name to "Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa in 2014" BrianGroen (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean when one searches Ebola on Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I created a redirect for 'Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa in 2014', hopefully it will soon show up in the list when you enter 'Ebola...' in the search field. Wackelkopp (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well...I boldly changed the name to 'Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa' (it's the first and only outbreak in West Africa) and it now shows up with a google search for 'Ebola Africa' - though it may have nulled your redirect--please check. Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/Global_EbolaOutbreakRisk_20090510.png 2009 Ebola map

West Africa

Glrx (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Great map. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the 2009 WHO map shows an Ebola "outbreak or isolated case" in Nigeria; Nigeria is part of West Africa. I think the year should stay in the title. Glrx (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The current ebola outbreak is not the first one in West Africa, as there had been a case of Taï Forest ebolavirus (TAFV) in Côte d'Ivoire in 1994. Therefore, the title of this article should be reverted to readopt the '2014' at the beginning of the name. Wackelkopp (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That was not an outbreak. She got it from a needle prick while doing research and survived. If I remember correctly, that is the only case of TAFV ever. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One case is per definition an outbreak, regardless of how the infection started. For the sake of accuracy, I moved the article back to its previous address. Wackelkopp (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. And if the study was done in the US and she got a needle prick, would you say that there was a TAFV outbreak in the US? The WHO has called it the first West African outbreak, which I think I trust more than a Wikipedia editor. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Might West Africa Ebola virus epidemic be a viable option? —David Levy 20:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"It is the first Ebola epidemic that West African nations have experienced..." <-- from the introduction section of the article [6]. So, yeah, we can all argue over the term "outbreak," but this is certainly the first Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Snd0 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In epidemiology, the standard is to name outbreaks with (1) the year of the outbreak, (2) the area of the outbreak, and (3) the name of the virus in that order. Wackelkopp was correct to move the page back to 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. This rationale for the previous move here made absolutely no sense. Also, any case of the virus is an outbreak. Statements such as: "That was not an outbreak. She got it from a needle prick. . ." are not correct. Any expression of the virus is by definition an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an epidemiological journal. As explained at Wikipedia:Article titles, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Exceptions are made in accordance with consensus. Did a community discussion result in consensus to use the "year/area/virus" title format across the board?

Setting aside the contextual meaning of "outbreak", is there any dispute that this is the first Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? —David Levy 14:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's true, then wouldn't be true that the term "outbreak" is substantially less informative than "epidemic"? If I prick my finger in the hoodline at USAMRIID, the news media would be correct to say "there's now a second 2014 Ebola outbreak," but it would seem a bit exaggeratory (my finger categorized with something infecting thousands). Maybe it's more precise to say "2014 West Africa Ebola virus epidemic"? (Supporting David's idea.) Snd0 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like "2014 West Africa Ebola virus epidemic". Rethinking my removal of "2014", I'd agree that it was a mistake since there could be another outbreak at another time. The WHO has been calling it an outbreak because they are, of course, speaking of it as part of the many outbreaks to date. But for our article that is about only the current outbreak, I think "epidemic" would be better. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't preemptively append disambiguation on the basis that a hypothetical event might occur in the future. If we did, this would apply to almost any descriptive title. (A second Amish school shooting could occur at any time, but we won't rename the article "2006 Amish school shooting" unless and until one does.) —David Levy 15:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So then "West Africa Ebola virus epidemic," like you said earlier. Didn't realize that was deliberate. Snd0 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense David. I like your comparison. Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Though I suppose that a person could argue that if there had been a dozen or so other shootings in which only a couple of children were killed...no let's not go there. :) Gandydancer (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an epidemic. It is not fast moving like say measles, it is not airborne, which epidemics usually are, and it has not infected a large number of people over a short period of time, say a week to a month. This is slow moving, not airborne, has not infected a large number of people over a short period of time. The correct term here is outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources, including Médecins Sans Frontières (March declaration; September UN briefing), have called it an "epidemic". Please explain why we should defer to your expertise instead. —David Levy 20:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

[7][8][9][10] <-- all seem to call it an "epidemic" [11]. Almost any reference to speed of spread seems subjective, without an unambiguous threshold provided.Snd0 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a little reading to be sure we get it right. I learned that it does take two cases to be called an outbreak, so yes, this is the first outbreak. While I did not find a hard and fast rule re outbreak/epidemic it seems that outbreak is most appropriate when a disease first "breaks out", but if it proceeds and infects many, epidemic is the better word. See here pages 396-397:[12]. I know that this is intuitive, but it's good to see it documented as well. Gandydancer (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are mitigating factors in West Africa that have facilitated the spread, not the least of which is the cultural behaviours and the general living conditions, including a total lack of personal and institutional sanitation, and a lack of infrastructure for the handling of human waste. Why did two Americans using heightened universal precautions come down with Ebola virus? Because their surroundings did not support universal precautions. Notice that when the two Americans were brought to Emory University, the virus did not spread. The Ebola virus in West Africa is low-transmission. It is not the virus causing the spread, it is the humans. They leave dead bodies in the streets. They hunt, handle, and eat fruit bats, which are the reservoir for Ebola virus.

If the virus were more virulent, and spreading to other countries despite heightened universal precautions, then yes, that's an epidemic. If Ebola were more virulent, far more people would have been infected over a very short period of time by now. The spread would have extended into other countries, like the the EU countries, UK, America, Canada, etc., primarily due to air/train travel. Smallpox, Spanish flu, and measles are good examples of true epidemics.

If the virus mutates and becomes airborne, it will be an epidemic of proportions not seen since the Spanish flu pandemic, and much faster than that pandemic because of air travel. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeat:

Numerous reliable sources have called it an "epidemic". Please explain why we should defer to your expertise instead.

Are you familiar with our verifiability policy? —David Levy 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that we have reached an agreement. I have moved the title to West Africa Ebola virus epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Opps, I mean Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. *Gandy slinks away with a red face* Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa was "the agreed upon title" (as you noted in your move summary). I don't even see it suggested above. We noted that this is "the first Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa", but the potential titles discussed were Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa (which you wrote mistakenly after moving the article to West Africa Ebola virus outbreak) and West Africa Ebola virus epidemic, along with variants containing the year.

For the record, I don't object to the title Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (which might actually be better than the options discussed), so please don't move the article again before others have commented. I just don't know what led to your determination that your previous move (to West Africa Ebola virus epidemic) was performed in "error". —David Levy 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm really embarrassed! I remember that I thought I'd check to be sure that I got it right and looked up as far as your statement "...Setting aside the contextual meaning of "outbreak", is there any dispute that this is the first Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? —David Levy 14:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)" and decided that I got it wrong. Sorry for all the trouble I caused. I was feeling pressured because there are several other things I have been wanting to get done both here and in my real life. It's too bad that I reverted my first attempt as I think it does sound a little better and of course if anyone is up to it it could be changed (groan) again. Gandydancer (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While I suggested West Africa Ebola virus epidemic, I think that I prefer Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Shifting the capitalized "Ebola" it to the beginning of the title (thereby separating it from "West Africa", which also is capitalized) results in clear demarcation. Conversely, West Africa Ebola virus epidemic could be misinterpreted as a reference to an epidemic involving a virus called "West Africa Ebola". The current title avoids this ambiguity. —David Levy 19:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)