![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the "Country" section we have these headings, which appear to be mutually exclusive
However some countries appear in more than one category - examples US and UK. Does this matter? Robertpedley ( talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all i think our article should read like this.
The Anome,
Robertpedley,
Gandydancer
Separates the Countries with cases better in the article
I know it looks like a big edit but is might be worth it to read better.Just my opinion. BrianGroen ( talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Anome, Robertpedley, Gandydancer Took the bold step hope imm not in the hot water BrianGroen ( talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be ok with everyone if I fixed the capitalisation to remove capital O in "Organisations" and capital F in "Foundations" in the subheadings? And also, can we agree that "Countries with imported suspected or non-transmissive cases" should instead read "Countries with imported, suspected and/or non-transmissive cases" since cases can both be imported AND non-transmissive? F Camp ( talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry F Camp my bad. I thought capitalization not lower case. In any case seem somebody whack out all our changes of yesterday. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
After scouring the respective governments i am able to obtain only numbers for 11 Sept for Liberia and 13 Sept for Sierra leone and Sept for Guinea. so please be patient hoping to get numbers later today or in the course of tomorrow. Also expecting OCHA as soon as Liberia reports again. Will keep my eye out for it. i have placed an RSS feed on the pages. But expect another staggering increas. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
where can we see sept 11, and sept 13 for their respective countries,,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk) 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See section 10 September Numbers on this page .. the links are posted there. Regards
BrianGroen (
talk)
07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Brian
This document has what appear to be official WHO numbers from country SITREPS for 10 September 2014. It also has some very useful additional information including cases and deaths among health care workers. It includes cases and deaths for DR Congo. The numbers differ a little from those used in the timeline table. Rather than muddly the waters I'll let someone else make the judgement on whether to use these. Galerita ( talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Liberia numbers on 13 Sept is incorrect. Liberia numbers are for 11 Sept. and not 13 Sept. BrianGroen ( talk) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
|- | 13 Sep 2014 || 5,072 || 2,459 || 936 || 595 || 2,527 || 1,349 || 1,586 || 507 || 22 || 8 || 1 || 0 || https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/GUINEA_EBOLA_SITREP%20N%20151%20DU%2014%20SEPTEMBRE_2014.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20119%20Sept%2011%2C%202014_0.pdf- this report is for 11 Sept and not 13 sept https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Ebola-Situation-Report_Vol-108_0.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/SITREP-SENEGAL-13Sep-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I just felt is was important that we upload factually correct numbers for Liberia as they carry the bulk of the case numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Galerita please note this section on the report.
4963 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 1) cases and 2453 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of Ebola virus disease as at 13 September 2014 by the Ministries of Health of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and as at 9 September by the Ministry of Health of Liberia." [2] BrianGroen ( talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest chart now seems to be using Liberia's situation report 121, but for Sept 13th should use report 123 ( http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20123Sept%2015,%202014.pdf) which has a total cases of 2804/1481 18.127.7.26 ( talk) 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That report is for 15 Sept and not 13 sept. Regardes
BrianGroen (
talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; links on the parent site are mixed up and clicking on the report for the 13th gave me the report for the 15th. Sorry.
18.127.7.26 (
talk)
17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Gandydancer, F Camp It seems that the whole article has been re arranged yesterday. Thoughts any one.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe some of the article is better now, and should be open to more change, good work Doc James!,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
13:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings BrianGroen ( talk) 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings and please excuse my rant. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss such a major change as in the Responses reorganization first. I reverted it till we have a chance to discuss it. Gandydancer ( talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
that doesn't make it better, "WHO" should go first,,,,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
10:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO just released a new sitrep for September 18, are we still waiting to confirm the numbers, or should we update the cases for the 18th with the information from the sitrep? [6] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick clance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few edits to the "Subsequent Spread" section in order to highlight the method of travel/transmission, where known, to each of the 5 countries. However much of the same material appears in the next section "Countries with active transmission". Not sure how to avoid this. Robertpedley ( talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that in the past but it seems to me that there was a wider space between the two at that time, and it seemed to me that it would be ok since there is a lot to absorb in this article. Should we wait and see what others think? Gandydancer ( talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed three week moving average graph: mere smoothing does not help data visualization, the unsmoothed graph (shown here) is sufficient. If the drop in the last week's data points is an artifact caused by recency, then the graph should consistently leave out the last week's data instead of smoothing over it. If it isn't an artifact, then it's good news, and we should see it. But the fact that it's across all the countries at once makes me suspect that it may be a reporting artifact. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are two new cumulative-by-country graphs:
-- The Anome ( talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is it better not to use smoothened data? One of the problems regarding the graphs on the page is that they include noise which is a function of the reporting of cases rather than the incidence of cases, clearly different districts update the WHO with reports on 3,4, and 5 day cycles, smoothend data allows this noise to be extracted from the data, the cost associated is that there is a lag in how quickly the chart responds to new figures, but given that the disease has a 2 - 3 week infection cycle, changes which occur within that time frame are unlikely to be secular in nature
It is highly in appropriate to use a logarithmic scale where no geometric progression is occurring, if we look at a breakdown of the outbreak by country, only in Liberia and Sierra Leone is there a progression that is geometric, given the wide disparity in case counts it is not useful, particularly when what is important in an outbreak is not how many have been infected, but how many people are currently infectious, and how many of them have been recently infected. There is no way of us getting data on how many are infectious, but counts of recent incidents of infection are useful, and they do show that Guinea for example is doing a much better job at containment than Liberia.
Secondly, and more broadly we should only be using logarithmic scales when it is necessary, the number of people who understand what a logarithmic scale is (never mind how to read one) is in the low percentiles, the median reader of this article will have no clue what they are looking at. They will have a couple of questions that they'll want answered: 1) Where is it happening? 2) Where is it getting worse? 3) Where is it under control?
Graphs are a useful way of letting people who are not comfortable with reading tables of numbers get a sense as to what is going on, the graphs attached to this article don't do that, what they will show is that the epidemic has gone pandemic, if it comes to that, and if it comes to that, then perhaps a logarithmic scale will be useful. But at the moment it seems like people are letting a tendency to catastophise get in the way of clarity.
Its bad, but this epidemic has not gotten that bad, it isn't a pandemic
Around the world there'll be political flunkies pulling together briefing notes for their political masters which will affect policy decisions, like how and where to give resources to combat this epidemic. We can give them something useful, but we have to apply the grandma test, if your grandmother couldn't figure out what the graph means, then it isn't useful Connees ( talk) 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC) it clouds the meaning of the graph
Note: Sl and LR numbers are incorrect on WHO report
BrianGroen ( talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
What should this article's title be? The convention in epidemiology is to name outbreaks/epidemics with the 1) Year of the initial outbreak, 2) the location of the outbreak and 3) the name of the virus. This format is supported by MEDMOS. Article titles should be based on what is accepted in the scientific community and is reflected in the scientific literature here for example (see first line of article) and at the Centers for Disease Control.
Should we:
OR
Please indicate support for either #1 or #2 below:
This RfC is malformed. Firstly, it presents a false dilemma, as there are many possible article titles other than those two (and, in fact, several have been suggested). Secondly, instead of using neutral wording, you reiterated your rationale (with no mention of the counter-arguments raised previously).
As discussed
above, Wikipedia is not an epidemiological journal. Per
Wikipedia:Article titles, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." As no other Ebola virus epidemic has occurred in West Africa, appending "2014" to the title is superfluous. No such disambiguation is needed.
I also noted that the current title's structure is clearer (because "West Africa Ebola virus epidemic" could be misinterpreted as a reference to an epidemic involving a virus called "West Africa Ebola"). Such ambiguity is easily avoidable, and "the convention in epidemiology" isn't a valid reason to tolerate it here. —
David Levy
21:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The title 'Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa' was decided by one editor as his personal preference.
It was not by consensus, and it is not based on any WP policy or scientific sources.
In addition, WP titles says that where there is controversy over a title, the title should go back to what it was before the controversy.
The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks.
As far as saying, "There's no other Ebola outbreak" therefore, "use of 2014 is superfluous" makes absolutely no sense.
The whole point of using dates is to mark when the outbreak occurred.
There will be other outbreaks in future and what then if the 2014 outbreak has not been dated?
Who is going to go back and add in the date?
David Levy You've not made one policy based argument for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.' Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE and WP:OWN behaviour. The literature supports the move that will include the date. Stop taking it so personally. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You've not made one policy based argument
for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.'
Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE
and WP:OWN behaviour.
The literature supports the move that will include the date.
Stop taking it so personally.
If we assume the number of cases is an exponential function, then the first derivative (new cases per day) should also be an exponential function.
Therefore, it makes sense to similarly graph "new cases per day" on a log axis.
The graphs are great btw, I check them often, but I just wanted to add this small comment. Winehoney ( talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Can some one please add this to the article. [9]. I have retracted myself contributing to this article but this is of significant importance. BrianGroen ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi talk there was a lenghty discussion about incorrect numbers and was discussed in a DRN as well. Since 26 August the WHO has reported the wrong death toll in the their report. This fault is carried forward in all WHO reports. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So are these numbers looking like an underestimate? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, Dernier Siècle there is an updated sitrep for Sierra Leone here. [11] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Just an additional discussion about 26 August. This issue is not of interest anymore as WHO have repaired there errors on a later report BrianGroen ( talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see why the exact numbers matter, as they are continually being eclipsed by higher totals as the epidemic continues. Simply agree that these numbers represent a minimum, and the the real extent of the outbreak is almost certainly much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.243.74 ( talk) 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle It matters to statisticians and doing the graphs. See archive [20] and [21] . But as i'm am all for avoiding conflict so i'd rather step away BrianGroen ( talk) 09:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This issue seems to be going round in circles. First there was criticism of WHO numbers as inaccurate and being an admitted secondary source. Now some people seem to wish to rely only on WHO numbers as being a reliable source. I support the consensus previously reached and felt BrianGroen was doing an admiral job. Perhaps it would help if the figures in the table were suitably annotated so that the dates for the figures were clear. Mattojgb ( talk) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick glance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle like i said yesterday a consensus was reached to use the respective government reports and correlate it wit WHO. Therefor i'm walking away from this problem. It took days to prepare the previous timeline Note i double check all my figures with OCHA, UNDP as well as Iris and they are inline with my past figures. Not going to waste my time and energy on this further. BrianGroen ( talk) 04:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle i have adde up the total on the press release. Death = 511 as per my my figures. Cases adds up to 1593 as per press release, but in Kailahun in the press release the figure is 518. Note Kailahun is 528 in the official report and not 518 as the press release. hence totals are 1593 in press release. Correct this by Kailahun diffrence of 10 gives you 1603. Hence Sl figures is 1603/511 my figures the ones you call dubious. New figure 18 September similar problems. Cheers. I takes a massive effort to check all the numbers and quit frankly if you want to cite it as dubious then go ahead. im out of here. BrianGroen ( talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted 13 September dubious numbers.- see talk time line problems [22] BrianGroen ( talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the recent rename was premature. Pandemic usually requires multiple continents, and I haven't seen the WHO (or other reliable sources) calling it that yet. Please revert. -- 99of9 ( talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Renaming this a "pandemic" without a reliable source is hyperbolic and contrary to keeping the article informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSBr ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The answer is "no", no need to move it. It's now been protected as a result of the ongoing stupidity. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we need to come to an agreement on the manner in which this timeline of data problem is handled. From what I understand, an agreement has already been reached in how we are to calculate the totals and until this changes we have agreed to use that method. Our editors should not have to defend our consensus agreement every time a new editor comes along that does not agree with it. If a new editor wishes they certainly may set up their rationale in a new request that may come to a new agreement, but until then we use what we've got.
I also think that the article data section should be tagged with an explanation of how we are obtaining our totals and asking other editors to do the same - perhaps that alone would discourage editors from adding new figures without understanding the problems we are facing in our reporting of data. Any edits to the data that are not using our agreed upon method should be deleted with a request to use the method that has been reached though our present consensus. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
good idea,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
12:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13, CTL CTL, Gandydancer 14 September case numbers updated. Deleted 13 Sept numbers. References added to notes below timeline. Used the best data available... If they want to crucify me let them sent the armed horses [28] . hace a great day all. Greetings Berian BrianGroen ( talk) 17:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Will have new figures up within a day or so , but already it has whopped by 450 in two countries alone by Wednesday 17th. waiting Guinea figures.. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13, CTL CTL, Gandydancer i have finally received a response from WHO in a lenghty e mail and yes they do use respective government details. We must please correspond with the governments. I was advised that their numbers may alter slightly from the official government reports as i have been doing. I personally phoned them and yes their numbers may not always be spot on.
"Please note that the requested item was jointly produced with other organization/s outside WHO and/or not originally produced by WHO source." @ Dernier Siècle
BrianGroen ( talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle if the numbers are again marked up with Dubious without discussing it i will request a block on you for editing.( i think i will have the support of the majority of editors here) I went through great length contacting WHO on various items. And secondly how can you call a government website as a unreliable source, that is like saying us.gov is an unreliable source. If you doubt that i have contacted WHO please see section above. [29] also see [30]. I have used proper channels and cited reliable sources on this as per wikipedia rules. The only contribution you made to this article is to mark items as dubious. I have been involved in this article from the beginning stages. Please refrain from it. Discuss first, if you recieve a majority vote then mark as Dubious as per wiki rules. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle Yes 13 Sept was deleted as we usually do when the weekly report arrive. WHO release there official roadmap every week as epidemic week ending(current epidemic is 36 for this year.). In the case where it is just an update we remove previous figures as we have done in the past if the update is one day apart. Avoid clutter. Pointless of having reports for two days in a row. The sit-rep takes preference and not the update. I have check your contribs and your only addition to this article was 13 September figures. I am not going to explain this again.In August we saw a jump in SL death tolls that did not correlate with WHO. We then check OCHA number , UNDP and iris. it did not concur with SL numbers stated in WHO report. The next report from WHO the numbers was corrected but the problem popped up again on a new report. Hence a joint decisions was taken to use SL gov numbers. This decisions also applied to all relevant governments. It has been discussed at length and this is a joint decisions not mine alone. If you feel the need to take it further file a DRN. but for now leave numbers stat without remarks or i will request a block on you for this article. and i an confidant i will carry the the support of most contributing editors. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle WHO is not falsifying reports, all it is there is a problem on the report. HENCE we use SL gov reports and Liberia gov reports. It went to a DRN before. I am following WP:RS using a reliable source. A goverment website is a reliable source as per WP:RS and WP:medmos. Read all the comments all the editors agree with me except you. Refer to DRN if you don't concur, but mark it up again i will request an edit block This is not original work. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
17 September totals Guinea/Senegal/Nigeria as per OCHA [31] Sierra Leone as per [32] and Lberia as per [33] - Note "confirmed deaths" may vary slightly for Guinea but "Deaths" is correct. BrianGroen ( talk) 09:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
please lets have some wiki-civility,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
13:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Civility restored, sorry partly to blame for it getting heated, but i believe Dernier and i are in agreement.. I will back trace the error in WHO and refer matter to them. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
In WHO's latest update on ebola they butcher the infographics into various parts, possibly to prevent their use. I wanted to update some of the images in the article but this just can't be a coincidence. Should I extract the parts of the image and put them together, or what? 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- Monochrome_ Monitor with regards to WHO usage they are protected by the Berne convention on copyright we my not use their material without a proper request. The image may not be altered in any form. So this would be an absolute no no. but do request their permission to use. they take about two weeks to respond.
As far as the Treatment facilities in West Africa i have received confirmation to use the image as a whole and not altered in any way.
Extract from e-mail
"Dear Mr Groenenstein,
Thank you for your enquiry. On behalf of the World Health Organization, we are pleased to grant you permission to reproduce the WHO item detailed in the form below. WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report
WHO will not charge any fee for the above permission, however we would like you to please provide me with 1 original hard copy and an electronic file of your final publication for our records, specifically showing where/how WHO material appears and how it is referenced on your product . Please send directly to this address:
Ms Dolores Campanario
World Health Organization Press"
BrianGroen ( talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi again -- Monochrome_ Monitor it took two weeks to get permission, but yes i think we can use their images as long as we don't "butcher" them. I have sent a e-mail requesting further use of their images on ebola and sent a hard copy of this to them. I trust they won't object, as long as we use the image as is. And please delete any WHO emblems. We xcan always say "oops" if they turn us down, but i doubt it as long as we keep the image intact. With regards to Lab images we can go ahead i have recieved telephonic confirmation. Hoping to receive an e-mail in a week or so on my new request for using other images. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 10:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Monochrome_ Monitor It show up as one my side but if you can get to match closely to the original i think it would be fine, just delete WHO emblem. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Monochrome_ MonitorSee this section of email "The material will be reproduced as it was published by WHO and no changes should be made to the content or meaning. Publishers may reformat the material in the style of the publication." I think you are pretty much covered to edit the format as long as you keep the meaning... I would say go ahead. I see your dilemma... Post it as you wanted to. i will again just do a belated request. Kind regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The article states that the semen is infectious of 3 months after cure. However the provided reference does not support this. In fact no statement is made about the semen. As this is possibly of vital importance I did not act yet. Please falsify and purge from the article or provide substantial reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.113.149 ( talk) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have notice an increase in Ip edits stuffing up article- i have requested a new semi protect edit. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian thank you. Looks like this will happen once a week indefinitely, doesn't it? Robertpedley ( talk) 07:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any way of accurately calculating the CFR for each individual country? I think we can for Nigeria and Senegal, with a CFR of 38.1% and 0% respectively, but how do we calculate it when the outbreak is still occurring? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 Going to be very difficult tried it but to no avail i.e time of contraction to time of demise not on any report. Who placed it at 42 to 66%, but and that is the big one. it is calculated at date of report. I essence time of disease presenting to death could vary by as much as 14 days. i guess we will only know this figure at the end. At on stage when Guinea nearly stop reporting new cases in august it was 66%. However since Guinea has now again increased in numbers the total R% cannot be accurately calculated. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
National responses can be categorised as follows:
The problem is that item 2 and 5 are popping up almost everywhere. There are about 120 nations in the world, this section could become cumbersome after a while. I'm proposing to add a generic header paragraph covering travel restrictions, false alarms, and import restrictions; then cull these from the section. Possible exceptions - countries which border affected areas (Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal) and Saudi Arabia because of the Hajj. Your thoughts please? Robertpedley ( talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I found on the web all three types of cases. I.E. and Imported Case, exported case, and introduced case. The problem with the first two is they sound intentional and they require a person to have a frame of reference. If you are in the USA the case is imported. If it came from Liberia and you are in Liberia, it is an exported case. I would like to put forward Introduced Case There is no connotation of an intentional transfer. I was starting to do this then stopped when I noted we have an entire paragraph called Imported Cases. I would like to offer the opinion to move that to Introduced Cases.
Technically, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and Nigeria are all imported cases since they got introduced to them and exported from another country. Only DRC and Guinea have "homegrown?" Pbmaise ( talk) 08:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we add the Democratic Republic of Congo to the map at the top page and keep track of these statistics too? If we decide not, why do we have a DC of Congo section in the page for the West Africa epidemic? What will we do if (when) the virus spreads from DR of Congo to West Africa (or vise versa). Since the viruses are both of the same strand, how would we differentiate which came from where and how it affects our numbers? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I donot know why the Port Harcourt incident which involved a doctor who was infected by diplomat who escaped quarantine in Lagos was removed. If there wasn't a reason for removing such sourced content, I will have to add that back. Stanleytux ( talk) 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stanleytux, i did not removed it but i have the distinct feeling the diplomat were named. As per WP:RS rules reference to a living person may not be added portraying him/her in a negative light, unless there is a good reason. i.e he was found guilty in a court of law of this action. Unfortunately media reports is not a strong enough evidence that he was involved in the incidence in deliberately spreading the disease and he was not yet found guilty in a court of law BrianGroen ( talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux"On August 28, it was confirmed that a Liberian diplomat who had had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt, two days before, from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six." this was the original report i did introduced it but i did amend the reference and wording a bit.
This was my subsequent edit. "On August 22 a doctor who treated a Liberian diplomat in a hotel, who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six.The Good Heart Hospital in Rivers State and a unnamed hotel has been shut down. As a result 70 people have been quarantined. [ "Breaking: Nigeria Records New Ebola Death In Port Harcourt". SAHARA REPORTERS. 27 August 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014. citation needed" BrianGroen ( talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux using your reasoning where do we end , do we add all the towns regions in all four countries.Imagine that list!! Sorry it sounds hard but it just a basis for reasoning. The article will become a complete cluter of info. at times i becomes nessary to remove inf.. like i did on Sierra leone today. removing redutant info. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a little info, my daughters uncle works in Guinea in an ebola region, but i did not report the region, knowing full well that he might return as a potential carrier BrianGroen ( talk) 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) exposed to Ebola.
besides Lagos is in the article. Port Harcourt is in the Lagos district. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux sorry my mistake Port Harcourt in is in River state as indicated on the map. We have in about 40 + areas in total , cant report on all of them.. will cause enormous clutter.. Refer to a DRN if you are not happy with the this . BTW i am not from the united state but i live in africa.. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The log-scale graphs need a short section discussing relevance, perhaps: "The log-scale graph is a straight line, this shows that ebola is currently increasing at an exponential rate, if it continues to increase at this exponential rate then the whole human population will have ebola by March 2016". At some time the exponential growth MUST break during the next 2 years (there are not enough humans to go past 2 years), and alternatives for breaks in the exponential growth must be discussed; will it be after suburb/city/country/continent(s) are infected; and when, where, why and how can it be stopped?
I think its fine to leave it the way it is. I mean all they are doing is showing that it is growing exponentially. I think a lot of time editors take out anything that seems to imply this could get much worse even if the article is just reporting facts.
That 20,000 figure from the WHO has been up here for weeks and its ridiculous. People just seem to be speculating that this won't affect hundreds of thousands. Why speculate when the exponential growth will end, when we have no idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.255.167 ( talk) 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have brought this up before but as conditions worsen, I'm bringing it up again. I question the inclusion of "confirmed cases" info in the lead because the average reader may assume that it is comparatively low because the remaining cases are not Ebola, which is not accurate. From WHO:
There are several points to be considered when interpreting epidemiological data for the EVD outbreak. Many of the deaths attributed to EVD in this outbreak occurred in people who were suspected, but not confirmed, to have died from the disease. EVD cases are only confirmed when a sample tests positive in the laboratory. If samples taken from a body test negative for EVD, that person is no longer counted among EVD deaths and the figures are adjusted accordingly. However, because laboratory services and treatment centres are currently overwhelmed in several countries, the numbers of probable and suspected cases, together with those confirmed, may be a more accurate reflection of case numbers. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the data table, cases and deaths did not increase by a single digit from Sep 17 to Sep 20 in Liberia. How can that be? Is it a typo, or has the epidemic stopped there so suddenly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.168.226 ( talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
i noticed the aforementioned quotient in the recent report, but to be honest - i dont quite get it. What exactly does it tell us? Of course, i understand that you can - to a certain extend - deduce a trend from it. But why do they choose the incubation period as numerator and not a random (e.g. 15) amount of days? I just dont get it, what specific information can be derived from this quotient?
Thank you very much in advance, i appreciate any help here.
PS: I have the feeling that this quotient is really interesting. Should this somehow be added to the article (progressing graph)
-- LatinumPulchrum ( talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey LatinumPulchrum you haven't given enough information here for me to know your source. However there's nothing mysterious about a quotient - check Wiki!! Only 2 stats are important in an epidemic - the basic reproduction number which tells you if it's getting bigger or smaller, and the case fatality rate which tells you how deadly it is. Both are covered in this article; BRN is around 1.5 and CFR is around 50% (both very uncertain, due to difficulty of collecting reliable stats). Taken together these are very bad news indeed. Robertpedley ( talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting links. But that did not help me at all. I was talking about | page 2, chart at the top of the page. -- LatinumPulchrum ( talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Robertpedley ( talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
LatinumPulchrum 21 days seems to be the rough doubling time for this epidemic, if half the infections have occurred during past 21 days that means number of cases has doubled in 21 days and can be expected to double again in next 21 days. If its fewer than half the cases has occurred in that time, then (local)doubling time is longer thus it will probably take longer to double again and vice versa 89.235.235.174 ( talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible for us to use the SVG version of the image at the top? If it needs to be updated, it could be done much easier with an SVG rather than a PNG. Thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 there is Svg available in coomons File:2014_ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.svg Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 [43] BrianGroen ( talk) 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dernier Siècle Just check report dates when posting
"1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION 5843 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 2) cases and 2803 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of EVD as at 20 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Guinea, as at 17 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Liberia, and as at 19 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Sierra Leone (table 1)."
Will update Liberia when i get it. I have updated Sl so long. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note i will update the lead and main SVG as soon as Liberia release new numbers for 20 SEpt. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dernier Siècle understandable, but if you read the WHO report correctly you will see they get their numbers from the governments and not own numbers.. CDC just copy government numbers but don't look at dates.(Picked this up in the past) WHO at least state the date. CDC just add it, no dates. It is a nightmare to get all the numbers. I have to look at every report in detail WHO, CDC, OCHA, UNDA and goverments. My numbers correlate with OCHA and gov's and Map Response Kind regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously listen to me. This entire isssue has been hijacked by those with political interests.
Red alert drum beats.
I pick yesterday's announcement by Nigeria as cutoff date. No more EVD but West still Wants to send troops to help. Are you aware of 2,700 high-calibre arms shipped into Nigeria Feb 2014? Ship name Iron Trader Maybe that is real reason. Maybe not. Again as we know something is afoot.
Gandy Brian freeze page now. Think of us like war reporters. We needed those reporters to bring back photos To study. The record is lost if continuously revised.
Esp. If done so for political ends.
Duplucate page 100% and save two copies.
Rename copy one... 2014 Ebola virus disease initial epidemic outbreak
That page is then semi protected. It is this Snapshot of history we are destroying. By putting every new headline in this page no one has a good Way to review 100 years from now how it all began.
Rename copy two....2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic containment effort We can then purge page. New data here on.
Yes no mention geography. In the past geography was important since they were isolated.
Ebola search on google needs to land on page readers are looking They want to find data about epidemic not disease.
I working on entire page for just the single event of Patrick Sawyer. These is one of the many stories in history we must record.
We are not a ticker tape reporting every second. We can not Confuse possible propoganda.
The page is WORTHLESS to billions of cell phone users. We have to stop this nonsense of sourcing every detail. When and IF a point is obscure okay. But anyone can Google easy to find info on their own
Page three title...hold on.... 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak: Freeze frame September 23, 2014 This page fully lock. As name implies there can be other dates in future that We freeze for future.
Pbmaise ( talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
?,,,-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Almost all women died giving birth 100% of babies died. If Ebola becomes endemic, and we have no way to prevent babies from being exposed, there may be few of us left. Pbmaise ( talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
???Updating on a ongoing event a political agenda, seriously how do do you come to that conclusion. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph on this to the timeline sourced from a recent NYT article "Fresh Graves Point to Undercount of Ebola Toll" The story seems credible and helps to explain why the CFR in Sierra Leone seems anomalously low. If the story develops further it may warrant a separate section. Galerita ( talk) 08:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a map which showed the countries where each Ebola victim was located. For instance, the United States has 4 victims, Spain had 1, I think Saudi Arabia had 1, etc. I think this is nice information to have, just to see what certain countries are doing with Ebola patients, and where victims are flying. Any thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Two new cases in Europe.. will wait before i report but on case highly suspicious. Swiss new patient was in contact with family member with ebola. [47]
Italy will wait for lab confirmation. [48] BrianGroen ( talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 I think we will have to cover a complete section i.e use whole page width if it happens. Lets ope not, but i'm afraid to say the inevitable is it is going to happen. The scare are going to turn real the more this disease is not controlled. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Senegal be listed as a country with imported cases, rather than one with local transmission, as no one was infected (to our knowledge) within the borders of the country? Also, I would consider moving Nigeria to a new section now that it is "Ebola-free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 ( talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
why are sierra leones fatality numbers so low?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ozzie10aaaa Sierra leone lock-down figures will only be out on Thursday... I expect a huge jump then. BrianGroen ( talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur. thank you.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see update d timeline lead for evidence of under reporting. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian, the Thursday report doesn't show an increased number of deaths. The CFR is still below 30%. AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 see note above.. Monrovia have note reported any cases and lock-down cases still not released.. I added it to the paragraph above the time line..Think it is going to be a massive increase soon. I monitor all sites that report cases daily no mention of it yet.Greetings Brian.. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian, I was looking at this report. [50] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 Still not in that one as well. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that the WHO has stated that both Nigeria and Senegal have both successfully completed the 21-day observation of any person that had contact with an infected person, should we move them to a new category? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
BrianGroen ( talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is getting really long. I think it is time to take out some of the content and place in new (sub)articles. For example the tables and graphs with cases and deaths. Nico ( talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Robertpedley looked into it i can do something similar with nations greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This guy was medevaced to Hamburg, Germany on 27 August - four weeks ago. I can't find any update. Anyone? Robertpedley ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Germany very tight lipped about this. been mentioned in a bulletin a week ago, but no updates.. BrianGroen ( talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Various edits by Starstr aim to expand information about the mode of transmission. Opposed because
Robertpedley ( talk) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I very strongly believe that we need to split this section into a separate article with a short summary left here. This section is already very large and is sure to grow, and contributes to the reason that our article now far exceeds the WP guidelines for article length. Please give feedback as I'd like to see this taken care asap. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gandydancer gives me a bit of gap.. some tricky source codes to add.. will wait fir you then Greetings from Sunny South Africa Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the "Country" section we have these headings, which appear to be mutually exclusive
However some countries appear in more than one category - examples US and UK. Does this matter? Robertpedley ( talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all i think our article should read like this.
The Anome,
Robertpedley,
Gandydancer
Separates the Countries with cases better in the article
I know it looks like a big edit but is might be worth it to read better.Just my opinion. BrianGroen ( talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The Anome, Robertpedley, Gandydancer Took the bold step hope imm not in the hot water BrianGroen ( talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be ok with everyone if I fixed the capitalisation to remove capital O in "Organisations" and capital F in "Foundations" in the subheadings? And also, can we agree that "Countries with imported suspected or non-transmissive cases" should instead read "Countries with imported, suspected and/or non-transmissive cases" since cases can both be imported AND non-transmissive? F Camp ( talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry F Camp my bad. I thought capitalization not lower case. In any case seem somebody whack out all our changes of yesterday. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
After scouring the respective governments i am able to obtain only numbers for 11 Sept for Liberia and 13 Sept for Sierra leone and Sept for Guinea. so please be patient hoping to get numbers later today or in the course of tomorrow. Also expecting OCHA as soon as Liberia reports again. Will keep my eye out for it. i have placed an RSS feed on the pages. But expect another staggering increas. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
where can we see sept 11, and sept 13 for their respective countries,,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk) 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See section 10 September Numbers on this page .. the links are posted there. Regards
BrianGroen (
talk)
07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Brian
This document has what appear to be official WHO numbers from country SITREPS for 10 September 2014. It also has some very useful additional information including cases and deaths among health care workers. It includes cases and deaths for DR Congo. The numbers differ a little from those used in the timeline table. Rather than muddly the waters I'll let someone else make the judgement on whether to use these. Galerita ( talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Liberia numbers on 13 Sept is incorrect. Liberia numbers are for 11 Sept. and not 13 Sept. BrianGroen ( talk) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
|- | 13 Sep 2014 || 5,072 || 2,459 || 936 || 595 || 2,527 || 1,349 || 1,586 || 507 || 22 || 8 || 1 || 0 || https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/GUINEA_EBOLA_SITREP%20N%20151%20DU%2014%20SEPTEMBRE_2014.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20119%20Sept%2011%2C%202014_0.pdf- this report is for 11 Sept and not 13 sept https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Ebola-Situation-Report_Vol-108_0.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/SITREP-SENEGAL-13Sep-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I just felt is was important that we upload factually correct numbers for Liberia as they carry the bulk of the case numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Galerita please note this section on the report.
4963 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 1) cases and 2453 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of Ebola virus disease as at 13 September 2014 by the Ministries of Health of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and as at 9 September by the Ministry of Health of Liberia." [2] BrianGroen ( talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest chart now seems to be using Liberia's situation report 121, but for Sept 13th should use report 123 ( http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20123Sept%2015,%202014.pdf) which has a total cases of 2804/1481 18.127.7.26 ( talk) 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That report is for 15 Sept and not 13 sept. Regardes
BrianGroen (
talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
My mistake; links on the parent site are mixed up and clicking on the report for the 13th gave me the report for the 15th. Sorry.
18.127.7.26 (
talk)
17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Gandydancer, F Camp It seems that the whole article has been re arranged yesterday. Thoughts any one.. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe some of the article is better now, and should be open to more change, good work Doc James!,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
13:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings BrianGroen ( talk) 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings and please excuse my rant. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss such a major change as in the Responses reorganization first. I reverted it till we have a chance to discuss it. Gandydancer ( talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
that doesn't make it better, "WHO" should go first,,,,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
10:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO just released a new sitrep for September 18, are we still waiting to confirm the numbers, or should we update the cases for the 18th with the information from the sitrep? [6] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick clance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few edits to the "Subsequent Spread" section in order to highlight the method of travel/transmission, where known, to each of the 5 countries. However much of the same material appears in the next section "Countries with active transmission". Not sure how to avoid this. Robertpedley ( talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that in the past but it seems to me that there was a wider space between the two at that time, and it seemed to me that it would be ok since there is a lot to absorb in this article. Should we wait and see what others think? Gandydancer ( talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed three week moving average graph: mere smoothing does not help data visualization, the unsmoothed graph (shown here) is sufficient. If the drop in the last week's data points is an artifact caused by recency, then the graph should consistently leave out the last week's data instead of smoothing over it. If it isn't an artifact, then it's good news, and we should see it. But the fact that it's across all the countries at once makes me suspect that it may be a reporting artifact. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are two new cumulative-by-country graphs:
-- The Anome ( talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is it better not to use smoothened data? One of the problems regarding the graphs on the page is that they include noise which is a function of the reporting of cases rather than the incidence of cases, clearly different districts update the WHO with reports on 3,4, and 5 day cycles, smoothend data allows this noise to be extracted from the data, the cost associated is that there is a lag in how quickly the chart responds to new figures, but given that the disease has a 2 - 3 week infection cycle, changes which occur within that time frame are unlikely to be secular in nature
It is highly in appropriate to use a logarithmic scale where no geometric progression is occurring, if we look at a breakdown of the outbreak by country, only in Liberia and Sierra Leone is there a progression that is geometric, given the wide disparity in case counts it is not useful, particularly when what is important in an outbreak is not how many have been infected, but how many people are currently infectious, and how many of them have been recently infected. There is no way of us getting data on how many are infectious, but counts of recent incidents of infection are useful, and they do show that Guinea for example is doing a much better job at containment than Liberia.
Secondly, and more broadly we should only be using logarithmic scales when it is necessary, the number of people who understand what a logarithmic scale is (never mind how to read one) is in the low percentiles, the median reader of this article will have no clue what they are looking at. They will have a couple of questions that they'll want answered: 1) Where is it happening? 2) Where is it getting worse? 3) Where is it under control?
Graphs are a useful way of letting people who are not comfortable with reading tables of numbers get a sense as to what is going on, the graphs attached to this article don't do that, what they will show is that the epidemic has gone pandemic, if it comes to that, and if it comes to that, then perhaps a logarithmic scale will be useful. But at the moment it seems like people are letting a tendency to catastophise get in the way of clarity.
Its bad, but this epidemic has not gotten that bad, it isn't a pandemic
Around the world there'll be political flunkies pulling together briefing notes for their political masters which will affect policy decisions, like how and where to give resources to combat this epidemic. We can give them something useful, but we have to apply the grandma test, if your grandmother couldn't figure out what the graph means, then it isn't useful Connees ( talk) 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC) it clouds the meaning of the graph
Note: Sl and LR numbers are incorrect on WHO report
BrianGroen ( talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
What should this article's title be? The convention in epidemiology is to name outbreaks/epidemics with the 1) Year of the initial outbreak, 2) the location of the outbreak and 3) the name of the virus. This format is supported by MEDMOS. Article titles should be based on what is accepted in the scientific community and is reflected in the scientific literature here for example (see first line of article) and at the Centers for Disease Control.
Should we:
OR
Please indicate support for either #1 or #2 below:
This RfC is malformed. Firstly, it presents a false dilemma, as there are many possible article titles other than those two (and, in fact, several have been suggested). Secondly, instead of using neutral wording, you reiterated your rationale (with no mention of the counter-arguments raised previously).
As discussed
above, Wikipedia is not an epidemiological journal. Per
Wikipedia:Article titles, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." As no other Ebola virus epidemic has occurred in West Africa, appending "2014" to the title is superfluous. No such disambiguation is needed.
I also noted that the current title's structure is clearer (because "West Africa Ebola virus epidemic" could be misinterpreted as a reference to an epidemic involving a virus called "West Africa Ebola"). Such ambiguity is easily avoidable, and "the convention in epidemiology" isn't a valid reason to tolerate it here. —
David Levy
21:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The title 'Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa' was decided by one editor as his personal preference.
It was not by consensus, and it is not based on any WP policy or scientific sources.
In addition, WP titles says that where there is controversy over a title, the title should go back to what it was before the controversy.
The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks.
As far as saying, "There's no other Ebola outbreak" therefore, "use of 2014 is superfluous" makes absolutely no sense.
The whole point of using dates is to mark when the outbreak occurred.
There will be other outbreaks in future and what then if the 2014 outbreak has not been dated?
Who is going to go back and add in the date?
David Levy You've not made one policy based argument for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.' Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE and WP:OWN behaviour. The literature supports the move that will include the date. Stop taking it so personally. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You've not made one policy based argument
for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.'
Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE
and WP:OWN behaviour.
The literature supports the move that will include the date.
Stop taking it so personally.
If we assume the number of cases is an exponential function, then the first derivative (new cases per day) should also be an exponential function.
Therefore, it makes sense to similarly graph "new cases per day" on a log axis.
The graphs are great btw, I check them often, but I just wanted to add this small comment. Winehoney ( talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Can some one please add this to the article. [9]. I have retracted myself contributing to this article but this is of significant importance. BrianGroen ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi talk there was a lenghty discussion about incorrect numbers and was discussed in a DRN as well. Since 26 August the WHO has reported the wrong death toll in the their report. This fault is carried forward in all WHO reports. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So are these numbers looking like an underestimate? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, Dernier Siècle there is an updated sitrep for Sierra Leone here. [11] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Just an additional discussion about 26 August. This issue is not of interest anymore as WHO have repaired there errors on a later report BrianGroen ( talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see why the exact numbers matter, as they are continually being eclipsed by higher totals as the epidemic continues. Simply agree that these numbers represent a minimum, and the the real extent of the outbreak is almost certainly much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.243.74 ( talk) 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle It matters to statisticians and doing the graphs. See archive [20] and [21] . But as i'm am all for avoiding conflict so i'd rather step away BrianGroen ( talk) 09:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This issue seems to be going round in circles. First there was criticism of WHO numbers as inaccurate and being an admitted secondary source. Now some people seem to wish to rely only on WHO numbers as being a reliable source. I support the consensus previously reached and felt BrianGroen was doing an admiral job. Perhaps it would help if the figures in the table were suitably annotated so that the dates for the figures were clear. Mattojgb ( talk) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick glance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers. BrianGroen ( talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle like i said yesterday a consensus was reached to use the respective government reports and correlate it wit WHO. Therefor i'm walking away from this problem. It took days to prepare the previous timeline Note i double check all my figures with OCHA, UNDP as well as Iris and they are inline with my past figures. Not going to waste my time and energy on this further. BrianGroen ( talk) 04:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle i have adde up the total on the press release. Death = 511 as per my my figures. Cases adds up to 1593 as per press release, but in Kailahun in the press release the figure is 518. Note Kailahun is 528 in the official report and not 518 as the press release. hence totals are 1593 in press release. Correct this by Kailahun diffrence of 10 gives you 1603. Hence Sl figures is 1603/511 my figures the ones you call dubious. New figure 18 September similar problems. Cheers. I takes a massive effort to check all the numbers and quit frankly if you want to cite it as dubious then go ahead. im out of here. BrianGroen ( talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted 13 September dubious numbers.- see talk time line problems [22] BrianGroen ( talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the recent rename was premature. Pandemic usually requires multiple continents, and I haven't seen the WHO (or other reliable sources) calling it that yet. Please revert. -- 99of9 ( talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Renaming this a "pandemic" without a reliable source is hyperbolic and contrary to keeping the article informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSBr ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The answer is "no", no need to move it. It's now been protected as a result of the ongoing stupidity. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we need to come to an agreement on the manner in which this timeline of data problem is handled. From what I understand, an agreement has already been reached in how we are to calculate the totals and until this changes we have agreed to use that method. Our editors should not have to defend our consensus agreement every time a new editor comes along that does not agree with it. If a new editor wishes they certainly may set up their rationale in a new request that may come to a new agreement, but until then we use what we've got.
I also think that the article data section should be tagged with an explanation of how we are obtaining our totals and asking other editors to do the same - perhaps that alone would discourage editors from adding new figures without understanding the problems we are facing in our reporting of data. Any edits to the data that are not using our agreed upon method should be deleted with a request to use the method that has been reached though our present consensus. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
good idea,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
12:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13, CTL CTL, Gandydancer 14 September case numbers updated. Deleted 13 Sept numbers. References added to notes below timeline. Used the best data available... If they want to crucify me let them sent the armed horses [28] . hace a great day all. Greetings Berian BrianGroen ( talk) 17:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Will have new figures up within a day or so , but already it has whopped by 450 in two countries alone by Wednesday 17th. waiting Guinea figures.. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13, CTL CTL, Gandydancer i have finally received a response from WHO in a lenghty e mail and yes they do use respective government details. We must please correspond with the governments. I was advised that their numbers may alter slightly from the official government reports as i have been doing. I personally phoned them and yes their numbers may not always be spot on.
"Please note that the requested item was jointly produced with other organization/s outside WHO and/or not originally produced by WHO source." @ Dernier Siècle
BrianGroen ( talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Dernier Siècle if the numbers are again marked up with Dubious without discussing it i will request a block on you for editing.( i think i will have the support of the majority of editors here) I went through great length contacting WHO on various items. And secondly how can you call a government website as a unreliable source, that is like saying us.gov is an unreliable source. If you doubt that i have contacted WHO please see section above. [29] also see [30]. I have used proper channels and cited reliable sources on this as per wikipedia rules. The only contribution you made to this article is to mark items as dubious. I have been involved in this article from the beginning stages. Please refrain from it. Discuss first, if you recieve a majority vote then mark as Dubious as per wiki rules. Regards BrianGroen ( talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle Yes 13 Sept was deleted as we usually do when the weekly report arrive. WHO release there official roadmap every week as epidemic week ending(current epidemic is 36 for this year.). In the case where it is just an update we remove previous figures as we have done in the past if the update is one day apart. Avoid clutter. Pointless of having reports for two days in a row. The sit-rep takes preference and not the update. I have check your contribs and your only addition to this article was 13 September figures. I am not going to explain this again.In August we saw a jump in SL death tolls that did not correlate with WHO. We then check OCHA number , UNDP and iris. it did not concur with SL numbers stated in WHO report. The next report from WHO the numbers was corrected but the problem popped up again on a new report. Hence a joint decisions was taken to use SL gov numbers. This decisions also applied to all relevant governments. It has been discussed at length and this is a joint decisions not mine alone. If you feel the need to take it further file a DRN. but for now leave numbers stat without remarks or i will request a block on you for this article. and i an confidant i will carry the the support of most contributing editors. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Dernier Siècle WHO is not falsifying reports, all it is there is a problem on the report. HENCE we use SL gov reports and Liberia gov reports. It went to a DRN before. I am following WP:RS using a reliable source. A goverment website is a reliable source as per WP:RS and WP:medmos. Read all the comments all the editors agree with me except you. Refer to DRN if you don't concur, but mark it up again i will request an edit block This is not original work. BrianGroen ( talk) 07:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
17 September totals Guinea/Senegal/Nigeria as per OCHA [31] Sierra Leone as per [32] and Lberia as per [33] - Note "confirmed deaths" may vary slightly for Guinea but "Deaths" is correct. BrianGroen ( talk) 09:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
please lets have some wiki-civility,,,,,--
65.8.188.239 (
talk)
13:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Civility restored, sorry partly to blame for it getting heated, but i believe Dernier and i are in agreement.. I will back trace the error in WHO and refer matter to them. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
In WHO's latest update on ebola they butcher the infographics into various parts, possibly to prevent their use. I wanted to update some of the images in the article but this just can't be a coincidence. Should I extract the parts of the image and put them together, or what? 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi -- Monochrome_ Monitor with regards to WHO usage they are protected by the Berne convention on copyright we my not use their material without a proper request. The image may not be altered in any form. So this would be an absolute no no. but do request their permission to use. they take about two weeks to respond.
As far as the Treatment facilities in West Africa i have received confirmation to use the image as a whole and not altered in any way.
Extract from e-mail
"Dear Mr Groenenstein,
Thank you for your enquiry. On behalf of the World Health Organization, we are pleased to grant you permission to reproduce the WHO item detailed in the form below. WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report
WHO will not charge any fee for the above permission, however we would like you to please provide me with 1 original hard copy and an electronic file of your final publication for our records, specifically showing where/how WHO material appears and how it is referenced on your product . Please send directly to this address:
Ms Dolores Campanario
World Health Organization Press"
BrianGroen ( talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi again -- Monochrome_ Monitor it took two weeks to get permission, but yes i think we can use their images as long as we don't "butcher" them. I have sent a e-mail requesting further use of their images on ebola and sent a hard copy of this to them. I trust they won't object, as long as we use the image as is. And please delete any WHO emblems. We xcan always say "oops" if they turn us down, but i doubt it as long as we keep the image intact. With regards to Lab images we can go ahead i have recieved telephonic confirmation. Hoping to receive an e-mail in a week or so on my new request for using other images. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 10:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Monochrome_ Monitor It show up as one my side but if you can get to match closely to the original i think it would be fine, just delete WHO emblem. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Monochrome_ MonitorSee this section of email "The material will be reproduced as it was published by WHO and no changes should be made to the content or meaning. Publishers may reformat the material in the style of the publication." I think you are pretty much covered to edit the format as long as you keep the meaning... I would say go ahead. I see your dilemma... Post it as you wanted to. i will again just do a belated request. Kind regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The article states that the semen is infectious of 3 months after cure. However the provided reference does not support this. In fact no statement is made about the semen. As this is possibly of vital importance I did not act yet. Please falsify and purge from the article or provide substantial reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.113.149 ( talk) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have notice an increase in Ip edits stuffing up article- i have requested a new semi protect edit. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian thank you. Looks like this will happen once a week indefinitely, doesn't it? Robertpedley ( talk) 07:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any way of accurately calculating the CFR for each individual country? I think we can for Nigeria and Senegal, with a CFR of 38.1% and 0% respectively, but how do we calculate it when the outbreak is still occurring? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 Going to be very difficult tried it but to no avail i.e time of contraction to time of demise not on any report. Who placed it at 42 to 66%, but and that is the big one. it is calculated at date of report. I essence time of disease presenting to death could vary by as much as 14 days. i guess we will only know this figure at the end. At on stage when Guinea nearly stop reporting new cases in august it was 66%. However since Guinea has now again increased in numbers the total R% cannot be accurately calculated. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
National responses can be categorised as follows:
The problem is that item 2 and 5 are popping up almost everywhere. There are about 120 nations in the world, this section could become cumbersome after a while. I'm proposing to add a generic header paragraph covering travel restrictions, false alarms, and import restrictions; then cull these from the section. Possible exceptions - countries which border affected areas (Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal) and Saudi Arabia because of the Hajj. Your thoughts please? Robertpedley ( talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I found on the web all three types of cases. I.E. and Imported Case, exported case, and introduced case. The problem with the first two is they sound intentional and they require a person to have a frame of reference. If you are in the USA the case is imported. If it came from Liberia and you are in Liberia, it is an exported case. I would like to put forward Introduced Case There is no connotation of an intentional transfer. I was starting to do this then stopped when I noted we have an entire paragraph called Imported Cases. I would like to offer the opinion to move that to Introduced Cases.
Technically, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and Nigeria are all imported cases since they got introduced to them and exported from another country. Only DRC and Guinea have "homegrown?" Pbmaise ( talk) 08:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Should we add the Democratic Republic of Congo to the map at the top page and keep track of these statistics too? If we decide not, why do we have a DC of Congo section in the page for the West Africa epidemic? What will we do if (when) the virus spreads from DR of Congo to West Africa (or vise versa). Since the viruses are both of the same strand, how would we differentiate which came from where and how it affects our numbers? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I donot know why the Port Harcourt incident which involved a doctor who was infected by diplomat who escaped quarantine in Lagos was removed. If there wasn't a reason for removing such sourced content, I will have to add that back. Stanleytux ( talk) 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stanleytux, i did not removed it but i have the distinct feeling the diplomat were named. As per WP:RS rules reference to a living person may not be added portraying him/her in a negative light, unless there is a good reason. i.e he was found guilty in a court of law of this action. Unfortunately media reports is not a strong enough evidence that he was involved in the incidence in deliberately spreading the disease and he was not yet found guilty in a court of law BrianGroen ( talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux"On August 28, it was confirmed that a Liberian diplomat who had had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt, two days before, from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six." this was the original report i did introduced it but i did amend the reference and wording a bit.
This was my subsequent edit. "On August 22 a doctor who treated a Liberian diplomat in a hotel, who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six.The Good Heart Hospital in Rivers State and a unnamed hotel has been shut down. As a result 70 people have been quarantined. [ "Breaking: Nigeria Records New Ebola Death In Port Harcourt". SAHARA REPORTERS. 27 August 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014. citation needed" BrianGroen ( talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux using your reasoning where do we end , do we add all the towns regions in all four countries.Imagine that list!! Sorry it sounds hard but it just a basis for reasoning. The article will become a complete cluter of info. at times i becomes nessary to remove inf.. like i did on Sierra leone today. removing redutant info. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a little info, my daughters uncle works in Guinea in an ebola region, but i did not report the region, knowing full well that he might return as a potential carrier BrianGroen ( talk) 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) exposed to Ebola.
besides Lagos is in the article. Port Harcourt is in the Lagos district. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Stanleytux sorry my mistake Port Harcourt in is in River state as indicated on the map. We have in about 40 + areas in total , cant report on all of them.. will cause enormous clutter.. Refer to a DRN if you are not happy with the this . BTW i am not from the united state but i live in africa.. BrianGroen ( talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The log-scale graphs need a short section discussing relevance, perhaps: "The log-scale graph is a straight line, this shows that ebola is currently increasing at an exponential rate, if it continues to increase at this exponential rate then the whole human population will have ebola by March 2016". At some time the exponential growth MUST break during the next 2 years (there are not enough humans to go past 2 years), and alternatives for breaks in the exponential growth must be discussed; will it be after suburb/city/country/continent(s) are infected; and when, where, why and how can it be stopped?
I think its fine to leave it the way it is. I mean all they are doing is showing that it is growing exponentially. I think a lot of time editors take out anything that seems to imply this could get much worse even if the article is just reporting facts.
That 20,000 figure from the WHO has been up here for weeks and its ridiculous. People just seem to be speculating that this won't affect hundreds of thousands. Why speculate when the exponential growth will end, when we have no idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.255.167 ( talk) 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have brought this up before but as conditions worsen, I'm bringing it up again. I question the inclusion of "confirmed cases" info in the lead because the average reader may assume that it is comparatively low because the remaining cases are not Ebola, which is not accurate. From WHO:
There are several points to be considered when interpreting epidemiological data for the EVD outbreak. Many of the deaths attributed to EVD in this outbreak occurred in people who were suspected, but not confirmed, to have died from the disease. EVD cases are only confirmed when a sample tests positive in the laboratory. If samples taken from a body test negative for EVD, that person is no longer counted among EVD deaths and the figures are adjusted accordingly. However, because laboratory services and treatment centres are currently overwhelmed in several countries, the numbers of probable and suspected cases, together with those confirmed, may be a more accurate reflection of case numbers. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the data table, cases and deaths did not increase by a single digit from Sep 17 to Sep 20 in Liberia. How can that be? Is it a typo, or has the epidemic stopped there so suddenly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.168.226 ( talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
i noticed the aforementioned quotient in the recent report, but to be honest - i dont quite get it. What exactly does it tell us? Of course, i understand that you can - to a certain extend - deduce a trend from it. But why do they choose the incubation period as numerator and not a random (e.g. 15) amount of days? I just dont get it, what specific information can be derived from this quotient?
Thank you very much in advance, i appreciate any help here.
PS: I have the feeling that this quotient is really interesting. Should this somehow be added to the article (progressing graph)
-- LatinumPulchrum ( talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey LatinumPulchrum you haven't given enough information here for me to know your source. However there's nothing mysterious about a quotient - check Wiki!! Only 2 stats are important in an epidemic - the basic reproduction number which tells you if it's getting bigger or smaller, and the case fatality rate which tells you how deadly it is. Both are covered in this article; BRN is around 1.5 and CFR is around 50% (both very uncertain, due to difficulty of collecting reliable stats). Taken together these are very bad news indeed. Robertpedley ( talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting links. But that did not help me at all. I was talking about | page 2, chart at the top of the page. -- LatinumPulchrum ( talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Robertpedley ( talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
LatinumPulchrum 21 days seems to be the rough doubling time for this epidemic, if half the infections have occurred during past 21 days that means number of cases has doubled in 21 days and can be expected to double again in next 21 days. If its fewer than half the cases has occurred in that time, then (local)doubling time is longer thus it will probably take longer to double again and vice versa 89.235.235.174 ( talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible for us to use the SVG version of the image at the top? If it needs to be updated, it could be done much easier with an SVG rather than a PNG. Thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 there is Svg available in coomons File:2014_ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.svg Greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 [43] BrianGroen ( talk) 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dernier Siècle Just check report dates when posting
"1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION 5843 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 2) cases and 2803 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of EVD as at 20 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Guinea, as at 17 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Liberia, and as at 19 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Sierra Leone (table 1)."
Will update Liberia when i get it. I have updated Sl so long. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note i will update the lead and main SVG as soon as Liberia release new numbers for 20 SEpt. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dernier Siècle understandable, but if you read the WHO report correctly you will see they get their numbers from the governments and not own numbers.. CDC just copy government numbers but don't look at dates.(Picked this up in the past) WHO at least state the date. CDC just add it, no dates. It is a nightmare to get all the numbers. I have to look at every report in detail WHO, CDC, OCHA, UNDA and goverments. My numbers correlate with OCHA and gov's and Map Response Kind regards Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously listen to me. This entire isssue has been hijacked by those with political interests.
Red alert drum beats.
I pick yesterday's announcement by Nigeria as cutoff date. No more EVD but West still Wants to send troops to help. Are you aware of 2,700 high-calibre arms shipped into Nigeria Feb 2014? Ship name Iron Trader Maybe that is real reason. Maybe not. Again as we know something is afoot.
Gandy Brian freeze page now. Think of us like war reporters. We needed those reporters to bring back photos To study. The record is lost if continuously revised.
Esp. If done so for political ends.
Duplucate page 100% and save two copies.
Rename copy one... 2014 Ebola virus disease initial epidemic outbreak
That page is then semi protected. It is this Snapshot of history we are destroying. By putting every new headline in this page no one has a good Way to review 100 years from now how it all began.
Rename copy two....2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic containment effort We can then purge page. New data here on.
Yes no mention geography. In the past geography was important since they were isolated.
Ebola search on google needs to land on page readers are looking They want to find data about epidemic not disease.
I working on entire page for just the single event of Patrick Sawyer. These is one of the many stories in history we must record.
We are not a ticker tape reporting every second. We can not Confuse possible propoganda.
The page is WORTHLESS to billions of cell phone users. We have to stop this nonsense of sourcing every detail. When and IF a point is obscure okay. But anyone can Google easy to find info on their own
Page three title...hold on.... 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak: Freeze frame September 23, 2014 This page fully lock. As name implies there can be other dates in future that We freeze for future.
Pbmaise ( talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
?,,,-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Almost all women died giving birth 100% of babies died. If Ebola becomes endemic, and we have no way to prevent babies from being exposed, there may be few of us left. Pbmaise ( talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
???Updating on a ongoing event a political agenda, seriously how do do you come to that conclusion. BrianGroen ( talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph on this to the timeline sourced from a recent NYT article "Fresh Graves Point to Undercount of Ebola Toll" The story seems credible and helps to explain why the CFR in Sierra Leone seems anomalously low. If the story develops further it may warrant a separate section. Galerita ( talk) 08:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a map which showed the countries where each Ebola victim was located. For instance, the United States has 4 victims, Spain had 1, I think Saudi Arabia had 1, etc. I think this is nice information to have, just to see what certain countries are doing with Ebola patients, and where victims are flying. Any thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Two new cases in Europe.. will wait before i report but on case highly suspicious. Swiss new patient was in contact with family member with ebola. [47]
Italy will wait for lab confirmation. [48] BrianGroen ( talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 I think we will have to cover a complete section i.e use whole page width if it happens. Lets ope not, but i'm afraid to say the inevitable is it is going to happen. The scare are going to turn real the more this disease is not controlled. BrianGroen ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Senegal be listed as a country with imported cases, rather than one with local transmission, as no one was infected (to our knowledge) within the borders of the country? Also, I would consider moving Nigeria to a new section now that it is "Ebola-free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 ( talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
why are sierra leones fatality numbers so low?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ozzie10aaaa Sierra leone lock-down figures will only be out on Thursday... I expect a huge jump then. BrianGroen ( talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur. thank you.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see update d timeline lead for evidence of under reporting. BrianGroen ( talk) 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian, the Thursday report doesn't show an increased number of deaths. The CFR is still below 30%. AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AmericanXplorer13 see note above.. Monrovia have note reported any cases and lock-down cases still not released.. I added it to the paragraph above the time line..Think it is going to be a massive increase soon. I monitor all sites that report cases daily no mention of it yet.Greetings Brian.. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Brian, I was looking at this report. [50] AmericanXplorer13 ( talk) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
AmericanXplorer13 Still not in that one as well. BrianGroen ( talk) 18:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that the WHO has stated that both Nigeria and Senegal have both successfully completed the 21-day observation of any person that had contact with an infected person, should we move them to a new category? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
BrianGroen ( talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is getting really long. I think it is time to take out some of the content and place in new (sub)articles. For example the tables and graphs with cases and deaths. Nico ( talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Robertpedley looked into it i can do something similar with nations greetings Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This guy was medevaced to Hamburg, Germany on 27 August - four weeks ago. I can't find any update. Anyone? Robertpedley ( talk) 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Germany very tight lipped about this. been mentioned in a bulletin a week ago, but no updates.. BrianGroen ( talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Various edits by Starstr aim to expand information about the mode of transmission. Opposed because
Robertpedley ( talk) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I very strongly believe that we need to split this section into a separate article with a short summary left here. This section is already very large and is sure to grow, and contributes to the reason that our article now far exceeds the WP guidelines for article length. Please give feedback as I'd like to see this taken care asap. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gandydancer gives me a bit of gap.. some tricky source codes to add.. will wait fir you then Greetings from Sunny South Africa Brian BrianGroen ( talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)