![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The article first paragraphs implies that the epidemic started in three countries but now is observed in several countries. However, the definition of an epidemic is more than 10 cases per 150 000 people. The epidemic level has only been reached in the three west-african countries where it started. Outside of west-africa, there has been a minor outbreak in Nigeria, but not an epidemy, and it ceased. In other countries there has only been single cases reported.
Experts have started to complain over that the outbirst often is descreibed as an epidemy in many countires, and Wikipedia is one of the channels to be blamed here. I tried to change the article but it was reversed. Mange01 ( talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
it would be no different than what is mentioned above 1. "The word 'epidemic' is an emotionally charged term. It means different things to different people, and professionals using the term may have an intended meaning quite different from the public's perception of the word. It may also imply different things when translated into other languages. We believe there is a need to define a more understandable official lexicon for``epidemics, particularly when attempting to communicate risk to the population. While recognizing that epidemiologists will continue to use the words ``outbreak and ``epidemic inter-changeably, for risk communication the term ``outbreak should be used according to its standard general dictionary definition as being a more limited type of epidemic. Furthermore, descriptive words should be used to better define the epidemic. The nature of the spread, number of cases, case-fatality, and area affected should be included. Thus, the disease should be described as contagious or non-contagious, with mild, moderate or severe clinical manifestations. The size of the epidemic could be described as small, medium or large, depending on the percentage of the population affected. Finally,the distribution of the epidemic should be classified as widespread or localized. As an example, the West Nile fever epidemic in Israel in 2000 could be described as a medium- sized, relatively widespread epidemic of a non-contagious disease with generally mild to moderate clinical manifestations and a significant death rate only in very elderly people. While this approach will require us to expand our terminology in order to be more specific, it should make risk communication much more effective." [15] and 2. the definition of Epidemic-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The timeline section has multiple problems. First, it contains an indiscriminate collection of data, which violates WP:NOT. It is based on one source and is WP:OR because of the attempt to synthesize a chronological progression and a series of graphs based on these periodic WHO reports. Lastly, the tone and style of the section is way out of whack with the rest of the article.
The goal of the timeline section is to characterize the numeric progression of the disease, but it has turned into an academic exercise of sorts.
I propose to remove the section; in its place, let's cite secondary-source research that describes the progression of the disease, for example [16] and move it inline into the appropriate places in the main article. Lastly, as several have already pointed out, as the WHO revises its numbers, they're actually going DOWN in some cases which makes the raw table that much more inappropriate in this article. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The Liberia numbers have not been updated in days for one, but the big massive drop came in Sierra leone who drop a lot of suspected cases and only report on lab confirmed death. This Inconsistencies is only temporary for now. the head of WHO Africa was replaced in the week and i believe Unmeer is going to take a leading role in reporting. Hoping this will solve the problem in future reports. BrianGroen ( talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I am hugely in support of removing this section. I can't see any way for it to become anything other than a collection of unparsed, likely OR, hard-to-read graphs and charts. After the discussion about the charts, I thought maybe if I generated a prose version of the section that would alleviate a lot of concerns, but it was clear that there was no way to do that. From a purely editorial perspective I think it should be removed, even if it technically doesn't violate any policies (about which there is much concern). 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Removing the chart will only make WHO information harder to find. There is no substitute for this information. People are using to track the limit of our knowledge about the virus; Jimbo posted on this talk page to say that he himself had done so. I see it as a valuable addition to the article. Shii (tock) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I would not come here if the timeline section were removed. Removing it, and any arguments in favor of removing it are a disservice to Wikipedia. The people proposing removal need to rethink just what Wikipedia is. However, the explanation of this data is very unclear. I cannot tell from the explanation if the graphs and numbers, once plotted, will change over time. Sphere1952 ( talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For 19 October 2014 Liberia reported 4665 cases, on 24 October 6253 cases where reported. In the weekly graphic this caused a peak of about 2500 total cases for the week ending 26 October (Interpolated between 24 October and 30 October).
User Delphi234 ( talk) replaced the graphic now with a version, where he replaced the data for the week ending 2 November with a much smaller value and he removed the "peak" for the week ending 26 October 2014:
See the history of this image for my original version. My problem is, that we have no other data to be used as a base for the graphs than the one that are displayed in the tables of this article. I have also no time to ask WHO for corrected historical numbers.
Any opinions on how to handle this graphic and the related graphic with liberian numbers, which is not changed at the time I write this post:
With kind regards, -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see [ [17]] for the discussion on this on my personal talk page on Wikimedia -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Remove. It's case in point why this graph does not belong in the article. Graphing of governmental reports does not make sense. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Remove both Delphi234 is a sockpuppet of blocked user Apteva so they will not be able to discuss the changes here. As for the graph itself, I'm not sure if either version is useful any longer. At the minimum, it is a demonstration of how graphing "cases reported per week" does not correspond to anything that readers might be interested in, like the growth or decline of the epidemic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
remove for similar reasons stated above, the point is the graph cant logically absorb the 2500 cases -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk to me talk
User Delphi234 ( talk) just told me on my Wikimedia talk page, that the WHO now also publishes the numbers. So the original dispute regarding the peak is solved. I will just base the next versions of the weekly graphs on this official numbers.
My main question was about handling the peak. Not stay or remove. I doubt that we will remove the diagrams with weekly cases, as this kind of graph is commonly used to describe epidemics. Why remove here when WHO uses them?-- Malanoqa ( talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ZeLonewolf removed the weekly graphic from the article 30 hours after I started this talk. Do we really have a consensus here? This chapter is titled "Handling of the jump", not "Remove weekly graphic". So maybe some editors not yet noticed that the removing of this graphic is now discussed here. -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've tidied up the Experimental Treatments and Sierra Leone sections a bit. Please let me know if this causes any problems. Robertpedley ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have replaced the "acute" link which I feel is appropriate. The link reads, "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". This has been discussed awhile back. It is my feeling that while the link is not perfect, it does help to understand why the WHO might call it "the worst" while millions in Africa are dying of other diseases such as malaria. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Even though EVD can certainly be described as "acute" I am not sure that is the best term for the outbreak/epidemic since it has been ongoing for nearly a year. Perhaps "urgent" would be more suitable. Jaerik ( talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The reason I had added the Wikilink is because they are using it in precisely that medical sense - it is not the most severe medical emergency in general in modern times (that would probably be the HIV pandemic, or possibly the flu), but it is the most severe acute one. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3 instances today, so far. Should we ask for protection (PS I don't know how to do it!) Robertpedley ( talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As a gentle reminder, the timeline article exists for "daily trivia" type facts. It has not been updated in a few days.-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 00:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Раціональне анархіст The timeline was last updated on 30 Nov as per latest WHO report.. i only received new data today and added it. Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a small note to all new editors... Please take note before adding data that the correct date is added to the timeline and the date is to one specific date. I know you all mean well to add the data but it is a tedious process and please read the report for the the correct data... the data on the timeline is the number of cases on that date and not the report date.. i.e the report date is released 10 Dec but the data is for 7 Dec. Thanks all it makes updating the graphs the so much easier and the data is correct. The timeline data is as per who situation reports and not the latest data. The timeline is structured per epidemic week ...The infobox is per latest available data per country and also check the date BrianGroen ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone please also note that "cases" refers to confirmed cases only, as per an official report. For example, the just-reported American nurse case is not yet confirmed (and even if it were, say by the hospital, we'd still have to wait for the official inclusion to avoid double-counting it). Secondly, a reminder again to the existence of the timeline article, where "daily trivia" is not only more welcome, but the actual primary focus of that page.-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This article "more time needed" contains material which probably deserves to be mentioned in the lede, e.g. The UN Ebola chief said on Thursday it will take several more months before the outbreak in West Africa is under control, an assessment that makes clear the UN's goal of isolating 100 percent of Ebola cases by January 1 won't be met. Dr David Nabarro said there has been “a massive shift” over the last four months in the way affected governments have taken the lead in responding to the epidemic, communities are taking action and the international community has pitched in. I don't normally edit in the lede, (+ I don't have time at the moment) would someone else consider doing this please? Robertpedley ( talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
there was an earlier Washington Post article on this, but I found this more concise, "the year’s outbreak in west Africa follows that template. A July Washington Post article reported that the three countries hit hardest by the epidemic also have experienced massive deforestation. In Guinea, the rainforest has shrunk to less than a fifth of its original size, and in Liberia, more than half of forests have been sold off to loggers. Sierra Leone has lost a quarter of its wooded land, according to the U.S. Forest Service", [18].....?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
you could be right, however the Washington Post [19] had the same opinion of deforestation, it reads in part, “The increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is frequently associated with drastic changes in forest ecosystems in tropical Africa, wrote researchers in a 2012 study in the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. Extensive deforestation and human activities in the depth of the forests may have promoted direct or indirect contact between humans and a natural reservoir of the virus. Such a conclusion is particularly troublesome for West Africa, which has never before experienced an Ebola outbreak like this one, and is reported to have one of the world’s highest rates of regional deforestation. The Guinea Rainforest has been ravaged by deforestation...in Liberia, more than half of the forests have been sold off to logging companies, according to the Guardian. And Sierra Leone is “seriously threatened” by deforestation, according to Chatham House’s Illegal Logging Portal."-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the most recent graphs are more than two weeks out of date, and the majority are almost a month out of date, should these still be represented? I understand the table has been widely debated, and still continues to be updated. Though, with the graphs being left to age, I am not sure their value. Locke411 ( talk) 16:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone wants to add this: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org
They have a project where everyone can participate, looking for an Ebola treatment or cure. It's run by the Scripps Research Institute and a scientist who has been working on Ebola for 11 years - http://www.scripps.edu/ollmann-saphire/
It is a way for ordinary people to help.
As we are all well-aware, our article far exceeds the recommended length. What would other editors think of creating a split that includes the experimental treatments information? Gandydancer ( talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
if there is agreement to shorten, compress, do sub-articles and so on it should be done. However there shouldn't be a compromise of quality for quantity ("the article should meet a certain length to therefore...") However you look at it the reason why there is more information is because the virus hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem immediately prone to do so [20] whatever you decide is fine, remember though while we sit comfortably on our PC, these people have to live in it with little end in sight [21]..... merry christmas-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
CRF references are sprinkled throughout the article, and they're mostly different. The latest official numbers (December 10) are 76% in the three outbreak nations and 61% in "hospitalized cases" (it isn't explicitly clear whether "hospitalized" refers to a level of care above the ETCs, but I assume so).-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the University of Edinburgh there are two potential reasons for problems with CFR's, it says "case fatality rate (CFR) or case fatality risk is a property of an infectious disease in a particular population which states the risk of fatality due to the disease per case. The first thing to note is that it can't be reliably be calculated for an ongoing epidemic by dividing the reported number of deaths due to a disease by the reported number of cases. There are a number of reasons why this will be a poor estimate: Firstly, this doesn't take into account infections that have yet to run their course (ending in recovery or death). If many new cases are being reported, then this will under estimate the CFR. A more reliable estimate can be made if the number of recoveries is also being reported. Secondly, the estimate will be poor if there is a bias in reporting or diagnosis towards severe cases of the disease. This is the case with MERS-CoV in the Middle East where there are many instances of mild or asymptomatic cases (discovered through contact tracing) but most primary cases are only tested if the patients are hospitalized. This will overestimate the CFR. With ebolavirus, bias may occur if patients are being looked after at home and only being hospitalized or recorded if the disease becomes very severe or if the patient dies." [22] I hope this information helps-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Too much ongoing vandalism by IPs. Existing "lock" is green (protection against page moves only)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks Brian-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Statistical measures says: "R0 is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 ... R0 of 2 means one person infects two individuals, who infect four, 8, 16, 32, 64 – and so on. The R0 is accumulated over the time when an individual is infectious. For example with HIV, this could be years, but for Ebola, that time is a week." Doctors know enough math to know that the 33rd term of the series 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... exceeds the population of the earth. The epidemic started a year ago (which is over 33 weeks) and we aren't all dead yet, so what does everyone else know that I don't know? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
linearly go that far.i'll remove it to be clearer.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed it [25]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"food for thought" [26]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought there were more Western countries infected by Ebola, and that they weren't included. Lucasjohansson ( talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is the United Kingdom here? As best I can find out, and as written, there is no local transmission. Yes, someone was diagnosed with it in the United Kingdom, but there is no local transmission. Either this section on the UK should be moved, or this category should be renamed to Countries with limited local diagnoses or some such. Locke411 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Finally the WHO got the figures right for Sierra leone. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There are 1400 cases in the USA that are being monitored according to CDC reported by Sharyl Atkisson Dec 21, 2014 on Fox News, Howard Kutz's Media Buzz program. Sharyl said that these numbers are not reflected on the CDC website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzeG40o9GVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:615C:581F:B991:6BF7 ( talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if we should report, seems highly speculative but who knows [31] BrianGroen ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
After a two month's investigation The New York Times released this long detailed article about the origins and explosive growth of the epidemic. I have it in the article as a source for a well-known fact. If that cite is removed this cite should be preserved as it is a comprehensive survey of the early progress of the epidemic and how it escaped early control. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
My removal of the errant "never before" claim has been reverted. As explained in my edit comment, this claim is erroneous and so should be excised regardless of its notable sourcing. (The Black Death is also "within recorded history".)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 14:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Lets take it from the top, the following indicates it was not bubonic, and reads, "by extracting the DNA of the disease bacterium, Yersinia pestis, from the largest teeth in some of the skulls retrieved from the square, the scientists were able to compare the strain of bubonic plague preserved there with that which was recently responsible for killing 60 people in Madagascar. To their surprise, the 14th-century strain, the cause of the most lethal catastrophe in recorded history, was no more virulent than today's disease. The DNA codes were an almost perfect match.According to scientists working at Public Health England in Porton Down, for any plague to spread at such a pace it must have got into the lungs of victims who were malnourished and then been spread by coughs and sneezes. It was therefore a pneumonic plague rather than a bubonic plague. Infection was spread human to human, rather than by rat fleas that bit a sick person and then bit another victim. As an explanation [rat fleas] for the Black Death in its own right, it simply isn't... it cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics." [35] Furthermore, the History.com (History channel) is even more convincing, "now, analysis of skeletal remains found by construction workers digging railway tunnels in central London has led scientists to a stunning new conclusion: The Black Death was not transmitted through flea bites at all, but was an airborne plague spread through the coughs, sneezes and breath of infected human victims, the source adds, "according to Dr. Tim Brooks... transmission by rat fleas as an explanation for the Black Death “simply isn’t good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics" [36] The Black Death has many more articles dedicated to it that go a different culprit than the "bubonic" conclusion.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
that could be,(and I agree with you partly) but look at these two articles as well as the prior one provided, molecular biologist are saying the DNA evidence is conclusive with what we have today, and that would not be enough to do the damage the "Black Death " did. However, if it were airborne, that's a different story, a pneumonic plague (as cited in the second article above) could get the number of victims that Europe experienced.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi All this article is getting long i there fore suggest a split of treatments to a new article .. Not only will it reduce this article but also improve the main virus article. The split can also be linked to other countries. BrianGroen ( talk) 08:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Rmk5002x9 ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's set to ten days (which is probably too short; twenty would be better), but I'm seeing threads not contributed to since November. Pax 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The epidemic in Mali has been successfully contained and as such the image needs to change and references to this in the article. Luxure Σ 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph is a rambling mess of rapidly obsolescing and obsolesced bits (For example, there obviously aren't going to be enough beds right now if the case count jumped 2,000 in one week, etc.)
Can we just get rid of it, or move what pieces are worth keeping to elsewhere in the article? That would get us down to three paragraphs in the lead. Pax 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone got any objections if i split Nigeria off.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the infobox contains this "Note: the CDC estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers." This was certainly true back in September, but I haven't seen it in any recent press so maybe we should remove it? Robertpedley ( talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robertpedley i grre with that it seems that the situation has stabilised now.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pax i just removed it from the info box but it is still in the lead section. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
[38] ,,,,,,,and it reads, "exactly how many of the 4,400 corpses laid to rest here since August are victims of Ebola is impossible to say, as the city's overwhelmed authorities lack the time to analyse every death.",,a far cry from WHO barely 3,000 count-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all i have requested a new semi protect on the page [39] BrianGroen ( talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that Mali is officially Ebola-free, this map needs an update (Mali pink).
Now Pauline Cafferkey is no longer in Scotland, there have been no other cases reported in Scotland, and it's looking less and less probable that there will be more as more time passes. Does anyone know the date that Scotland will be declared Ebola-free (and thus turned from yellow to green on the world map), provided there are no other cases reported? -- Impsswoon ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a super huge problem to page-down past on every visit, but does this TP really need a mile-high stack of tags on top of it? Pax 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to this page after the new year I noticed it was sometimes difficult to tell what year was being talked about as many dates in the text had no year. The page now covers the period December 2013 to 2015, so I went through and added the year where it seemed appropriate. I may have missed some, or added them where on another reading it may not be needed. Suggest others have a read through and add/remove as required. Diff
here. I also altered
DMY to MDY when needed for consistency.
Dates without years-"war without tears"?
-
220
of
Borg
12:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The page says in the second sentence of the lead:
This WHO 'fact sheet' is also relevant. [2] It says:
However the "70%" figure is not explicitly stated in the cited source anywhere that I could find. Has someone calculated this themselves? :-o They seem to be quoting from another source actually [3] Which does support 70% (in Liberia only) though not for a very large sample. It was updated 23 September 2014, so may even be out of date, the upper CFR may be higher than 71%! 220 of Borg 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
References
It says "this is the 26th outbreak", but how about the 25th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 ( talk) 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
[List_of_Ebola_outbreaks] Robertpedley ( talk) 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
i think you meant to put .. List of Ebola outbreaks... Gremlin SA 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit somehow caused a red "Cite error" at the end of the article. I could just revert it, but for one thing it would likely go back in automatically, and for another thing, why is there a reference down in the categories anyway? Art LaPella ( talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It happened again without explanation. So I removed the references, and notified the user who added them. Art LaPella ( talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Art LaPella. I took a look but I couldn't figure it out. Robertpedley ( talk) 19:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Short answer (not an expert) the ref is in a "Out Of Bounds" area, where the code for Ref list building code does not 'work'? looking at the Wiki layout guide Ref's must always be above cat's... Gremlin SA 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looked at it much closer now.. check a few previous versions of the page [43], right at the bottom you will see a Second list of Ref's, so yup, the ref is in a Out of Bounds area. AND.. the culprit.. IS ...Ser Amantio di Nicolao, in this edit... Gremlin SA 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the UK be listed in countries with "isolated cases"? Probably, because the WHO report still lists it as "COUNTRIES WITH AN INITIAL CASE OR CASES, OR WITH LOCALIZED TRANSMISSION". Our infobox lists the UK as "isolated cases", but our map doesn't. So you would think we would be consistent in our own article. Art LaPella ( talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Liberia reported only one case (in a known chain) over the last week. Normally I'd consider changing its color from orange to yellow on that basis, but I simply do not trust the reporting out of that place (and have no reason to), and am going to wait another week (or more) just to be sure. Guinea and Sierra Leone both have bounced off their lows and the majority of cases are from unknown vectors, so no orange for them anytime soon. Pax 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[45] this article came out very recently, it seems very informative-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
heres the original complete text...
Ebola — Public Health Lessons from a Clinician Turned Patient
Craig Spencer, M.D., M.P.H.
February 25, 2015DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1501355
ArticleReferences
While treating patients with Ebola in Guinea, I kept a journal to record my perceived level of risk of being infected with the deadly virus. A friend who'd volunteered previously had told me that such a journal comforted him when he looked back and saw no serious breach of protocol or significant exposure. On a spreadsheet delineating three levels of risk — minimal, moderate, and high — I'd been able to check off minimal risk every day after caring for patients. Yet on October 23, 2014, I entered Bellevue Hospital as New York City's first Ebola patient.
Though I didn't know it then — I had no television and was too weak to read the news — during the first few days of my hospitalization, I was being vilified in the media even as my liver was failing and my fiancée was quarantined in our apartment. One day, I ate only a cup of fruit — and held it down for less than an hour. I lost 20 lb, was febrile for 2 weeks, and struggled to the bathroom up to a dozen times a day. But these details of my illness are not unique. For months, we've heard how infected West Africans, running high fevers and too weak to move, were dying at the doorsteps of treatment centers. We've seen pictures of dying children crippled by vomiting and diarrhea and unable to drink.
Yet for clinicians, striving and repeatedly failing to cure Ebola is brutal, too. The Ebola treatment center in Guéckédou, Guinea, was the most challenging place I've ever worked. Ebola is frightening not just because of its high fatality rate, but also because of how little we know about it. We cannot explain exactly what it does to our bodies, nor tell patients who survive it how it may affect them in the future. As a clinician and epidemiologist, I've worked in places just miles from active conflict and managed to grow used to the sight of soldiers and the sound of gunfire. But this microscopic virus, an invisible enemy, made me uneasy.
While in Guinea, I often woke up sweating in the middle of the night, my heart racing. I might have felt warm, but my thermometer would read 97.7°F — perhaps it was broken? I started diagnosing myself with gastritis, amebiasis, peptic ulcer disease. Though I understood the connection between psychological stress and physical pain, I'd never experienced it like this. As an emergency physician, I try to approach challenging situations rationally and remain calm under pressure. But my work made it hard for me to relax and feel like myself.
Nevertheless, when I was at the treatment center, I was fueled by compassion and the immense challenge of caring for patients with Ebola. I'd never felt so deeply that my decisions could have a measurable impact on other people's lives. Difficult decisions were the norm: for many patients, there were no applicable algorithms or best-practice guidelines. Creating safe discharge plans for pregnant Ebola survivors in their third trimester or advising lactating mothers when it was safe to resume breast-feeding required hours of discussion and planning with colleagues, health promoters, and patients. Every day, I looked forward to putting on the personal protective equipment and entering the treatment center. No matter how exhausted I felt when I woke up, an hour of profuse sweating in the suit and the satisfaction I got from treating ill patients washed away my fear and made me feel new again. Yet I also remember the calm that settled over me the last time I left the center, knowing that I'd no longer be exposed to Ebola. I left Guinea focusing on the socially trying 21 days ahead of me.
Back in New York, the suffering I'd seen, combined with exhaustion, made me feel depressed for the first time in my life. I slept long hours and had a hard time connecting with old friends. I became fearful of the incredibly remote possibility that I could become sick and infect my fiancée, the person I love the most. Touching others and shaking hands — forbidden actions throughout West Africa — still made me uncomfortable. Twice a day, I held my breath in fear when I put a thermometer in my mouth. I did all this worrying well before I ever had a fever or showed any symptoms of Ebola.
The morning of my hospitalization, I woke up knowing something was wrong. I felt different than I had since my return — I was more tired, warm, breathing fast. When I took my temperature and called to report that it was elevated, in some bizarre way I felt almost relieved. Although my worst fear had been realized, having the disease briefly seemed easier than constantly fearing it.
My activities before I was hospitalized were widely reported and highly criticized. People feared riding the subway or going bowling because of me. The whole country soon knew where I like to walk, eat, and unwind. People excoriated me for going out in the city when I was symptomatic, but I hadn't been symptomatic — just sad. I was labeled a fraud, a hipster, and a hero. The truth is I am none of those things. I'm just someone who answered a call for help and was lucky enough to survive.
I understand the fear that gripped the country after I fell ill, because I felt it on a personal level. People fear the unknown, and fear in measured doses can be therapeutic and inform rational responses, but in excess, it fosters poor decision making that can be harmful. After my diagnosis, the media and politicians could have educated the public about Ebola. Instead, they spent hours retracing my steps through New York and debating whether Ebola can be transmitted through a bowling ball. Little attention was devoted to the fact that the science of disease transmission and the experience in previous Ebola outbreaks suggested that it was nearly impossible for me to have transmitted the virus before I had a fever. The media sold hype with flashy headlines — “Ebola: `The ISIS of Biological Agents?'”; “Nurses in safety gear got Ebola, why wouldn't you?”; “Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen”1-3 — and fabricated stories about my personal life and the threat I posed to public health, abdicating their responsibility for informing public opinion and influencing public policy.
Meanwhile, politicians, caught up in the election season, took advantage of the panic to try to appear presidential instead of supporting a sound, science-based public health response. The governors of New York and New Jersey, followed by others, enacted strict home quarantine rules without sufficiently considering the unintended side effects. The threat of quarantine may cause sick people to defer seeking treatment, and both nationals of affected countries and health care responders returning from those countries may alter their travel plans or misreport their exposure to avoid quarantine. Implementing restrictions that don't accord with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4 also undermines and erodes confidence in our ability to respond cohesively to public health crises. At times of threat to our public health, we need one pragmatic response, not 50 viewpoints that shift with the proximity of the next election. Moreover, if the U.S. public policy response undermined efforts to send more volunteers to West Africa, and thus allowed the outbreak to continue longer than it might have, we would all be culpable.
Instead of being welcomed as respected humanitarians, my U.S. colleagues who have returned home from battling Ebola have been treated as pariahs. I believe we send the wrong message by imposing a 21-day waiting period before they can transition from public health hazard to hero. As a society, we recognize the need for some of our best-trained physicians and public health professionals to participate in a potentially fatal mission because failing to stop the epidemic at its source threatens everyone. We should also have faith that these professionals will follow proven, science-based protocols and protect their loved ones by monitoring themselves. It worked for me, and it has worked for hundreds of my colleagues who have returned from this and past Ebola outbreaks without infecting anyone.
For many politicians, the current Ebola epidemic ended on November 4, 2014, the day of midterm elections (and, coincidentally, the day my fever broke). For the U.S. media, it ended a week later, when I walked out of Bellevue Hospital and the country was officially Ebola-free. But the real Ebola epidemic still rages in West Africa. The number of new cases is stabilizing in some areas and declining in others, but more than 23,000 people have been infected,5 and many are still dying from this disease.
When we look back on this epidemic, I hope we'll recognize that fear caused our initial hesitance to respond — and caused us to respond poorly when we finally did. I know how real the fear of Ebola is, but we need to overcome it. We all lose when we allow irrational fear, fueled in part by prime-time ratings and political expediency, to supersede pragmatic public health preparedness.
[46] there seems to be a sharp increase in and around the capital area of Sierra Leone, [47] as the latest WHO sit-rep indicates, it might be a momentary "flare up" but with such a proven killer as the virus has shown to be, at the very least this country should be kept an eye on until/whenever its over-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A total of 116 new confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were reported in the week to 8 March, compared with 132 the previous week. Liberia reported no new confirmed cases for the second consecutive week. New cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone occurred in a geographically contiguous arc around the coastal capital cities of Conakry and Freetown, with a total of 11 districts reporting cases. Although there has been no significant decline in overall case incidence since late January, the recent contraction in the geographical distribution of cases is a positive development, enabling response efforts to be focused on a smaller area....per WHO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This happened today. Jon the VGN3rd ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that log-scale graphs of weekly cases would be far more interesting than cumulative graphs if you want to understand whether the disease is being contained. The cumulative graph is misleading because the spread could actually accelerate while looking like it is slowing down on a cumulative graph. To me the choice is between graph of weekly new cases (absolute spread rate) and weekly new cases divided by 3 week case counts (spread rate per infected). Sf jeff2 ( talk) 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I support the cumulative graph, I dont see any gain on removing it if the weekly is shown. BTW Im plotting but not uploading a graph that is new cases/day/(total cases) that can be changed to cases/day/last 3 weeks. Of course, every time you do a division, the plot is noisier. Do you think it will be helpful? -- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This page should be semi-protected, as it covers a current event. Iamahashtag ( talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone inform if the world map presently has listed all of the places that have had medically-evacuated cases? Thanks. Pax 05:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the epidemic over in Liberia, as the text says? Or are there 10–20 new cases and deaths per day in Liberia, as the table says? It can't be both. Art LaPella ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Berehulak was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography on Monday for his coverage of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa for The New York Times. The staff of the St Louis Post-Dispatch won the prize for Breaking News Photography for their coverage of the aftermath of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Berehulak, a freelance photographer who works mostly for the Times, has spent four months since August covering the Ebola crisis in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. As he covered the story’s full arc, he took few breaks and many precautions. “This award makes me think of all the people that shared their lives with me so that I was able to document this ghastly and horrible virus,” Mr. Berehulak said. “It preys on our humanity — on everything that makes us human. People can’t hold their loved ones in their last dying moments because that’s when the virus is the most potent.” At one point, he set up a makeshift studio at a treatment center to make portraits of those on the front lines of the disease, from doctors to gravediggers.
“Daniel’s images are those that have become the most memorable of the tragedy,” said Michele McNally, the Times’s director of photography. “He would not let go of the story, spent as much time as he could and was very patient in letting the situations unfold before him. It is a combination of superb photography, impactful storytelling and persistence and bravery that makes these pictures resonate.”
Monday’s announcement by Columbia University, which administers the prizes, marks the seventh photography Pulitzer for the Times. The Times also had two finalists in the breaking news category with group entries from Gaza (Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Wissam Nassar) and from Ukraine (Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev and Uriel Sinai). David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships.
David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships. “Daniel was a veteran of war zones, but this was a new kind of danger,” Mr. Furst said. “He had to face senseless death day after day, and it was soul crushing. He was not ever able to let his guard down and was working in excruciating heat with layers of protection.”
Despite the global attention, he said he was “shocked” at the time that few news organizations were sending journalists to cover the outbreak. There were people who did very important work, he said, but there were “many organizations that didn’t devote their efforts and journalistic abilities to this important story.” Mr. Berehulak grew up on a farm an hour and a half from Sydney, Australia, where his parents settled after emigrating from Ukraine after World War II. He became interested in photography as a child and took pictures as he traveled as a college volleyball player. After his sister died of Lupus when he was 23, he said he “realized that life was short” and decided to turn his passion for photography into a career.
He was hired by Getty in 2005 in London and transferred to India four years later. He resigned in 2013 to be able to “pursue more long-term projects,” and started freelancing, mostly for Times. Represented by Getty Images Reportage, Mr. Berehulak has worked in more than 50 countries and won three World Press Photo awards, as well as the John Faber Award from the Overseas Press Club. In February, he was named photographer of the year in the reportage category in the Pictures of the Year International Contest. “You need to spend time and treat the people you photograph with the utmost respect and show them in the most dignified way possible,” Mr. Berehulak said. “Everyone is human and I don’t see any hierarchy. That’s a fundamental part of portraying people and people’s lives.”
And for him, covering Ebola so intensively was ultimately about portraying people, to show not just the bodies, but how the disease tore apart families and communities. It was, he said, daunting. “Covering the spread and devastating impact of the Ebola virus in West Africa is by far the most challenging and important assignment of my career,” he said in remarks to the Times newsroom. “It was not war in the conventional sense, it was not a conflict that was wholly visible. But it was in so many ways a battle that captivated and frightened the world. And I would be lying to say I was not also afraid at times.” But it was the strength and resilience that he witnessed among people that kept him going. “I watched a father attempt to care for his 8-year-old son, not being able to hold him, to comfort him in the last moments of his young life,” he said. “I saw families struggle with the devastation of not being able to respectfully bury and say farewell to their loved ones, and the overwhelming fear of stigma. Pictures make connections between people regardless of culture, language or geography. A camera is a voice to share somebodys story, and each picture is proof that our jobs do matter.” [49]
I though this was worthy of the talk page here are the pictures [50] now that we know something of the person who took them. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Sierra Leone stayed under 10 cases/week for two sequential reports. Unless someone objects, I'm going to drop them to orange. Pax 10:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
With Sierra Leone not having reported a case in over a week, I think it can be moved to yellow. Guinea is under 10 per week- orange or even yellow seems right. Italy also needs to be colored in yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.237.3 ( talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It says currently but should say 2015. Ebola blood ( talk) 03:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit in the Liberia section:
Comparing the data previously reported on this page to the present data shows an increase from April 5, 2015 to May 5, 2015 of 702 new cases and 308 deaths.
Why does our table show these deaths?
Also, the info box with all of the Ebola related articles is missing - could someone replace it? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for length - it is well over twice the length that is considered acceptable. I suggest that we split the Ebola info re any outbreaks (or disease related to a person that was transferred to another country for treatment) that occurred outside of West Africa into another article. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As much as I try to keep the article from getting too long it seems that I need to constantly make decisions about information that I believe should go into the splits that we have created. This info for instance:
I feel that this sort of info would be better placed in the split for Guinea than in this article. I'd like some feedback please because it is not pleasant for me to need to constantly delete other's work. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is another example of information that does not belong in this article, a Primary study on mice that was just published:
this is in regards to an early discussion with Gandydancer in regards to how many times one must wait 5 years for a review to come out to prove a primary study done so much early (per MEDRS)
The section on Liberia describes how there were no new cases after a specific date, but the table of total cases shows the number of cases in Liberia going up multiple times after this date. As a causal, non-expert reader, this seems like it needs to be clarified. ike9898 ( talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The title does not match with the information within; this page also covers the US, Italy, the UK, and other non-West African countries. Non-WA information should be removed, moved, or the entire page should be renamed[moved.] -Mr. Man ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/world/africa/liberia-new-ebola-death-is-reported.html 72.187.46.255 ( talk) 08:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The image at the top right of the article contains the following: "Note: the CDC currently estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers". The sources cited are from September and October 2014. As with the references to the supposed substantially higher mutation rate, which was refuted by several recent studies, this is a relic of a more hysterical time. It was refuted in a matter of months by a study - endorsed by the CDC - which showed under-reporting was substantially lower - more like 17%, and certainly not double, let alone triple. It is certainly not a "current" estimate by the CDC. See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/fewer-ebola-cases-go-unreported-than-thought-study-finds-.html Donners ( talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie, you have left hundreds of edits, usually one small edit a day even if it means just changing one word, and you never leave edit summaries. Since I watch this article very closely and do updates in a timely manner, this means that I must check your edits every day since I have no idea what may have been added. That you now finally leave an edit summary saying, "please any editor ,should indicate in future reason for any reversion, thank you)," regarding the removal of one of your edits is extremely frustrating for me. I have had to again and again remove edits that would have bloated this article to a totally unacceptable length, edits that should have been put in the article splits rather than this one, and I have again and again used edit summaries each time. My patience has now run out. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@
Gandydancer: About
this - the current text "A single patient was evacuated to Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
" made me chuckle, as it sounded like one poor individual being carted off to all of those different countries. If I was that patient, I would ask them to just leave me alone after I got to the third country or so. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we mention somewhere, like the top of the infobox, that there are only 2 remaining known cases of Ebola? I think that's what readers want to know, not how many thousands of cases occurred last year as of this date and that date. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"There is as yet no known confirmed medication, vaccine, or treatment." but "all people at risk will now receive the new vaccine" Art LaPella ( talk) 01:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The article first paragraphs implies that the epidemic started in three countries but now is observed in several countries. However, the definition of an epidemic is more than 10 cases per 150 000 people. The epidemic level has only been reached in the three west-african countries where it started. Outside of west-africa, there has been a minor outbreak in Nigeria, but not an epidemy, and it ceased. In other countries there has only been single cases reported.
Experts have started to complain over that the outbirst often is descreibed as an epidemy in many countires, and Wikipedia is one of the channels to be blamed here. I tried to change the article but it was reversed. Mange01 ( talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
it would be no different than what is mentioned above 1. "The word 'epidemic' is an emotionally charged term. It means different things to different people, and professionals using the term may have an intended meaning quite different from the public's perception of the word. It may also imply different things when translated into other languages. We believe there is a need to define a more understandable official lexicon for``epidemics, particularly when attempting to communicate risk to the population. While recognizing that epidemiologists will continue to use the words ``outbreak and ``epidemic inter-changeably, for risk communication the term ``outbreak should be used according to its standard general dictionary definition as being a more limited type of epidemic. Furthermore, descriptive words should be used to better define the epidemic. The nature of the spread, number of cases, case-fatality, and area affected should be included. Thus, the disease should be described as contagious or non-contagious, with mild, moderate or severe clinical manifestations. The size of the epidemic could be described as small, medium or large, depending on the percentage of the population affected. Finally,the distribution of the epidemic should be classified as widespread or localized. As an example, the West Nile fever epidemic in Israel in 2000 could be described as a medium- sized, relatively widespread epidemic of a non-contagious disease with generally mild to moderate clinical manifestations and a significant death rate only in very elderly people. While this approach will require us to expand our terminology in order to be more specific, it should make risk communication much more effective." [15] and 2. the definition of Epidemic-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The timeline section has multiple problems. First, it contains an indiscriminate collection of data, which violates WP:NOT. It is based on one source and is WP:OR because of the attempt to synthesize a chronological progression and a series of graphs based on these periodic WHO reports. Lastly, the tone and style of the section is way out of whack with the rest of the article.
The goal of the timeline section is to characterize the numeric progression of the disease, but it has turned into an academic exercise of sorts.
I propose to remove the section; in its place, let's cite secondary-source research that describes the progression of the disease, for example [16] and move it inline into the appropriate places in the main article. Lastly, as several have already pointed out, as the WHO revises its numbers, they're actually going DOWN in some cases which makes the raw table that much more inappropriate in this article. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The Liberia numbers have not been updated in days for one, but the big massive drop came in Sierra leone who drop a lot of suspected cases and only report on lab confirmed death. This Inconsistencies is only temporary for now. the head of WHO Africa was replaced in the week and i believe Unmeer is going to take a leading role in reporting. Hoping this will solve the problem in future reports. BrianGroen ( talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I am hugely in support of removing this section. I can't see any way for it to become anything other than a collection of unparsed, likely OR, hard-to-read graphs and charts. After the discussion about the charts, I thought maybe if I generated a prose version of the section that would alleviate a lot of concerns, but it was clear that there was no way to do that. From a purely editorial perspective I think it should be removed, even if it technically doesn't violate any policies (about which there is much concern). 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Removing the chart will only make WHO information harder to find. There is no substitute for this information. People are using to track the limit of our knowledge about the virus; Jimbo posted on this talk page to say that he himself had done so. I see it as a valuable addition to the article. Shii (tock) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I would not come here if the timeline section were removed. Removing it, and any arguments in favor of removing it are a disservice to Wikipedia. The people proposing removal need to rethink just what Wikipedia is. However, the explanation of this data is very unclear. I cannot tell from the explanation if the graphs and numbers, once plotted, will change over time. Sphere1952 ( talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For 19 October 2014 Liberia reported 4665 cases, on 24 October 6253 cases where reported. In the weekly graphic this caused a peak of about 2500 total cases for the week ending 26 October (Interpolated between 24 October and 30 October).
User Delphi234 ( talk) replaced the graphic now with a version, where he replaced the data for the week ending 2 November with a much smaller value and he removed the "peak" for the week ending 26 October 2014:
See the history of this image for my original version. My problem is, that we have no other data to be used as a base for the graphs than the one that are displayed in the tables of this article. I have also no time to ask WHO for corrected historical numbers.
Any opinions on how to handle this graphic and the related graphic with liberian numbers, which is not changed at the time I write this post:
With kind regards, -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see [ [17]] for the discussion on this on my personal talk page on Wikimedia -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Remove. It's case in point why this graph does not belong in the article. Graphing of governmental reports does not make sense. ZeLonewolf ( talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Remove both Delphi234 is a sockpuppet of blocked user Apteva so they will not be able to discuss the changes here. As for the graph itself, I'm not sure if either version is useful any longer. At the minimum, it is a demonstration of how graphing "cases reported per week" does not correspond to anything that readers might be interested in, like the growth or decline of the epidemic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
remove for similar reasons stated above, the point is the graph cant logically absorb the 2500 cases -- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk to me talk
User Delphi234 ( talk) just told me on my Wikimedia talk page, that the WHO now also publishes the numbers. So the original dispute regarding the peak is solved. I will just base the next versions of the weekly graphs on this official numbers.
My main question was about handling the peak. Not stay or remove. I doubt that we will remove the diagrams with weekly cases, as this kind of graph is commonly used to describe epidemics. Why remove here when WHO uses them?-- Malanoqa ( talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ZeLonewolf removed the weekly graphic from the article 30 hours after I started this talk. Do we really have a consensus here? This chapter is titled "Handling of the jump", not "Remove weekly graphic". So maybe some editors not yet noticed that the removing of this graphic is now discussed here. -- Malanoqa ( talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've tidied up the Experimental Treatments and Sierra Leone sections a bit. Please let me know if this causes any problems. Robertpedley ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have replaced the "acute" link which I feel is appropriate. The link reads, "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". This has been discussed awhile back. It is my feeling that while the link is not perfect, it does help to understand why the WHO might call it "the worst" while millions in Africa are dying of other diseases such as malaria. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Even though EVD can certainly be described as "acute" I am not sure that is the best term for the outbreak/epidemic since it has been ongoing for nearly a year. Perhaps "urgent" would be more suitable. Jaerik ( talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The reason I had added the Wikilink is because they are using it in precisely that medical sense - it is not the most severe medical emergency in general in modern times (that would probably be the HIV pandemic, or possibly the flu), but it is the most severe acute one. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3 instances today, so far. Should we ask for protection (PS I don't know how to do it!) Robertpedley ( talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As a gentle reminder, the timeline article exists for "daily trivia" type facts. It has not been updated in a few days.-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 00:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Раціональне анархіст The timeline was last updated on 30 Nov as per latest WHO report.. i only received new data today and added it. Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a small note to all new editors... Please take note before adding data that the correct date is added to the timeline and the date is to one specific date. I know you all mean well to add the data but it is a tedious process and please read the report for the the correct data... the data on the timeline is the number of cases on that date and not the report date.. i.e the report date is released 10 Dec but the data is for 7 Dec. Thanks all it makes updating the graphs the so much easier and the data is correct. The timeline data is as per who situation reports and not the latest data. The timeline is structured per epidemic week ...The infobox is per latest available data per country and also check the date BrianGroen ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone please also note that "cases" refers to confirmed cases only, as per an official report. For example, the just-reported American nurse case is not yet confirmed (and even if it were, say by the hospital, we'd still have to wait for the official inclusion to avoid double-counting it). Secondly, a reminder again to the existence of the timeline article, where "daily trivia" is not only more welcome, but the actual primary focus of that page.-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This article "more time needed" contains material which probably deserves to be mentioned in the lede, e.g. The UN Ebola chief said on Thursday it will take several more months before the outbreak in West Africa is under control, an assessment that makes clear the UN's goal of isolating 100 percent of Ebola cases by January 1 won't be met. Dr David Nabarro said there has been “a massive shift” over the last four months in the way affected governments have taken the lead in responding to the epidemic, communities are taking action and the international community has pitched in. I don't normally edit in the lede, (+ I don't have time at the moment) would someone else consider doing this please? Robertpedley ( talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
there was an earlier Washington Post article on this, but I found this more concise, "the year’s outbreak in west Africa follows that template. A July Washington Post article reported that the three countries hit hardest by the epidemic also have experienced massive deforestation. In Guinea, the rainforest has shrunk to less than a fifth of its original size, and in Liberia, more than half of forests have been sold off to loggers. Sierra Leone has lost a quarter of its wooded land, according to the U.S. Forest Service", [18].....?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
you could be right, however the Washington Post [19] had the same opinion of deforestation, it reads in part, “The increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is frequently associated with drastic changes in forest ecosystems in tropical Africa, wrote researchers in a 2012 study in the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. Extensive deforestation and human activities in the depth of the forests may have promoted direct or indirect contact between humans and a natural reservoir of the virus. Such a conclusion is particularly troublesome for West Africa, which has never before experienced an Ebola outbreak like this one, and is reported to have one of the world’s highest rates of regional deforestation. The Guinea Rainforest has been ravaged by deforestation...in Liberia, more than half of the forests have been sold off to logging companies, according to the Guardian. And Sierra Leone is “seriously threatened” by deforestation, according to Chatham House’s Illegal Logging Portal."-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the most recent graphs are more than two weeks out of date, and the majority are almost a month out of date, should these still be represented? I understand the table has been widely debated, and still continues to be updated. Though, with the graphs being left to age, I am not sure their value. Locke411 ( talk) 16:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone wants to add this: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org
They have a project where everyone can participate, looking for an Ebola treatment or cure. It's run by the Scripps Research Institute and a scientist who has been working on Ebola for 11 years - http://www.scripps.edu/ollmann-saphire/
It is a way for ordinary people to help.
As we are all well-aware, our article far exceeds the recommended length. What would other editors think of creating a split that includes the experimental treatments information? Gandydancer ( talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
if there is agreement to shorten, compress, do sub-articles and so on it should be done. However there shouldn't be a compromise of quality for quantity ("the article should meet a certain length to therefore...") However you look at it the reason why there is more information is because the virus hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem immediately prone to do so [20] whatever you decide is fine, remember though while we sit comfortably on our PC, these people have to live in it with little end in sight [21]..... merry christmas-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
CRF references are sprinkled throughout the article, and they're mostly different. The latest official numbers (December 10) are 76% in the three outbreak nations and 61% in "hospitalized cases" (it isn't explicitly clear whether "hospitalized" refers to a level of care above the ETCs, but I assume so).-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the University of Edinburgh there are two potential reasons for problems with CFR's, it says "case fatality rate (CFR) or case fatality risk is a property of an infectious disease in a particular population which states the risk of fatality due to the disease per case. The first thing to note is that it can't be reliably be calculated for an ongoing epidemic by dividing the reported number of deaths due to a disease by the reported number of cases. There are a number of reasons why this will be a poor estimate: Firstly, this doesn't take into account infections that have yet to run their course (ending in recovery or death). If many new cases are being reported, then this will under estimate the CFR. A more reliable estimate can be made if the number of recoveries is also being reported. Secondly, the estimate will be poor if there is a bias in reporting or diagnosis towards severe cases of the disease. This is the case with MERS-CoV in the Middle East where there are many instances of mild or asymptomatic cases (discovered through contact tracing) but most primary cases are only tested if the patients are hospitalized. This will overestimate the CFR. With ebolavirus, bias may occur if patients are being looked after at home and only being hospitalized or recorded if the disease becomes very severe or if the patient dies." [22] I hope this information helps-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Too much ongoing vandalism by IPs. Existing "lock" is green (protection against page moves only)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks Brian-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Statistical measures says: "R0 is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 ... R0 of 2 means one person infects two individuals, who infect four, 8, 16, 32, 64 – and so on. The R0 is accumulated over the time when an individual is infectious. For example with HIV, this could be years, but for Ebola, that time is a week." Doctors know enough math to know that the 33rd term of the series 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... exceeds the population of the earth. The epidemic started a year ago (which is over 33 weeks) and we aren't all dead yet, so what does everyone else know that I don't know? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
linearly go that far.i'll remove it to be clearer.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed it [25]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
"food for thought" [26]-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought there were more Western countries infected by Ebola, and that they weren't included. Lucasjohansson ( talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is the United Kingdom here? As best I can find out, and as written, there is no local transmission. Yes, someone was diagnosed with it in the United Kingdom, but there is no local transmission. Either this section on the UK should be moved, or this category should be renamed to Countries with limited local diagnoses or some such. Locke411 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Finally the WHO got the figures right for Sierra leone. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There are 1400 cases in the USA that are being monitored according to CDC reported by Sharyl Atkisson Dec 21, 2014 on Fox News, Howard Kutz's Media Buzz program. Sharyl said that these numbers are not reflected on the CDC website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzeG40o9GVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:615C:581F:B991:6BF7 ( talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if we should report, seems highly speculative but who knows [31] BrianGroen ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
After a two month's investigation The New York Times released this long detailed article about the origins and explosive growth of the epidemic. I have it in the article as a source for a well-known fact. If that cite is removed this cite should be preserved as it is a comprehensive survey of the early progress of the epidemic and how it escaped early control. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
My removal of the errant "never before" claim has been reverted. As explained in my edit comment, this claim is erroneous and so should be excised regardless of its notable sourcing. (The Black Death is also "within recorded history".)-- Раціональне анархіст ( talk) 14:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Lets take it from the top, the following indicates it was not bubonic, and reads, "by extracting the DNA of the disease bacterium, Yersinia pestis, from the largest teeth in some of the skulls retrieved from the square, the scientists were able to compare the strain of bubonic plague preserved there with that which was recently responsible for killing 60 people in Madagascar. To their surprise, the 14th-century strain, the cause of the most lethal catastrophe in recorded history, was no more virulent than today's disease. The DNA codes were an almost perfect match.According to scientists working at Public Health England in Porton Down, for any plague to spread at such a pace it must have got into the lungs of victims who were malnourished and then been spread by coughs and sneezes. It was therefore a pneumonic plague rather than a bubonic plague. Infection was spread human to human, rather than by rat fleas that bit a sick person and then bit another victim. As an explanation [rat fleas] for the Black Death in its own right, it simply isn't... it cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics." [35] Furthermore, the History.com (History channel) is even more convincing, "now, analysis of skeletal remains found by construction workers digging railway tunnels in central London has led scientists to a stunning new conclusion: The Black Death was not transmitted through flea bites at all, but was an airborne plague spread through the coughs, sneezes and breath of infected human victims, the source adds, "according to Dr. Tim Brooks... transmission by rat fleas as an explanation for the Black Death “simply isn’t good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics" [36] The Black Death has many more articles dedicated to it that go a different culprit than the "bubonic" conclusion.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
that could be,(and I agree with you partly) but look at these two articles as well as the prior one provided, molecular biologist are saying the DNA evidence is conclusive with what we have today, and that would not be enough to do the damage the "Black Death " did. However, if it were airborne, that's a different story, a pneumonic plague (as cited in the second article above) could get the number of victims that Europe experienced.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi All this article is getting long i there fore suggest a split of treatments to a new article .. Not only will it reduce this article but also improve the main virus article. The split can also be linked to other countries. BrianGroen ( talk) 08:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Rmk5002x9 ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's set to ten days (which is probably too short; twenty would be better), but I'm seeing threads not contributed to since November. Pax 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The epidemic in Mali has been successfully contained and as such the image needs to change and references to this in the article. Luxure Σ 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph is a rambling mess of rapidly obsolescing and obsolesced bits (For example, there obviously aren't going to be enough beds right now if the case count jumped 2,000 in one week, etc.)
Can we just get rid of it, or move what pieces are worth keeping to elsewhere in the article? That would get us down to three paragraphs in the lead. Pax 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone got any objections if i split Nigeria off.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the infobox contains this "Note: the CDC estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers." This was certainly true back in September, but I haven't seen it in any recent press so maybe we should remove it? Robertpedley ( talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robertpedley i grre with that it seems that the situation has stabilised now.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pax i just removed it from the info box but it is still in the lead section. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
[38] ,,,,,,,and it reads, "exactly how many of the 4,400 corpses laid to rest here since August are victims of Ebola is impossible to say, as the city's overwhelmed authorities lack the time to analyse every death.",,a far cry from WHO barely 3,000 count-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all i have requested a new semi protect on the page [39] BrianGroen ( talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that Mali is officially Ebola-free, this map needs an update (Mali pink).
Now Pauline Cafferkey is no longer in Scotland, there have been no other cases reported in Scotland, and it's looking less and less probable that there will be more as more time passes. Does anyone know the date that Scotland will be declared Ebola-free (and thus turned from yellow to green on the world map), provided there are no other cases reported? -- Impsswoon ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a super huge problem to page-down past on every visit, but does this TP really need a mile-high stack of tags on top of it? Pax 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Coming back to this page after the new year I noticed it was sometimes difficult to tell what year was being talked about as many dates in the text had no year. The page now covers the period December 2013 to 2015, so I went through and added the year where it seemed appropriate. I may have missed some, or added them where on another reading it may not be needed. Suggest others have a read through and add/remove as required. Diff
here. I also altered
DMY to MDY when needed for consistency.
Dates without years-"war without tears"?
-
220
of
Borg
12:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The page says in the second sentence of the lead:
This WHO 'fact sheet' is also relevant. [2] It says:
However the "70%" figure is not explicitly stated in the cited source anywhere that I could find. Has someone calculated this themselves? :-o They seem to be quoting from another source actually [3] Which does support 70% (in Liberia only) though not for a very large sample. It was updated 23 September 2014, so may even be out of date, the upper CFR may be higher than 71%! 220 of Borg 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
References
It says "this is the 26th outbreak", but how about the 25th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 ( talk) 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
[List_of_Ebola_outbreaks] Robertpedley ( talk) 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
i think you meant to put .. List of Ebola outbreaks... Gremlin SA 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit somehow caused a red "Cite error" at the end of the article. I could just revert it, but for one thing it would likely go back in automatically, and for another thing, why is there a reference down in the categories anyway? Art LaPella ( talk) 18:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It happened again without explanation. So I removed the references, and notified the user who added them. Art LaPella ( talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Art LaPella. I took a look but I couldn't figure it out. Robertpedley ( talk) 19:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Short answer (not an expert) the ref is in a "Out Of Bounds" area, where the code for Ref list building code does not 'work'? looking at the Wiki layout guide Ref's must always be above cat's... Gremlin SA 11:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looked at it much closer now.. check a few previous versions of the page [43], right at the bottom you will see a Second list of Ref's, so yup, the ref is in a Out of Bounds area. AND.. the culprit.. IS ...Ser Amantio di Nicolao, in this edit... Gremlin SA 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the UK be listed in countries with "isolated cases"? Probably, because the WHO report still lists it as "COUNTRIES WITH AN INITIAL CASE OR CASES, OR WITH LOCALIZED TRANSMISSION". Our infobox lists the UK as "isolated cases", but our map doesn't. So you would think we would be consistent in our own article. Art LaPella ( talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Liberia reported only one case (in a known chain) over the last week. Normally I'd consider changing its color from orange to yellow on that basis, but I simply do not trust the reporting out of that place (and have no reason to), and am going to wait another week (or more) just to be sure. Guinea and Sierra Leone both have bounced off their lows and the majority of cases are from unknown vectors, so no orange for them anytime soon. Pax 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[45] this article came out very recently, it seems very informative-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
heres the original complete text...
Ebola — Public Health Lessons from a Clinician Turned Patient
Craig Spencer, M.D., M.P.H.
February 25, 2015DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1501355
ArticleReferences
While treating patients with Ebola in Guinea, I kept a journal to record my perceived level of risk of being infected with the deadly virus. A friend who'd volunteered previously had told me that such a journal comforted him when he looked back and saw no serious breach of protocol or significant exposure. On a spreadsheet delineating three levels of risk — minimal, moderate, and high — I'd been able to check off minimal risk every day after caring for patients. Yet on October 23, 2014, I entered Bellevue Hospital as New York City's first Ebola patient.
Though I didn't know it then — I had no television and was too weak to read the news — during the first few days of my hospitalization, I was being vilified in the media even as my liver was failing and my fiancée was quarantined in our apartment. One day, I ate only a cup of fruit — and held it down for less than an hour. I lost 20 lb, was febrile for 2 weeks, and struggled to the bathroom up to a dozen times a day. But these details of my illness are not unique. For months, we've heard how infected West Africans, running high fevers and too weak to move, were dying at the doorsteps of treatment centers. We've seen pictures of dying children crippled by vomiting and diarrhea and unable to drink.
Yet for clinicians, striving and repeatedly failing to cure Ebola is brutal, too. The Ebola treatment center in Guéckédou, Guinea, was the most challenging place I've ever worked. Ebola is frightening not just because of its high fatality rate, but also because of how little we know about it. We cannot explain exactly what it does to our bodies, nor tell patients who survive it how it may affect them in the future. As a clinician and epidemiologist, I've worked in places just miles from active conflict and managed to grow used to the sight of soldiers and the sound of gunfire. But this microscopic virus, an invisible enemy, made me uneasy.
While in Guinea, I often woke up sweating in the middle of the night, my heart racing. I might have felt warm, but my thermometer would read 97.7°F — perhaps it was broken? I started diagnosing myself with gastritis, amebiasis, peptic ulcer disease. Though I understood the connection between psychological stress and physical pain, I'd never experienced it like this. As an emergency physician, I try to approach challenging situations rationally and remain calm under pressure. But my work made it hard for me to relax and feel like myself.
Nevertheless, when I was at the treatment center, I was fueled by compassion and the immense challenge of caring for patients with Ebola. I'd never felt so deeply that my decisions could have a measurable impact on other people's lives. Difficult decisions were the norm: for many patients, there were no applicable algorithms or best-practice guidelines. Creating safe discharge plans for pregnant Ebola survivors in their third trimester or advising lactating mothers when it was safe to resume breast-feeding required hours of discussion and planning with colleagues, health promoters, and patients. Every day, I looked forward to putting on the personal protective equipment and entering the treatment center. No matter how exhausted I felt when I woke up, an hour of profuse sweating in the suit and the satisfaction I got from treating ill patients washed away my fear and made me feel new again. Yet I also remember the calm that settled over me the last time I left the center, knowing that I'd no longer be exposed to Ebola. I left Guinea focusing on the socially trying 21 days ahead of me.
Back in New York, the suffering I'd seen, combined with exhaustion, made me feel depressed for the first time in my life. I slept long hours and had a hard time connecting with old friends. I became fearful of the incredibly remote possibility that I could become sick and infect my fiancée, the person I love the most. Touching others and shaking hands — forbidden actions throughout West Africa — still made me uncomfortable. Twice a day, I held my breath in fear when I put a thermometer in my mouth. I did all this worrying well before I ever had a fever or showed any symptoms of Ebola.
The morning of my hospitalization, I woke up knowing something was wrong. I felt different than I had since my return — I was more tired, warm, breathing fast. When I took my temperature and called to report that it was elevated, in some bizarre way I felt almost relieved. Although my worst fear had been realized, having the disease briefly seemed easier than constantly fearing it.
My activities before I was hospitalized were widely reported and highly criticized. People feared riding the subway or going bowling because of me. The whole country soon knew where I like to walk, eat, and unwind. People excoriated me for going out in the city when I was symptomatic, but I hadn't been symptomatic — just sad. I was labeled a fraud, a hipster, and a hero. The truth is I am none of those things. I'm just someone who answered a call for help and was lucky enough to survive.
I understand the fear that gripped the country after I fell ill, because I felt it on a personal level. People fear the unknown, and fear in measured doses can be therapeutic and inform rational responses, but in excess, it fosters poor decision making that can be harmful. After my diagnosis, the media and politicians could have educated the public about Ebola. Instead, they spent hours retracing my steps through New York and debating whether Ebola can be transmitted through a bowling ball. Little attention was devoted to the fact that the science of disease transmission and the experience in previous Ebola outbreaks suggested that it was nearly impossible for me to have transmitted the virus before I had a fever. The media sold hype with flashy headlines — “Ebola: `The ISIS of Biological Agents?'”; “Nurses in safety gear got Ebola, why wouldn't you?”; “Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen”1-3 — and fabricated stories about my personal life and the threat I posed to public health, abdicating their responsibility for informing public opinion and influencing public policy.
Meanwhile, politicians, caught up in the election season, took advantage of the panic to try to appear presidential instead of supporting a sound, science-based public health response. The governors of New York and New Jersey, followed by others, enacted strict home quarantine rules without sufficiently considering the unintended side effects. The threat of quarantine may cause sick people to defer seeking treatment, and both nationals of affected countries and health care responders returning from those countries may alter their travel plans or misreport their exposure to avoid quarantine. Implementing restrictions that don't accord with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4 also undermines and erodes confidence in our ability to respond cohesively to public health crises. At times of threat to our public health, we need one pragmatic response, not 50 viewpoints that shift with the proximity of the next election. Moreover, if the U.S. public policy response undermined efforts to send more volunteers to West Africa, and thus allowed the outbreak to continue longer than it might have, we would all be culpable.
Instead of being welcomed as respected humanitarians, my U.S. colleagues who have returned home from battling Ebola have been treated as pariahs. I believe we send the wrong message by imposing a 21-day waiting period before they can transition from public health hazard to hero. As a society, we recognize the need for some of our best-trained physicians and public health professionals to participate in a potentially fatal mission because failing to stop the epidemic at its source threatens everyone. We should also have faith that these professionals will follow proven, science-based protocols and protect their loved ones by monitoring themselves. It worked for me, and it has worked for hundreds of my colleagues who have returned from this and past Ebola outbreaks without infecting anyone.
For many politicians, the current Ebola epidemic ended on November 4, 2014, the day of midterm elections (and, coincidentally, the day my fever broke). For the U.S. media, it ended a week later, when I walked out of Bellevue Hospital and the country was officially Ebola-free. But the real Ebola epidemic still rages in West Africa. The number of new cases is stabilizing in some areas and declining in others, but more than 23,000 people have been infected,5 and many are still dying from this disease.
When we look back on this epidemic, I hope we'll recognize that fear caused our initial hesitance to respond — and caused us to respond poorly when we finally did. I know how real the fear of Ebola is, but we need to overcome it. We all lose when we allow irrational fear, fueled in part by prime-time ratings and political expediency, to supersede pragmatic public health preparedness.
[46] there seems to be a sharp increase in and around the capital area of Sierra Leone, [47] as the latest WHO sit-rep indicates, it might be a momentary "flare up" but with such a proven killer as the virus has shown to be, at the very least this country should be kept an eye on until/whenever its over-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A total of 116 new confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) were reported in the week to 8 March, compared with 132 the previous week. Liberia reported no new confirmed cases for the second consecutive week. New cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone occurred in a geographically contiguous arc around the coastal capital cities of Conakry and Freetown, with a total of 11 districts reporting cases. Although there has been no significant decline in overall case incidence since late January, the recent contraction in the geographical distribution of cases is a positive development, enabling response efforts to be focused on a smaller area....per WHO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This happened today. Jon the VGN3rd ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that log-scale graphs of weekly cases would be far more interesting than cumulative graphs if you want to understand whether the disease is being contained. The cumulative graph is misleading because the spread could actually accelerate while looking like it is slowing down on a cumulative graph. To me the choice is between graph of weekly new cases (absolute spread rate) and weekly new cases divided by 3 week case counts (spread rate per infected). Sf jeff2 ( talk) 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I support the cumulative graph, I dont see any gain on removing it if the weekly is shown. BTW Im plotting but not uploading a graph that is new cases/day/(total cases) that can be changed to cases/day/last 3 weeks. Of course, every time you do a division, the plot is noisier. Do you think it will be helpful? -- Leopoldo Martin R ( talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This page should be semi-protected, as it covers a current event. Iamahashtag ( talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone inform if the world map presently has listed all of the places that have had medically-evacuated cases? Thanks. Pax 05:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is the epidemic over in Liberia, as the text says? Or are there 10–20 new cases and deaths per day in Liberia, as the table says? It can't be both. Art LaPella ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Berehulak was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography on Monday for his coverage of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa for The New York Times. The staff of the St Louis Post-Dispatch won the prize for Breaking News Photography for their coverage of the aftermath of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Berehulak, a freelance photographer who works mostly for the Times, has spent four months since August covering the Ebola crisis in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. As he covered the story’s full arc, he took few breaks and many precautions. “This award makes me think of all the people that shared their lives with me so that I was able to document this ghastly and horrible virus,” Mr. Berehulak said. “It preys on our humanity — on everything that makes us human. People can’t hold their loved ones in their last dying moments because that’s when the virus is the most potent.” At one point, he set up a makeshift studio at a treatment center to make portraits of those on the front lines of the disease, from doctors to gravediggers.
“Daniel’s images are those that have become the most memorable of the tragedy,” said Michele McNally, the Times’s director of photography. “He would not let go of the story, spent as much time as he could and was very patient in letting the situations unfold before him. It is a combination of superb photography, impactful storytelling and persistence and bravery that makes these pictures resonate.”
Monday’s announcement by Columbia University, which administers the prizes, marks the seventh photography Pulitzer for the Times. The Times also had two finalists in the breaking news category with group entries from Gaza (Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Wissam Nassar) and from Ukraine (Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev and Uriel Sinai). David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships.
David Furst, the Times’s international picture editor, said he decided to send Mr. Berehulak to West Africa because he knew Mr. Berehulak would dig in. For Mr. Berehulak, the decision was simple, despite the dangers, because, he said, the virus was “affecting all of mankind.” To cover the story, he had to take many precautions, often encasing himself from head to toe in protective gear, while confronting extreme physical and emotional hardships. “Daniel was a veteran of war zones, but this was a new kind of danger,” Mr. Furst said. “He had to face senseless death day after day, and it was soul crushing. He was not ever able to let his guard down and was working in excruciating heat with layers of protection.”
Despite the global attention, he said he was “shocked” at the time that few news organizations were sending journalists to cover the outbreak. There were people who did very important work, he said, but there were “many organizations that didn’t devote their efforts and journalistic abilities to this important story.” Mr. Berehulak grew up on a farm an hour and a half from Sydney, Australia, where his parents settled after emigrating from Ukraine after World War II. He became interested in photography as a child and took pictures as he traveled as a college volleyball player. After his sister died of Lupus when he was 23, he said he “realized that life was short” and decided to turn his passion for photography into a career.
He was hired by Getty in 2005 in London and transferred to India four years later. He resigned in 2013 to be able to “pursue more long-term projects,” and started freelancing, mostly for Times. Represented by Getty Images Reportage, Mr. Berehulak has worked in more than 50 countries and won three World Press Photo awards, as well as the John Faber Award from the Overseas Press Club. In February, he was named photographer of the year in the reportage category in the Pictures of the Year International Contest. “You need to spend time and treat the people you photograph with the utmost respect and show them in the most dignified way possible,” Mr. Berehulak said. “Everyone is human and I don’t see any hierarchy. That’s a fundamental part of portraying people and people’s lives.”
And for him, covering Ebola so intensively was ultimately about portraying people, to show not just the bodies, but how the disease tore apart families and communities. It was, he said, daunting. “Covering the spread and devastating impact of the Ebola virus in West Africa is by far the most challenging and important assignment of my career,” he said in remarks to the Times newsroom. “It was not war in the conventional sense, it was not a conflict that was wholly visible. But it was in so many ways a battle that captivated and frightened the world. And I would be lying to say I was not also afraid at times.” But it was the strength and resilience that he witnessed among people that kept him going. “I watched a father attempt to care for his 8-year-old son, not being able to hold him, to comfort him in the last moments of his young life,” he said. “I saw families struggle with the devastation of not being able to respectfully bury and say farewell to their loved ones, and the overwhelming fear of stigma. Pictures make connections between people regardless of culture, language or geography. A camera is a voice to share somebodys story, and each picture is proof that our jobs do matter.” [49]
I though this was worthy of the talk page here are the pictures [50] now that we know something of the person who took them. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Sierra Leone stayed under 10 cases/week for two sequential reports. Unless someone objects, I'm going to drop them to orange. Pax 10:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
With Sierra Leone not having reported a case in over a week, I think it can be moved to yellow. Guinea is under 10 per week- orange or even yellow seems right. Italy also needs to be colored in yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.237.3 ( talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It says currently but should say 2015. Ebola blood ( talk) 03:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit in the Liberia section:
Comparing the data previously reported on this page to the present data shows an increase from April 5, 2015 to May 5, 2015 of 702 new cases and 308 deaths.
Why does our table show these deaths?
Also, the info box with all of the Ebola related articles is missing - could someone replace it? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for length - it is well over twice the length that is considered acceptable. I suggest that we split the Ebola info re any outbreaks (or disease related to a person that was transferred to another country for treatment) that occurred outside of West Africa into another article. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As much as I try to keep the article from getting too long it seems that I need to constantly make decisions about information that I believe should go into the splits that we have created. This info for instance:
I feel that this sort of info would be better placed in the split for Guinea than in this article. I'd like some feedback please because it is not pleasant for me to need to constantly delete other's work. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is another example of information that does not belong in this article, a Primary study on mice that was just published:
this is in regards to an early discussion with Gandydancer in regards to how many times one must wait 5 years for a review to come out to prove a primary study done so much early (per MEDRS)
The section on Liberia describes how there were no new cases after a specific date, but the table of total cases shows the number of cases in Liberia going up multiple times after this date. As a causal, non-expert reader, this seems like it needs to be clarified. ike9898 ( talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The title does not match with the information within; this page also covers the US, Italy, the UK, and other non-West African countries. Non-WA information should be removed, moved, or the entire page should be renamed[moved.] -Mr. Man ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/world/africa/liberia-new-ebola-death-is-reported.html 72.187.46.255 ( talk) 08:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The image at the top right of the article contains the following: "Note: the CDC currently estimates that actual cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea are two to three times higher than officially reported numbers". The sources cited are from September and October 2014. As with the references to the supposed substantially higher mutation rate, which was refuted by several recent studies, this is a relic of a more hysterical time. It was refuted in a matter of months by a study - endorsed by the CDC - which showed under-reporting was substantially lower - more like 17%, and certainly not double, let alone triple. It is certainly not a "current" estimate by the CDC. See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/fewer-ebola-cases-go-unreported-than-thought-study-finds-.html Donners ( talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie, you have left hundreds of edits, usually one small edit a day even if it means just changing one word, and you never leave edit summaries. Since I watch this article very closely and do updates in a timely manner, this means that I must check your edits every day since I have no idea what may have been added. That you now finally leave an edit summary saying, "please any editor ,should indicate in future reason for any reversion, thank you)," regarding the removal of one of your edits is extremely frustrating for me. I have had to again and again remove edits that would have bloated this article to a totally unacceptable length, edits that should have been put in the article splits rather than this one, and I have again and again used edit summaries each time. My patience has now run out. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@
Gandydancer: About
this - the current text "A single patient was evacuated to Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
" made me chuckle, as it sounded like one poor individual being carted off to all of those different countries. If I was that patient, I would ask them to just leave me alone after I got to the third country or so. —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
12:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Should we mention somewhere, like the top of the infobox, that there are only 2 remaining known cases of Ebola? I think that's what readers want to know, not how many thousands of cases occurred last year as of this date and that date. Art LaPella ( talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"There is as yet no known confirmed medication, vaccine, or treatment." but "all people at risk will now receive the new vaccine" Art LaPella ( talk) 01:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)