![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
As an informed layman it was not clear to me that this was a graph of total cases and not new cases. I'd like to see a little more explanatory text of precisely what measurements are depicted and I think a graph showing NEW cases per unit time in the manner of the daily cases graph on the talk page. Such a graph makes it more obvious how the outbreak is progressing. While total cases will only go up, the number of new cases will peak (perhaps already has) and begin to decline, giving a better graphic representation of the extent of the disease at any one time. Think of it like a population. The total historic population of even an extinct species cannot go down, but saying that the total historic population of dinosaurs is presently six make-a-guess-illion doesn't really help you understand that the current population is zero. (Depending a little on your cladistic definitions, of course.) The total number of cases in the outbreak thus far may well be a couple thousand, but how many people are suffering from the disease right now? (And how many were there yesterday and last week.) New cases isn't a precise measure of that, but at least it gives you an understanding of extent. (And I'd guess it's easier to measure.)
The readership thanks you for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymphonicPoet ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that when we do it, we get a number that jumps around and does not provide any significant insight.
— User:Glrx
We don't have any "cases per day" data, what we have is overall figures updated every few days, it is a routine calculation but the resultant number would be an average and that would need to made clear. - Oosh ( talk) 23:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that, as the WHO death toll rose past 80 (1 April) and 160 (5 May) and 320 (18 June) and 640 (20 July), each of these doublings occurred in 5 or 6 weeks, characteristic of an epidemic's exponential growth phase.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/tracking-the-virus/ |title=Battling Ebola: Tracking the Virus |last=Seligson |first=Susan |publisher=Boston University |date=6 August 2014 |accessdate=15 August 2014}}</ref>
Ive uploaded a scatter and line-conected version of the graph. I want to upgrade it a little by tightening the margins, but please let me know if you think this row-style graph is Ok or single files are better. I´m more on the line-connected version of the graphs, its much more visual.
And this is the semiLog plot:
Im worried about the mismatch in the total vs country cases, could someone double check in the primary sources and perhaps correct it.-- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|Semilog Plot of Ebola outbreak from data on Wikipedia page as of 28-Aug-2014.
Cjacooper ( talk) 05:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cases per day and Deaths per day graphs are both still 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 if you want to average it: Aug 17th and Aug 18th. The graph shows that 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, if you want to average it. The way it is now is terrible! KingMidasTheSecond ( talk) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Support replacing the current cases/deaths per day graph with a bar chart/histogram type graph. Primarily this is because I believe the area under the graph should represent total cases/deaths. I don't see that is the case for the current version. Presenting the data this way also seems to be a more accurate reflection of the data on which the chart is based and less open to OR criticism. Not fussed about the inclusion (or not) of a Y-axis. Mattojgb ( talk) 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Opening section has a "citation needed" tag for the phrase sentence "Other factors include belief in – and reliance on – traditional folk remedies, magical beliefs, and cultural practices that predispose to physical contact with the deceased, especially death customs such as washing the body of the deceased." Due to the article's semi-protected status, I cannot add citations directly, but I can put a few sources here:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-ebola-outbreak-so-bad-sierra-leone-emergency-quarantine-180952218/?no-ist http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-border-ebola-outbreak-a-first-for-deadly-virus/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140327-ebola-virus-guinea-bush-meat-vaccine/
I may look for more information, particularly regarding the magical beliefs and folk remedies out there. I know I've seen them. Doktor Wunderbar ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I get a total of 4294 casualties, not 4293. Can someone check the math for today's infected count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.1.207 ( talk) 16:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The table in the timeline is a mess now. It seems to have too much info, plus some death and case totals have been deleted. All that really is needed is the WHO case/death totals for the countries in the different updates. A line or two at the bottom to inform people of any other information (like that some totals do not match or that some cases were reclassified, etc) would be cleaner. Rump1234 ( talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I as a start think altering the date field from "reported" to "as of" would be more accurate and go a long way to cleaning of the ref field. - Oosh ( talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Generally, the totals are interesting, but they were only included in WHO reports starting 1 July 2014. That means that all the earlier totals are calculations done by us. I propose we keep the totals, but make the totals be the sums across the row. Blank entries would use the first number below. Then we can delete many of the warnings at the bottom of the table. Glrx ( talk) 21:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The sums are out of synch right now. I will address that later. Glrx ( talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've worked my way through most of the table, but there are several spots that the data are confusing. The row for 29 March is troublesome, and I'd like some other editors to look at it. A couple days earlier, there were 8 suspected cases with 6 deaths. By 29 March, 7 suspected cases were tested, and 5 were negative for Ebola. That should drop cases to 3 (= 8 - 5). Following report is back to 8, but it might using cases that were negative. Deaths are similarly confused. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This line does not have a WHO source, so I'm tempted to just delete it. LI deaths do not match. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
30 April deleted.. no source found. Updated 1 and 2 may (as of date ) reports. Cumulative Totals in 2 may is calculated on 2 May Who report BrianGroen ( talk) 08:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm tempted to put emdashs in LI and SL. Its ref is CDC, but the CDC report is based on numbers from GU and from WHO. The GU numbers look OK, LI don't quite match, and SL numbers match but could be stale. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Here some cumulative totals are given, but they don't match the deltas for the neighbors. I don't know what is happening. Any ideas? Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sept 3rd-Sept 6th new cases: Liberia - 199, Sierra Leone - 148, and Guinea - 72. Rate: 105/day. Total: 4354 Deaths: 2250 (+224).
http://www.reddit.com/r/ebola/comments/2ftyt1/sept_3rdsept_6th_new_cases_liberia_199_sierra/
Slushy9 ( talk) 04:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Better to use the Sept 6 WHO source that specifically excludes Liberia Sept 6th numbers, while keeping the erroneous Sept 5th number as if 300 new cases came in a single day. Whoever is in charge of the Timeline section keeps putting up wrong information. Blehair ( talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a duplicate 'cite web' tag in what is currently reference 89, leading to code ('cite web') spilling in the citation. Quoth source:
<ref name="Vogel">{{cite web{{Cite web| last = Vogel
Leading to the citation looking like this:
{{cite webVogel, Gretchen (2014). "How deadly is Ebola? Statistical challenges may be inflating survival rate". Science Mag. Retrieved 2014-09-09.
I believe the code should be changed to:
<ref name="Vogel">{{cite web{{Cite web| last = Vogel
Frandroid Atreides ( talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are IP editors locked out of helping? No evidence of problems. 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.211.131 ( talk)
The primary sources for the cases and deaths are taken from the affected countries' own daily Sit-Rep updates. It is factually wrong to attribute the Aug 24th numbers as Aug 26th, and mostly Sept 3rd numbers as Sept 5th. How else do you explain how the WHO reported Sept 5th numbers during Sept 5th, before any Sept 5th updates were released? The WHO clearly does not always intend "as of (date)" to include that particular date, but, rather, as of reports released by that date.
I go into detail regarding the Aug 26th numbers under the section regarding the Aug 28th WHO update with the primary sources. The primary sources refute what the timeline is saying as of Aug 26th and Sept 5th. Even on the Roadmap 2, which is the source for the Sept 5th number, they include the number of cases per week. Simple math points out the impossibility of the Aug 26th numbers with respect to the accurately labeled Aug 31st numbers.
In short, those 2 rows should be eliminated, or the timeline section should consider supplementing WHO sources with the primary sources from the Health Ministries themselves.
Blehair ( talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
UN has reported figures from the Ministry of Health (same source for WHO figures) of the 3 major affected countries as of Sept 6th, corresponding with figures released directly from the ministries. There were 4354 cases as of Sept 6th. Obviously there were not nearly 400 new cases from Sept 5th so please remove Sept 5th and Aug 26th figures. Blehair ( talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
From my modeling of the ebola number of cases. The data for 5th Sep 2014 is rubbish as it does not fit into the model at all. Where as the data for 6th Sep 2014 is compatible with the model. This indicates the 5th Sep 2014 data is either outdated or inaccurate. 202.177.218.59 ( talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the data from Sep 5 should be avoided is nonsense and belongs to some report, probably non-updated to Sept 5. Is not in the graph. Let me know if you think it should be inlcuded.-- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
With regards to 5 September figures it is not unlikely that the results might have jumped drastically in one day, but since it is not stated as off, but rather as at this figures could be called into question.My opinion on this result might have been hastily drawn up by WHO in the Geneva meeting and it is likely that the date is incorrect. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/......... and... http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395,,,,, -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014
What is the exact definition of cases and of death?
For example, on the 6 July the cases in Guinea decreases from 412 to 408, indicating this number is the number of person currently ill. Is this number, the number of the previous period plus the number of new cases minus the number of recoveries minus the number of death? A number that, everybody hope, will eventually goes down to zero.
While the number of death seams to be the cumulative number of death. A number that increase and, at best, will become stationary (horizontal).
Is this interpretation correct? AlainD ( talk) 11:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Timeline section, change 26 Aug 2014 to 24 Aug 2014 because the report cited doesn't actually specify the time period. Further details provided on the Talk page under Aug 26th WHO update. Blehair ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done
the 28 August report clearly states "As of 26 August 2014, the cumulative number of cases attributed to EVD in the four countries stands at 3 069" -
Arjayay (
talk)
11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This will be the last time I press this edit request. Under the Timeline of the outbreak, "26 Aug 2014" should read "24 Aug 2014". The WHO incorrectly assigned the 3069 figure to "26 Aug 2014" when all the primary sources from the field point towards 24 Aug 2014.
Here are the figures for cumulative cases for each affected country:
Aug 31 Liberia 1690 Guinea 771 Sierra Leone 1216 Nigeria 19 Total: 3696. The average daily rate over 4 or so days is over 100, and so it's reasonable to assume that the WHO's figure for 31 Aug 2014 is correct even though it differs by 11 cases. Tested suspected cases could have later been shown to be negative for Ebola.
Aug 26 Liberia 1416 Guinea 663 Sierra Leone 1057 Nigeria 14 Total: 3150. There were actually comparatively few new cases during Aug 25th-26th. For the WHO to report 3069 instead, or a number that is 81 less than 3150, seems to raise some red flags. Why would the average number of cases ruled negative for Ebola suddenly increase by a factor of more than 7? Doesn't make sense.
Aug 24 Liberia 1378 Guinea 646 Sierra Leone 1025 Nigeria 17 Total: 3066. This is only 3 away from the reported WHO figure for Aug 26, which suggests that it was in fact the Aug 24th number.
If you look at previous WHO numbers, you find that they all correspond very closely with the primary sources, never off by a ridiculous 81 cases.
Previous WHO updates are also far more specific about the time period that they attribute new cases to. For instance, they'll state "Between __ and __ August 2014" (with the exception of the Aug 28th and Sept 4th update) and title the Disease update table to include the date, like "Confirmed, probable, and suspect cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, as of __ August 2014" (again, with the exception of just the Aug 28th update).
I think the evidence is compelling that the WHO reported Aug 24th numbers incorrectly as being as of Aug 26th. WHO's reports are secondary sources, and for the Aug 28th update it is pretty clear it incorrectly used the primary sources. Rather than leave an incorrect datapoint up there, it would be better if it were simply removed if it can't be fixed. Blehair ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Still unable to. As of the new roadmap, we can see that the WHO themselves counted far less than 700 cases for week 35, making the reported Aug 26 number impossible. Considering there is no CDC or WHO source that corresponds with the primary sources from the Health Ministries, the Aug 26 row should simply be removed from the section. That is unless we decide to start using the primary sources, but per Wikipedia rules, the WHO source for Aug 26 is factually wrong, even disproved by its own Roadmap 2. At best, the WHO did not intend for us to think "as of Aug 26" meant Aug 26 numbers were included. Regardless, the way the Aug 24th numbers are presented as Aug 26th is misleading and needs to be changed or removed. Blehair ( talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair. I spent the whole day looking at the numbers. The date on the Who site is wrong for 26 August as well as the numbers. Found sit/rep 1 from WHO stating date as 25 August. With Regards to Sit/rep two the date of the report is 5 Sept, but the case load correlate with 3 Sept. Hence i changed the date. I have e-mailed Afro Who to get clarity but i don't expect a response soon. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If i take there 4 September report http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20112%20Sept%204,%202014.pdf (calculated average on two reports differs 56 over 4 days on 4 Sept to 31 Aug.) per day average. The total for 3 Sept = 1923 - 56 = 1867. Hence a difference of 5 as per timeline . I cannot find any report for 3 September. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 07:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair sory for all the updates but i decided to Use Primary Source OCHA for 3 Sept ties closely in with my above calculation. 5 September is definitely wrong. Source OCHO [5] Hope this clarify figures better. Date is 3 September except Nigeria which is 1 September . Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named ...Ebola virus disease epidemic....,not ...Ebola virus epidemic...? For example, we don't say P. falciparum epidemic(s), rather we use Malaria epidemic(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjevo123 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
What's up? When is it due next on the Timeline? 156.39.191.244 ( talk) 17:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a section titled "Projected Casualties and Deaths", which was reverted by Juan Riley with the comment "(Undid revision 624060888 by Craigster0 (talk) reverting good faith edit..upon reading it seems to contain numerous instances of primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues.)". The added section can be found here [6]
It seems to me that a section on the projected number of casualties and deaths is quite relevant to an article on the Ebola outbreak. The fact that the estimated range is quite large does not detract from the value of the estimate, it simply shows that there are a lot of unknown or unpredictable variables. The fact that the projected number of casualties and deaths might change based on actions taken by local, state, or international actors does not detract from its value, particularly when the projection is frequently updated with current information. This is even more true if the projection includes the effects of taking action, or not taking, certain actions are made explicit.
The added section includes a summary of a report published by WHO which predicts 20,000 casualties (which is also under discussion here in this talk page [7]. Note that that discussion (not the article) states that 20,000 casualties is the projected minimum under optimistic assumptions, and not a maximum. The fact that a large number of projected casualties might "scare people" does not seem like a good reason to suppress the projections.
Full disclosure: much of the information I posted comes from an analysis performed by Robert Van Buskirk, who is a friend of mine that I've worked with on a couple of successful third-world development projects. He has a PhD in Math and Physics from Harvard. He was the key driver of a succesful project (that I also worked on) to bring email connectivity to the country of Eritrea in 1998 [1]; he has made significant contributions to Meteorology research in Eritrea [2], and has published, in peer reviewed journals, at least 16 papers on subjects ranging from the economic effects of energy efficiency standards to "Observation of chaotic dynamics of coupled nonlinear oscillators" [3].
Juan Riley ( talk) listed his objections to the section I added as "primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues". Taking these cursory objections in turn:
Craigster0 ( talk) 07:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not the editor who removed the section, but I support the removal for the reasons listed above. Mimson ( talk) 14:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any objections to the first paragraph of the new section, which talks about the forcecast in the [ Ebola Responses Roadmap] published by WHO, so I'm going to to restore the section with that bit of information. I"m going to strike the sentence that says "It also includes assumptions that some experts have called "extremely aggressive"[80]." since its not really accurate -- the statement about "extremely aggressive" assumptions is about an assumption that any outbreak in a Western Country could be contained within 8 week, which is not really relevant to a section on Projected Casualities. My mistake -- I should have read the NY Times article more carefully. But I'm going to add another paragraph qoting the Director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases saying the outbreak is "out of control" and growing exponentially.
Philip here. Today I added a few lines on how virus forcasting works. I confirmed Author Chowell is at Arizona State U. The Has been already quoted in Canadian press. I specfically did not state what the model projects. We have a duty to not make the situation worse. Remember we teach. We are historians. Pbmaise ( talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
paoer
Why doesn't per day Ebola 2014.png the graph match the big table? The graph caption is "Average new cases and deaths per day (between WHO reporting dates)", which should be verifiable from the table by subtracting cases in one reporting period from the next period, and dividing by days between (compare #Data definition). But that calculation shows a steady rate of about 100 new cases since August 20 (details next paragraph), and the graph peaks at about 127 cases, about August 31.
Details:
20-25 August, (3071-2615)/5 = 91.2 new cases per day
25-31 August, (3707-3071)/6 = 106 new cases per day
31 Aug - 3 Sep(4001-3707)/3 = 98 new cases per day
3-6 September,(4293-4001)/3 = 97.3 new cases per day
Art LaPella ( talk) 18:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have updated to the primary source as WHO is very belated in releasing figures. Primary source is OCHA but when there is a date difference i will update from respective government. "Stat" means numbers did not change as no report is available. Nigeria and Senegal is belated in releasing info . BrianGroen ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note these numbers for OCHA is derived from various sources including WHO and CDC and governments. I currently think they are the better source with all due respect to WHO which i think is swamped with work as well as CDC. All numbers will be correlated with governments if available but OCHA has shown consistency in the past and is a public entity. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
the fatality count is wrong inline with last number, as opposed to prior in the table,,,,,,,,-- 65.8.188.239 ( talk) 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sierra Leone ties in with government report. Cases will fluctuate between reports as new numbers are received from non ebola cases. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
7 Sept WHO report has a small error in Sierra Leone report: Suspected deaths added up double in WHO report. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/guinea/
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resources/distribution-map-guinea-outbreak.html
This appears part of a blog with no particular focus on Ebola or epidemics. Doubt it is sufficiently significant to justify diluting the "External Links" section of the main article.
Persons who are or have been infected can be divided into three classes: those who are currently sick (active infection), those who have died, and those who have recovered (virus was cleared from their bodies by their immune system). So why do we have no statistics for the recovered class? JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Our lead presently states: As of 6 September 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a total of 4,293 suspected cases and 2,296 deaths (2,552 cases and 1,386 deaths being laboratory confirmed).[1] Knowing that at present the hospitals are so full that they need to turn away patients, I doubt that they have the time or resources to be laboratory confirming the diagnosis/cause of death of these people - thus the very wide discrepancy. I am wondering if it makes any sense to continue to report the number of confirmed cases as opposed to diagnosed (per the symptoms that they present with) cases and their deaths? Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: "present with" is a medical term meaning the appearance of a new patient combined with what they say about their symptoms. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gandydancer The primary source is OHCA but they fortunately do not release lab confirmed death, but do release lab confirmed cases. As well as respective goverments. i.e Liberia sit- rep is very accurate and timely. Sorry my edit keeps whacking out . BrianGroen ( talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I deemed it necessary to add in the WHO paragraph the stinging rebuke by Miller because of who he is, where he works, andbfact Forbes printed it. It was toned down. Pbmaise ( talk) 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller is not just anybody. Forbes, repeat Forbes. We are historians. His opinion is shared by millions. Deleting his input from the record is not right. Yes we should record objections about US calls to send thousands of troops to Nigeria to stop a virus Nigeria managed to contain after a very ill Patrick Sawyer who was just with his sister that died. He knew she died from ebola, he violated orders to stay quarantined, he was so sick the cctv show him lying down before boarding. He worked hard to infect as many in Nigeria as possible. The reports of what he did are graphic. We report none of this here. We are also not talking about the 156 dogs that tested positive. That it is likely a 2yo boy would get licked and play with a dog and not handle raw bushmeat. Yes bats were in that cotton factory. However, dogs were in their home.
Pbmaise ( talk) 14:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have problems with this sourced statement in the current version of this article:
The outbreak began in Guinea in December 2013, but was not detected until March 2014,[3] after which it spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal.
My collection of original reports ( learn more about these alerts, wrong denials, misinformation etc. here if curious) has suspected ebola alerts cropping up already in February 2014 in Liberia (and even earlier ones in Guinea). Here's a quote from just one of them:
: Last week [that is around 27 February 2014] it was disclosed by the Acting Medical Director of Ganta Hospital that two suspected Ebola cases were transferred to JFK Hospital in Monrovia. After further observation of the patients it was announced that the cases were not Ebola.
One Suspected Ebola Case Admitted to Ganta Hospital
As we know by now, in fact these alerts were right, while the false negative ebola tests were wrong, as they were detecting the previous strain of the virus.
I also recommend mentioning the Ebola infection tests started in this region by Tekmira already in January 2014, if not earlier (see their published Clinical Trials info). Zezen ( talk) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a Sept. 5 update of the outbreak distribution map in this International Business Times article. Should we use it? -- Monochrome_ Monitor 15:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Monochrome Monitor CDC is in the public domain and is fair use as long as they are cited.. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 06:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe the 3RR rules require us to attempt a discussion before blocking. So a Pravda opinion that the U.S. is deliberately spreading disease isn't considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source, right? Art LaPella ( talk) 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
why hasn't WHO given an update in more than a week?........-- 65.8.188.239 ( talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO is swamped . Will post as soon as we see new figures on all governments to a date. Or a reliable source BrianGroen ( talk) 09:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article vandalized on 13-14 September by ip editors.
BrianGroen ( talk) 08:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cannolis sorry i don't want something edited but the article was considerably vandalized in the last two days (especially today). Can we re-instate a semi protect lock to contributing editors only. BrianGroen ( talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I've been watching the table closely and using it as the basis for a spreadsheet in which I model the growth as an exponential curve. I thank everyone who has been working on making sure that the table is accurate and reflect the official figures.
So now my question: In recent days a couple of times the recent numbers have changed - what happened there?
As a sad side note, and this is all original research so not appropriate for the article but may help inform us. The overall growth rate fits quite well to a 2.3% or so growth rate. But looking at individual countries reveals something very different. Liberia's growth rate is more like 4.7%. One of the thing that the media can't do is math so I think there hasn't been a real awareness of what this means. If you have 4 independent exponential growth processes with some at 1-2 percent and one at 4-5 percent... the 4-5 percent one absolutely dominates in short order. It is not at all difficult to see how November could finally wake up the world to how serious this is. I hope I'm wrong - I'm just some idiot on the Internet with a spreadsheet but there you go.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I set that section up, but as the epidemic grows I am growing increasingly critical of it. I think that I added most of everything there, so I do not mean to suggest that others have "messed it up". As I read the section it seems to me that info is sort of placed willy-nilly here and there. Perhaps the medical info should be put in its own section...? Anyway, I sure would appreciate feedback - for all I know, others may think that it's just fine... Gandydancer ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The first case in
Nigeria was reported by the WHO on 25 July:
"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 25 July 2014". WHO: Outbreak news. 25 July 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014. Patrick Sawyer, flew from Liberia to Nigeria after exposure to the virus, and died at
Lagos soon after arrival.Wesee, Ben P. (4 August 2014).
"I'm ok - Nigerian Ambassador Assures Public". The New Dawn, Monrovia. Retrieved 7 August 2014. In response, the hospital where he was being treated was shut down and quarantined, and the health officials who were treating him were isolated in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.Cocks, Tim (28 July 2014).
"Nigeria isolates Lagos hospital where Ebola victim died". Reuters. Retrieved 1 August 2014.
"Sierra Leone hunts Ebola patient kidnapped in Freetown". British Broadcasting Corporation. 25 July 2014.
"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 31 July 2014 - WHO | Regional Office for Africa". Afro.who.int. Retrieved 8 August 2014. However, a doctor and nurse who treated Sawyer both died from Ebola.Reuters (4 August 2014).
"Lagos records second Ebola case in doctor who treated victim: Nigerian health minister". {{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Mark, Monica (6 August 2014).
"Ebola Outbreak: Nurse who Treated First Victim in Nigeria Dies".
The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2014.[16/patrick-sawyer-emails-ebola-struck-close-to-home/ E-mail of Patrick Sawyer, Worldpress, August 2014]
Sawyer's primary job was with a mining concern. In early July, he arrived with bloodied clothing and his pregnant sister, at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in Monrovia. Sawyer's sister's name was Miss Princess Christina Nyennetue, and she died from the virus. While at the hospital, Sawyer failed to heed staff directions. Six physicians and nurses that Sawyer came in contact with died. Sawyer also left that hospital knowing his sister had Ebola. The next day he reported for work at the offices of ArcelorMittal. He was directed to go home and remain in confinement for 21 days.
Sawyer booked an E-ticket and claimed to be going to an important conference. He did not book via the local offices of ECOWAS nor inform the ambassador from ECOWAS, who was already set to go. He also did not inform the Ambassador of his sister's death. The Liberian official that approved Sawyer's departure is quoted as saying the request by ECOWAS to allow Sawyer to leave Liberia was unprecedented.
Sawyer managed to make contact with at least 59 people. Of these, he successfully infected 44, and 17 of them later died.
Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014
At First Consultants Hospital in Nigeria, Sawyer denied being near an Ebola case and told officials to test for malaria and HIV. Physicians tested him and found he was suffering from Ebola. He became unruly.
Hospital Physician
Ameyo Adadevoh has been credited for denial of requests that Sawyer be released after they knew it was Ebola, so he could attend the conference. Ameyo Adadevoh was one that Sawyer infected that died.
Sawyer died on July 25, 2014. He was cremated at the hospital. His mother, Georgia Nah, demanded to see his ashes.
Sawyer's wife was in Minnesota.
AllAfrica
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician
Ameyo Adadevoh died from the
Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
In August and September 2014 the press in Nigeria was openly asking questions.
Liberian Deputy Finance Minister, Mr. Sebastian Omar, was accused of knowing Sawyer had Ebola and his sister had died from it, yet still authorized travel to attend the conference.
http://dailypost.ng/2014/08/24/femi-fani-kayode-ameyo-adadevoh-ebola-conspiracy/ Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014]
The conference, Sawyer so desparately needed to go, was 750 km away in
Calabar. He was too ill to get there.
I want to create a 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria but I dont want anyone to do delete it after creation that is why I want to know if creating it is allowed. I do not want to use epidemic because I don't think it was really an epidemic. The Nigeria case is unique for some of the following reasons.
I don't support this notion. 1. It is still to early to say if Nigeria have for one cleared all their cases. 2. The index case was from Liberia therefore the spread is from this area. 3. This outbreak is far from over and gathering from the staggering increase we will (i'm afraid to say it but) see other countries also involved. 15 other African countries have been identified as at very high risk. 4. This page is now in other languages following our lead an it will have an effect on them. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
ECOWAS diplomat Olubukun Doye met Sawyer in Lagos. He was placed in isolation but escaped to Harcourt. This makes him the second person from the same group infected with Ebola to escape isolation and head towards the same conference. Harcourt is within 150 km of Calabar and site of the conference. A doctor treated this person secretely in a hotel. When? Before, or after conference?
The doctor, died August 22, 2014. According to news website, Sahara Reporters, he secretly treated a diplomat who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American, who brought the virus to Nigeria. [13] Compare local press and WHO. WHO fails to mention key facts. [14]
15 was the number of States facing Ebola soon. 15 is the number of nations in ECOWAS. Denmark have bushmeat? Pbmaise ( talk) 10:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The 15 countries in line for possible Ebola is based on study by Oxford scientists [15] and not relate to the ECOWAS summit. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The last ECOWAS meeting in Callabar was one day before Sawyer arrived in Nigeria. 24 July [16] BrianGroen ( talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I wait minutes for pages to load.
Please one protected summary page like
2014 Ebola virus disease outbreaks: MAIN PAGE 2014 ......:Liberia ...etc 2014 .. ...:Donations by foundations 2014........:United States response 2014 ...... Theories & studies (Peer reviewed) 2014........Thoughts by people wearing tin hats
Cut ... new...paste .. Save..crosslink Pbmaise ( talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Some theories advanced might well make it to the peer review page. By having a page a community can build a case. There are bits of evidence many wikipedia editors can accumulate.
Instead we, speaking as a tin hat society member, feel our theories are more real because a denial to vette amongst the public us seen as being manipulated. Pbmaise ( talk) 01:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:9F:10:100:8C8F:72F8:6671:348E ( talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Added under containment BrianGroen ( talk) 08:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not just a textual explanation of what's on the graphs. It contains data analysis which is not supported by a citation. It is original research. It is disallowed by wiki guidelines. See comments by Jimbo Wales above. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was a textual explanation of what was on the log-scale graphic, and the "Total" column of the accompanying statistics table. The regression fit was not colored in any way, either: the over 2% exponential growth, at over 0.95 correlation was correct. That Liberia has a higher growth rate is important, and could have been added to the numeric regression explanation. The fitting of numbers, already published on this article's tables, is hardly original research. You might as well say that "1 + 1 = 2" would be original research, and against wikipedia rules, without a citation of some bloke that predates history. I say that as hyperbole, but also to point out that there are no definable limits on what mathematical derivations may be original research, and what are just digests of the obvious. We'll leave it out for now, but perhaps I will introduce it again. GoatGuy 14:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy ( talk • contribs)
I suggest that we keep an alphabetical order for the section describing the response by organisations. I had fixed the order, but my changes were reverted without justification other than "restore to previous arrangement which is more appropriate for this section". There is no clear logical ordering at the moment. Why does the U.S. CDC come before Médecins sans Frontières, whose presence on the ground has been a lot more crucial to containment? Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations? Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before? I fail to see how the current arrangement is more "appropriate" for the section, given that the current ordering seems rather arbitrary: it is neither organised chronologically, nor by importance of resource commitment. Unless there is a source showing that the current ordering reflects the relative media attention each organisation currently named has received, I suggest that we stick to an alphabetic order - as we have done for the list of countries. Thanks for your input! F Camp ( talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is my rationale:
On July 20, 2014 a group of 7 Liberians arrived at Lagos airport. The trip from Monrovia involved 2 flights and 1 stopover. One of the 7 in this group should not have been there. He was supposed to be in isolation. He was infected with the Ebola virus. His name was Patrick Oliver Sawyer and he had a dual Liberian-American citizenship. Sawyer's sister had died just 12 days earlier from the disease. Sawyer had taken her to the hospital. Hospital staff say he failed to follow safety procedure. The hospital believe his actions help cause the infections and deaths of 6 staff members. Sawyer taken on arrival to hospital, All Africa, August 20, 2014 Precise number contacts unknown, Daily Mail Victims may sure, This Day Live Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014
Sawyer was supposed to remain in isolation for at least 21 days. However, after only 12 days, he was at the Monrovia airport and already ill. Liberia's Finance Minister had granted approval for Sawyer to go with the 6 other Liberians to a conference in Calabar, Nigeria. The minister was not aware Sawyer was ill or in isolation. Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014
The 7 Liberians were going to a conference of a 15-member nation group called ECOWAS . It was being held in Calabar. That city is 750 km away from Lagos. One more flight was necessary to get there.
Sawyer was a "burly" man. When Sawyer arrived he was weak after bouts of vomiting and diarrhea. Five airport handlers and the other Liberians helped Sawyer into a car and he was taken to First Consultants Hospital. Sawyer denied being around anyone that suffered from the disease. No special precautions were taken on his initial examination. The doctor that admitted him into the hospital listed him as a potential
malaria case. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
On July 23, 2014 Liberia attempted to recall the 7. Many calls came into the hospital.
On July 25, Patrick Sawyer died in the hospital and was found by Dr. Igonon. Her personal account was delayed owing to the fact she was fighting an infection from Sawyer.
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh, who realized Sawyer was not truthful, died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
On August 22, 2014 a doctor in Harcourt, 150 km from Calabar, died from the Ebola Virus disease. He was secretly treating a Nigerian representative of ECOWAS now facing manslaughter charges. Diplomat faces charges, Nigeria Daily Post, August 31, 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that the article is currently locked, but could someone with authority to go in and edit the story, please add in a section on the military intervention of the USA, it's a pretty big deal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.49.27 ( talk • contribs) 0:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC+2)
Us military intervention is covered under united states response and containment efforts. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
As an informed layman it was not clear to me that this was a graph of total cases and not new cases. I'd like to see a little more explanatory text of precisely what measurements are depicted and I think a graph showing NEW cases per unit time in the manner of the daily cases graph on the talk page. Such a graph makes it more obvious how the outbreak is progressing. While total cases will only go up, the number of new cases will peak (perhaps already has) and begin to decline, giving a better graphic representation of the extent of the disease at any one time. Think of it like a population. The total historic population of even an extinct species cannot go down, but saying that the total historic population of dinosaurs is presently six make-a-guess-illion doesn't really help you understand that the current population is zero. (Depending a little on your cladistic definitions, of course.) The total number of cases in the outbreak thus far may well be a couple thousand, but how many people are suffering from the disease right now? (And how many were there yesterday and last week.) New cases isn't a precise measure of that, but at least it gives you an understanding of extent. (And I'd guess it's easier to measure.)
The readership thanks you for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymphonicPoet ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that when we do it, we get a number that jumps around and does not provide any significant insight.
— User:Glrx
We don't have any "cases per day" data, what we have is overall figures updated every few days, it is a routine calculation but the resultant number would be an average and that would need to made clear. - Oosh ( talk) 23:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that, as the WHO death toll rose past 80 (1 April) and 160 (5 May) and 320 (18 June) and 640 (20 July), each of these doublings occurred in 5 or 6 weeks, characteristic of an epidemic's exponential growth phase.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/tracking-the-virus/ |title=Battling Ebola: Tracking the Virus |last=Seligson |first=Susan |publisher=Boston University |date=6 August 2014 |accessdate=15 August 2014}}</ref>
Ive uploaded a scatter and line-conected version of the graph. I want to upgrade it a little by tightening the margins, but please let me know if you think this row-style graph is Ok or single files are better. I´m more on the line-connected version of the graphs, its much more visual.
And this is the semiLog plot:
Im worried about the mismatch in the total vs country cases, could someone double check in the primary sources and perhaps correct it.-- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|Semilog Plot of Ebola outbreak from data on Wikipedia page as of 28-Aug-2014.
Cjacooper ( talk) 05:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cases per day and Deaths per day graphs are both still 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 if you want to average it: Aug 17th and Aug 18th. The graph shows that 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, if you want to average it. The way it is now is terrible! KingMidasTheSecond ( talk) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Support replacing the current cases/deaths per day graph with a bar chart/histogram type graph. Primarily this is because I believe the area under the graph should represent total cases/deaths. I don't see that is the case for the current version. Presenting the data this way also seems to be a more accurate reflection of the data on which the chart is based and less open to OR criticism. Not fussed about the inclusion (or not) of a Y-axis. Mattojgb ( talk) 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Opening section has a "citation needed" tag for the phrase sentence "Other factors include belief in – and reliance on – traditional folk remedies, magical beliefs, and cultural practices that predispose to physical contact with the deceased, especially death customs such as washing the body of the deceased." Due to the article's semi-protected status, I cannot add citations directly, but I can put a few sources here:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-ebola-outbreak-so-bad-sierra-leone-emergency-quarantine-180952218/?no-ist http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-border-ebola-outbreak-a-first-for-deadly-virus/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140327-ebola-virus-guinea-bush-meat-vaccine/
I may look for more information, particularly regarding the magical beliefs and folk remedies out there. I know I've seen them. Doktor Wunderbar ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I get a total of 4294 casualties, not 4293. Can someone check the math for today's infected count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.1.207 ( talk) 16:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The table in the timeline is a mess now. It seems to have too much info, plus some death and case totals have been deleted. All that really is needed is the WHO case/death totals for the countries in the different updates. A line or two at the bottom to inform people of any other information (like that some totals do not match or that some cases were reclassified, etc) would be cleaner. Rump1234 ( talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I as a start think altering the date field from "reported" to "as of" would be more accurate and go a long way to cleaning of the ref field. - Oosh ( talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Generally, the totals are interesting, but they were only included in WHO reports starting 1 July 2014. That means that all the earlier totals are calculations done by us. I propose we keep the totals, but make the totals be the sums across the row. Blank entries would use the first number below. Then we can delete many of the warnings at the bottom of the table. Glrx ( talk) 21:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The sums are out of synch right now. I will address that later. Glrx ( talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've worked my way through most of the table, but there are several spots that the data are confusing. The row for 29 March is troublesome, and I'd like some other editors to look at it. A couple days earlier, there were 8 suspected cases with 6 deaths. By 29 March, 7 suspected cases were tested, and 5 were negative for Ebola. That should drop cases to 3 (= 8 - 5). Following report is back to 8, but it might using cases that were negative. Deaths are similarly confused. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This line does not have a WHO source, so I'm tempted to just delete it. LI deaths do not match. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
30 April deleted.. no source found. Updated 1 and 2 may (as of date ) reports. Cumulative Totals in 2 may is calculated on 2 May Who report BrianGroen ( talk) 08:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm tempted to put emdashs in LI and SL. Its ref is CDC, but the CDC report is based on numbers from GU and from WHO. The GU numbers look OK, LI don't quite match, and SL numbers match but could be stale. Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Here some cumulative totals are given, but they don't match the deltas for the neighbors. I don't know what is happening. Any ideas? Glrx ( talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sept 3rd-Sept 6th new cases: Liberia - 199, Sierra Leone - 148, and Guinea - 72. Rate: 105/day. Total: 4354 Deaths: 2250 (+224).
http://www.reddit.com/r/ebola/comments/2ftyt1/sept_3rdsept_6th_new_cases_liberia_199_sierra/
Slushy9 ( talk) 04:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Better to use the Sept 6 WHO source that specifically excludes Liberia Sept 6th numbers, while keeping the erroneous Sept 5th number as if 300 new cases came in a single day. Whoever is in charge of the Timeline section keeps putting up wrong information. Blehair ( talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a duplicate 'cite web' tag in what is currently reference 89, leading to code ('cite web') spilling in the citation. Quoth source:
<ref name="Vogel">{{cite web{{Cite web| last = Vogel
Leading to the citation looking like this:
{{cite webVogel, Gretchen (2014). "How deadly is Ebola? Statistical challenges may be inflating survival rate". Science Mag. Retrieved 2014-09-09.
I believe the code should be changed to:
<ref name="Vogel">{{cite web{{Cite web| last = Vogel
Frandroid Atreides ( talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are IP editors locked out of helping? No evidence of problems. 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.211.131 ( talk)
The primary sources for the cases and deaths are taken from the affected countries' own daily Sit-Rep updates. It is factually wrong to attribute the Aug 24th numbers as Aug 26th, and mostly Sept 3rd numbers as Sept 5th. How else do you explain how the WHO reported Sept 5th numbers during Sept 5th, before any Sept 5th updates were released? The WHO clearly does not always intend "as of (date)" to include that particular date, but, rather, as of reports released by that date.
I go into detail regarding the Aug 26th numbers under the section regarding the Aug 28th WHO update with the primary sources. The primary sources refute what the timeline is saying as of Aug 26th and Sept 5th. Even on the Roadmap 2, which is the source for the Sept 5th number, they include the number of cases per week. Simple math points out the impossibility of the Aug 26th numbers with respect to the accurately labeled Aug 31st numbers.
In short, those 2 rows should be eliminated, or the timeline section should consider supplementing WHO sources with the primary sources from the Health Ministries themselves.
Blehair ( talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
UN has reported figures from the Ministry of Health (same source for WHO figures) of the 3 major affected countries as of Sept 6th, corresponding with figures released directly from the ministries. There were 4354 cases as of Sept 6th. Obviously there were not nearly 400 new cases from Sept 5th so please remove Sept 5th and Aug 26th figures. Blehair ( talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
From my modeling of the ebola number of cases. The data for 5th Sep 2014 is rubbish as it does not fit into the model at all. Where as the data for 6th Sep 2014 is compatible with the model. This indicates the 5th Sep 2014 data is either outdated or inaccurate. 202.177.218.59 ( talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the data from Sep 5 should be avoided is nonsense and belongs to some report, probably non-updated to Sept 5. Is not in the graph. Let me know if you think it should be inlcuded.-- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
With regards to 5 September figures it is not unlikely that the results might have jumped drastically in one day, but since it is not stated as off, but rather as at this figures could be called into question.My opinion on this result might have been hastily drawn up by WHO in the Geneva meeting and it is likely that the date is incorrect. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/......... and... http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395,,,,, -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014
What is the exact definition of cases and of death?
For example, on the 6 July the cases in Guinea decreases from 412 to 408, indicating this number is the number of person currently ill. Is this number, the number of the previous period plus the number of new cases minus the number of recoveries minus the number of death? A number that, everybody hope, will eventually goes down to zero.
While the number of death seams to be the cumulative number of death. A number that increase and, at best, will become stationary (horizontal).
Is this interpretation correct? AlainD ( talk) 11:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Timeline section, change 26 Aug 2014 to 24 Aug 2014 because the report cited doesn't actually specify the time period. Further details provided on the Talk page under Aug 26th WHO update. Blehair ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done
the 28 August report clearly states "As of 26 August 2014, the cumulative number of cases attributed to EVD in the four countries stands at 3 069" -
Arjayay (
talk)
11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This will be the last time I press this edit request. Under the Timeline of the outbreak, "26 Aug 2014" should read "24 Aug 2014". The WHO incorrectly assigned the 3069 figure to "26 Aug 2014" when all the primary sources from the field point towards 24 Aug 2014.
Here are the figures for cumulative cases for each affected country:
Aug 31 Liberia 1690 Guinea 771 Sierra Leone 1216 Nigeria 19 Total: 3696. The average daily rate over 4 or so days is over 100, and so it's reasonable to assume that the WHO's figure for 31 Aug 2014 is correct even though it differs by 11 cases. Tested suspected cases could have later been shown to be negative for Ebola.
Aug 26 Liberia 1416 Guinea 663 Sierra Leone 1057 Nigeria 14 Total: 3150. There were actually comparatively few new cases during Aug 25th-26th. For the WHO to report 3069 instead, or a number that is 81 less than 3150, seems to raise some red flags. Why would the average number of cases ruled negative for Ebola suddenly increase by a factor of more than 7? Doesn't make sense.
Aug 24 Liberia 1378 Guinea 646 Sierra Leone 1025 Nigeria 17 Total: 3066. This is only 3 away from the reported WHO figure for Aug 26, which suggests that it was in fact the Aug 24th number.
If you look at previous WHO numbers, you find that they all correspond very closely with the primary sources, never off by a ridiculous 81 cases.
Previous WHO updates are also far more specific about the time period that they attribute new cases to. For instance, they'll state "Between __ and __ August 2014" (with the exception of the Aug 28th and Sept 4th update) and title the Disease update table to include the date, like "Confirmed, probable, and suspect cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, as of __ August 2014" (again, with the exception of just the Aug 28th update).
I think the evidence is compelling that the WHO reported Aug 24th numbers incorrectly as being as of Aug 26th. WHO's reports are secondary sources, and for the Aug 28th update it is pretty clear it incorrectly used the primary sources. Rather than leave an incorrect datapoint up there, it would be better if it were simply removed if it can't be fixed. Blehair ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Still unable to. As of the new roadmap, we can see that the WHO themselves counted far less than 700 cases for week 35, making the reported Aug 26 number impossible. Considering there is no CDC or WHO source that corresponds with the primary sources from the Health Ministries, the Aug 26 row should simply be removed from the section. That is unless we decide to start using the primary sources, but per Wikipedia rules, the WHO source for Aug 26 is factually wrong, even disproved by its own Roadmap 2. At best, the WHO did not intend for us to think "as of Aug 26" meant Aug 26 numbers were included. Regardless, the way the Aug 24th numbers are presented as Aug 26th is misleading and needs to be changed or removed. Blehair ( talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair. I spent the whole day looking at the numbers. The date on the Who site is wrong for 26 August as well as the numbers. Found sit/rep 1 from WHO stating date as 25 August. With Regards to Sit/rep two the date of the report is 5 Sept, but the case load correlate with 3 Sept. Hence i changed the date. I have e-mailed Afro Who to get clarity but i don't expect a response soon. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If i take there 4 September report http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20112%20Sept%204,%202014.pdf (calculated average on two reports differs 56 over 4 days on 4 Sept to 31 Aug.) per day average. The total for 3 Sept = 1923 - 56 = 1867. Hence a difference of 5 as per timeline . I cannot find any report for 3 September. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 07:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair sory for all the updates but i decided to Use Primary Source OCHA for 3 Sept ties closely in with my above calculation. 5 September is definitely wrong. Source OCHO [5] Hope this clarify figures better. Date is 3 September except Nigeria which is 1 September . Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named ...Ebola virus disease epidemic....,not ...Ebola virus epidemic...? For example, we don't say P. falciparum epidemic(s), rather we use Malaria epidemic(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjevo123 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
What's up? When is it due next on the Timeline? 156.39.191.244 ( talk) 17:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a section titled "Projected Casualties and Deaths", which was reverted by Juan Riley with the comment "(Undid revision 624060888 by Craigster0 (talk) reverting good faith edit..upon reading it seems to contain numerous instances of primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues.)". The added section can be found here [6]
It seems to me that a section on the projected number of casualties and deaths is quite relevant to an article on the Ebola outbreak. The fact that the estimated range is quite large does not detract from the value of the estimate, it simply shows that there are a lot of unknown or unpredictable variables. The fact that the projected number of casualties and deaths might change based on actions taken by local, state, or international actors does not detract from its value, particularly when the projection is frequently updated with current information. This is even more true if the projection includes the effects of taking action, or not taking, certain actions are made explicit.
The added section includes a summary of a report published by WHO which predicts 20,000 casualties (which is also under discussion here in this talk page [7]. Note that that discussion (not the article) states that 20,000 casualties is the projected minimum under optimistic assumptions, and not a maximum. The fact that a large number of projected casualties might "scare people" does not seem like a good reason to suppress the projections.
Full disclosure: much of the information I posted comes from an analysis performed by Robert Van Buskirk, who is a friend of mine that I've worked with on a couple of successful third-world development projects. He has a PhD in Math and Physics from Harvard. He was the key driver of a succesful project (that I also worked on) to bring email connectivity to the country of Eritrea in 1998 [1]; he has made significant contributions to Meteorology research in Eritrea [2], and has published, in peer reviewed journals, at least 16 papers on subjects ranging from the economic effects of energy efficiency standards to "Observation of chaotic dynamics of coupled nonlinear oscillators" [3].
Juan Riley ( talk) listed his objections to the section I added as "primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues". Taking these cursory objections in turn:
Craigster0 ( talk) 07:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not the editor who removed the section, but I support the removal for the reasons listed above. Mimson ( talk) 14:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any objections to the first paragraph of the new section, which talks about the forcecast in the [ Ebola Responses Roadmap] published by WHO, so I'm going to to restore the section with that bit of information. I"m going to strike the sentence that says "It also includes assumptions that some experts have called "extremely aggressive"[80]." since its not really accurate -- the statement about "extremely aggressive" assumptions is about an assumption that any outbreak in a Western Country could be contained within 8 week, which is not really relevant to a section on Projected Casualities. My mistake -- I should have read the NY Times article more carefully. But I'm going to add another paragraph qoting the Director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases saying the outbreak is "out of control" and growing exponentially.
Philip here. Today I added a few lines on how virus forcasting works. I confirmed Author Chowell is at Arizona State U. The Has been already quoted in Canadian press. I specfically did not state what the model projects. We have a duty to not make the situation worse. Remember we teach. We are historians. Pbmaise ( talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
paoer
Why doesn't per day Ebola 2014.png the graph match the big table? The graph caption is "Average new cases and deaths per day (between WHO reporting dates)", which should be verifiable from the table by subtracting cases in one reporting period from the next period, and dividing by days between (compare #Data definition). But that calculation shows a steady rate of about 100 new cases since August 20 (details next paragraph), and the graph peaks at about 127 cases, about August 31.
Details:
20-25 August, (3071-2615)/5 = 91.2 new cases per day
25-31 August, (3707-3071)/6 = 106 new cases per day
31 Aug - 3 Sep(4001-3707)/3 = 98 new cases per day
3-6 September,(4293-4001)/3 = 97.3 new cases per day
Art LaPella ( talk) 18:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have updated to the primary source as WHO is very belated in releasing figures. Primary source is OCHA but when there is a date difference i will update from respective government. "Stat" means numbers did not change as no report is available. Nigeria and Senegal is belated in releasing info . BrianGroen ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note these numbers for OCHA is derived from various sources including WHO and CDC and governments. I currently think they are the better source with all due respect to WHO which i think is swamped with work as well as CDC. All numbers will be correlated with governments if available but OCHA has shown consistency in the past and is a public entity. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
the fatality count is wrong inline with last number, as opposed to prior in the table,,,,,,,,-- 65.8.188.239 ( talk) 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sierra Leone ties in with government report. Cases will fluctuate between reports as new numbers are received from non ebola cases. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
7 Sept WHO report has a small error in Sierra Leone report: Suspected deaths added up double in WHO report. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/guinea/
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resources/distribution-map-guinea-outbreak.html
This appears part of a blog with no particular focus on Ebola or epidemics. Doubt it is sufficiently significant to justify diluting the "External Links" section of the main article.
Persons who are or have been infected can be divided into three classes: those who are currently sick (active infection), those who have died, and those who have recovered (virus was cleared from their bodies by their immune system). So why do we have no statistics for the recovered class? JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Our lead presently states: As of 6 September 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a total of 4,293 suspected cases and 2,296 deaths (2,552 cases and 1,386 deaths being laboratory confirmed).[1] Knowing that at present the hospitals are so full that they need to turn away patients, I doubt that they have the time or resources to be laboratory confirming the diagnosis/cause of death of these people - thus the very wide discrepancy. I am wondering if it makes any sense to continue to report the number of confirmed cases as opposed to diagnosed (per the symptoms that they present with) cases and their deaths? Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: "present with" is a medical term meaning the appearance of a new patient combined with what they say about their symptoms. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gandydancer The primary source is OHCA but they fortunately do not release lab confirmed death, but do release lab confirmed cases. As well as respective goverments. i.e Liberia sit- rep is very accurate and timely. Sorry my edit keeps whacking out . BrianGroen ( talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I deemed it necessary to add in the WHO paragraph the stinging rebuke by Miller because of who he is, where he works, andbfact Forbes printed it. It was toned down. Pbmaise ( talk) 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller is not just anybody. Forbes, repeat Forbes. We are historians. His opinion is shared by millions. Deleting his input from the record is not right. Yes we should record objections about US calls to send thousands of troops to Nigeria to stop a virus Nigeria managed to contain after a very ill Patrick Sawyer who was just with his sister that died. He knew she died from ebola, he violated orders to stay quarantined, he was so sick the cctv show him lying down before boarding. He worked hard to infect as many in Nigeria as possible. The reports of what he did are graphic. We report none of this here. We are also not talking about the 156 dogs that tested positive. That it is likely a 2yo boy would get licked and play with a dog and not handle raw bushmeat. Yes bats were in that cotton factory. However, dogs were in their home.
Pbmaise ( talk) 14:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have problems with this sourced statement in the current version of this article:
The outbreak began in Guinea in December 2013, but was not detected until March 2014,[3] after which it spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal.
My collection of original reports ( learn more about these alerts, wrong denials, misinformation etc. here if curious) has suspected ebola alerts cropping up already in February 2014 in Liberia (and even earlier ones in Guinea). Here's a quote from just one of them:
: Last week [that is around 27 February 2014] it was disclosed by the Acting Medical Director of Ganta Hospital that two suspected Ebola cases were transferred to JFK Hospital in Monrovia. After further observation of the patients it was announced that the cases were not Ebola.
One Suspected Ebola Case Admitted to Ganta Hospital
As we know by now, in fact these alerts were right, while the false negative ebola tests were wrong, as they were detecting the previous strain of the virus.
I also recommend mentioning the Ebola infection tests started in this region by Tekmira already in January 2014, if not earlier (see their published Clinical Trials info). Zezen ( talk) 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a Sept. 5 update of the outbreak distribution map in this International Business Times article. Should we use it? -- Monochrome_ Monitor 15:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Monochrome Monitor CDC is in the public domain and is fair use as long as they are cited.. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 06:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe the 3RR rules require us to attempt a discussion before blocking. So a Pravda opinion that the U.S. is deliberately spreading disease isn't considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source, right? Art LaPella ( talk) 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
why hasn't WHO given an update in more than a week?........-- 65.8.188.239 ( talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO is swamped . Will post as soon as we see new figures on all governments to a date. Or a reliable source BrianGroen ( talk) 09:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article vandalized on 13-14 September by ip editors.
BrianGroen ( talk) 08:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cannolis sorry i don't want something edited but the article was considerably vandalized in the last two days (especially today). Can we re-instate a semi protect lock to contributing editors only. BrianGroen ( talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I've been watching the table closely and using it as the basis for a spreadsheet in which I model the growth as an exponential curve. I thank everyone who has been working on making sure that the table is accurate and reflect the official figures.
So now my question: In recent days a couple of times the recent numbers have changed - what happened there?
As a sad side note, and this is all original research so not appropriate for the article but may help inform us. The overall growth rate fits quite well to a 2.3% or so growth rate. But looking at individual countries reveals something very different. Liberia's growth rate is more like 4.7%. One of the thing that the media can't do is math so I think there hasn't been a real awareness of what this means. If you have 4 independent exponential growth processes with some at 1-2 percent and one at 4-5 percent... the 4-5 percent one absolutely dominates in short order. It is not at all difficult to see how November could finally wake up the world to how serious this is. I hope I'm wrong - I'm just some idiot on the Internet with a spreadsheet but there you go.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I set that section up, but as the epidemic grows I am growing increasingly critical of it. I think that I added most of everything there, so I do not mean to suggest that others have "messed it up". As I read the section it seems to me that info is sort of placed willy-nilly here and there. Perhaps the medical info should be put in its own section...? Anyway, I sure would appreciate feedback - for all I know, others may think that it's just fine... Gandydancer ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The first case in
Nigeria was reported by the WHO on 25 July:
"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 25 July 2014". WHO: Outbreak news. 25 July 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014. Patrick Sawyer, flew from Liberia to Nigeria after exposure to the virus, and died at
Lagos soon after arrival.Wesee, Ben P. (4 August 2014).
"I'm ok - Nigerian Ambassador Assures Public". The New Dawn, Monrovia. Retrieved 7 August 2014. In response, the hospital where he was being treated was shut down and quarantined, and the health officials who were treating him were isolated in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.Cocks, Tim (28 July 2014).
"Nigeria isolates Lagos hospital where Ebola victim died". Reuters. Retrieved 1 August 2014.
"Sierra Leone hunts Ebola patient kidnapped in Freetown". British Broadcasting Corporation. 25 July 2014.
"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 31 July 2014 - WHO | Regional Office for Africa". Afro.who.int. Retrieved 8 August 2014. However, a doctor and nurse who treated Sawyer both died from Ebola.Reuters (4 August 2014).
"Lagos records second Ebola case in doctor who treated victim: Nigerian health minister". {{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Mark, Monica (6 August 2014).
"Ebola Outbreak: Nurse who Treated First Victim in Nigeria Dies".
The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2014.[16/patrick-sawyer-emails-ebola-struck-close-to-home/ E-mail of Patrick Sawyer, Worldpress, August 2014]
Sawyer's primary job was with a mining concern. In early July, he arrived with bloodied clothing and his pregnant sister, at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in Monrovia. Sawyer's sister's name was Miss Princess Christina Nyennetue, and she died from the virus. While at the hospital, Sawyer failed to heed staff directions. Six physicians and nurses that Sawyer came in contact with died. Sawyer also left that hospital knowing his sister had Ebola. The next day he reported for work at the offices of ArcelorMittal. He was directed to go home and remain in confinement for 21 days.
Sawyer booked an E-ticket and claimed to be going to an important conference. He did not book via the local offices of ECOWAS nor inform the ambassador from ECOWAS, who was already set to go. He also did not inform the Ambassador of his sister's death. The Liberian official that approved Sawyer's departure is quoted as saying the request by ECOWAS to allow Sawyer to leave Liberia was unprecedented.
Sawyer managed to make contact with at least 59 people. Of these, he successfully infected 44, and 17 of them later died.
Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014
At First Consultants Hospital in Nigeria, Sawyer denied being near an Ebola case and told officials to test for malaria and HIV. Physicians tested him and found he was suffering from Ebola. He became unruly.
Hospital Physician
Ameyo Adadevoh has been credited for denial of requests that Sawyer be released after they knew it was Ebola, so he could attend the conference. Ameyo Adadevoh was one that Sawyer infected that died.
Sawyer died on July 25, 2014. He was cremated at the hospital. His mother, Georgia Nah, demanded to see his ashes.
Sawyer's wife was in Minnesota.
AllAfrica
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician
Ameyo Adadevoh died from the
Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
In August and September 2014 the press in Nigeria was openly asking questions.
Liberian Deputy Finance Minister, Mr. Sebastian Omar, was accused of knowing Sawyer had Ebola and his sister had died from it, yet still authorized travel to attend the conference.
http://dailypost.ng/2014/08/24/femi-fani-kayode-ameyo-adadevoh-ebola-conspiracy/ Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014]
The conference, Sawyer so desparately needed to go, was 750 km away in
Calabar. He was too ill to get there.
I want to create a 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria but I dont want anyone to do delete it after creation that is why I want to know if creating it is allowed. I do not want to use epidemic because I don't think it was really an epidemic. The Nigeria case is unique for some of the following reasons.
I don't support this notion. 1. It is still to early to say if Nigeria have for one cleared all their cases. 2. The index case was from Liberia therefore the spread is from this area. 3. This outbreak is far from over and gathering from the staggering increase we will (i'm afraid to say it but) see other countries also involved. 15 other African countries have been identified as at very high risk. 4. This page is now in other languages following our lead an it will have an effect on them. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
ECOWAS diplomat Olubukun Doye met Sawyer in Lagos. He was placed in isolation but escaped to Harcourt. This makes him the second person from the same group infected with Ebola to escape isolation and head towards the same conference. Harcourt is within 150 km of Calabar and site of the conference. A doctor treated this person secretely in a hotel. When? Before, or after conference?
The doctor, died August 22, 2014. According to news website, Sahara Reporters, he secretly treated a diplomat who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American, who brought the virus to Nigeria. [13] Compare local press and WHO. WHO fails to mention key facts. [14]
15 was the number of States facing Ebola soon. 15 is the number of nations in ECOWAS. Denmark have bushmeat? Pbmaise ( talk) 10:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The 15 countries in line for possible Ebola is based on study by Oxford scientists [15] and not relate to the ECOWAS summit. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The last ECOWAS meeting in Callabar was one day before Sawyer arrived in Nigeria. 24 July [16] BrianGroen ( talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I wait minutes for pages to load.
Please one protected summary page like
2014 Ebola virus disease outbreaks: MAIN PAGE 2014 ......:Liberia ...etc 2014 .. ...:Donations by foundations 2014........:United States response 2014 ...... Theories & studies (Peer reviewed) 2014........Thoughts by people wearing tin hats
Cut ... new...paste .. Save..crosslink Pbmaise ( talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Some theories advanced might well make it to the peer review page. By having a page a community can build a case. There are bits of evidence many wikipedia editors can accumulate.
Instead we, speaking as a tin hat society member, feel our theories are more real because a denial to vette amongst the public us seen as being manipulated. Pbmaise ( talk) 01:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:9F:10:100:8C8F:72F8:6671:348E ( talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Added under containment BrianGroen ( talk) 08:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not just a textual explanation of what's on the graphs. It contains data analysis which is not supported by a citation. It is original research. It is disallowed by wiki guidelines. See comments by Jimbo Wales above. -- Aflafla1 ( talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was a textual explanation of what was on the log-scale graphic, and the "Total" column of the accompanying statistics table. The regression fit was not colored in any way, either: the over 2% exponential growth, at over 0.95 correlation was correct. That Liberia has a higher growth rate is important, and could have been added to the numeric regression explanation. The fitting of numbers, already published on this article's tables, is hardly original research. You might as well say that "1 + 1 = 2" would be original research, and against wikipedia rules, without a citation of some bloke that predates history. I say that as hyperbole, but also to point out that there are no definable limits on what mathematical derivations may be original research, and what are just digests of the obvious. We'll leave it out for now, but perhaps I will introduce it again. GoatGuy 14:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy ( talk • contribs)
I suggest that we keep an alphabetical order for the section describing the response by organisations. I had fixed the order, but my changes were reverted without justification other than "restore to previous arrangement which is more appropriate for this section". There is no clear logical ordering at the moment. Why does the U.S. CDC come before Médecins sans Frontières, whose presence on the ground has been a lot more crucial to containment? Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations? Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before? I fail to see how the current arrangement is more "appropriate" for the section, given that the current ordering seems rather arbitrary: it is neither organised chronologically, nor by importance of resource commitment. Unless there is a source showing that the current ordering reflects the relative media attention each organisation currently named has received, I suggest that we stick to an alphabetic order - as we have done for the list of countries. Thanks for your input! F Camp ( talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is my rationale:
On July 20, 2014 a group of 7 Liberians arrived at Lagos airport. The trip from Monrovia involved 2 flights and 1 stopover. One of the 7 in this group should not have been there. He was supposed to be in isolation. He was infected with the Ebola virus. His name was Patrick Oliver Sawyer and he had a dual Liberian-American citizenship. Sawyer's sister had died just 12 days earlier from the disease. Sawyer had taken her to the hospital. Hospital staff say he failed to follow safety procedure. The hospital believe his actions help cause the infections and deaths of 6 staff members. Sawyer taken on arrival to hospital, All Africa, August 20, 2014 Precise number contacts unknown, Daily Mail Victims may sure, This Day Live Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014
Sawyer was supposed to remain in isolation for at least 21 days. However, after only 12 days, he was at the Monrovia airport and already ill. Liberia's Finance Minister had granted approval for Sawyer to go with the 6 other Liberians to a conference in Calabar, Nigeria. The minister was not aware Sawyer was ill or in isolation. Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014
The 7 Liberians were going to a conference of a 15-member nation group called ECOWAS . It was being held in Calabar. That city is 750 km away from Lagos. One more flight was necessary to get there.
Sawyer was a "burly" man. When Sawyer arrived he was weak after bouts of vomiting and diarrhea. Five airport handlers and the other Liberians helped Sawyer into a car and he was taken to First Consultants Hospital. Sawyer denied being around anyone that suffered from the disease. No special precautions were taken on his initial examination. The doctor that admitted him into the hospital listed him as a potential
malaria case. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
On July 23, 2014 Liberia attempted to recall the 7. Many calls came into the hospital.
On July 25, Patrick Sawyer died in the hospital and was found by Dr. Igonon. Her personal account was delayed owing to the fact she was fighting an infection from Sawyer.
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh, who realized Sawyer was not truthful, died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
On August 22, 2014 a doctor in Harcourt, 150 km from Calabar, died from the Ebola Virus disease. He was secretly treating a Nigerian representative of ECOWAS now facing manslaughter charges. Diplomat faces charges, Nigeria Daily Post, August 31, 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that the article is currently locked, but could someone with authority to go in and edit the story, please add in a section on the military intervention of the USA, it's a pretty big deal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.49.27 ( talk • contribs) 0:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC+2)
Us military intervention is covered under united states response and containment efforts. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)