Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic

How can exponential growth stop?

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?

Mathematically it is clear: it will stop growing exponentially; what are the options? The time of break of exponential growth is THE crux of global interest for our species in this disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.231.80 (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It generally looks exponential early on but flattens out and declines in a bell-shaped pattern according to Compartmental models in epidemiology - cyclosarin (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Order of list

I suggest that we keep an alphabetical order for the section describing the response by organisations. I had fixed the order, but my changes were reverted without justification other than "restore to previous arrangement which is more appropriate for this section". There is no clear logical ordering at the moment. Why does the U.S. CDC come before Médecins sans Frontières, whose presence on the ground has been a lot more crucial to containment? Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations? Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before? I fail to see how the current arrangement is more "appropriate" for the section, given that the current ordering seems rather arbitrary: it is neither organised chronologically, nor by importance of resource commitment. Unless there is a source showing that the current ordering reflects the relative media attention each organisation currently named has received, I suggest that we stick to an alphabetic order - as we have done for the list of countries. Thanks for your input! F Camp (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my rationale:

• The WHO, the largest and most well known medical informational organization in the world, should be listed first.
• The CDC, while based in the US, is (again) the most well known medical informational organization in the world when it comes to direct patient care guidelines.
• Doctors Without Borders is (again) the most well known organization in the world when it comes to assisting with medical disasters.
• I next list the NGO Samaritan's Purse because, IMO, anyone willing to put medical workers into such dangerous working conditions ranks above organizations that have pledged cash or pledged food.
• Re the following two, I really do not much care if their positions are reversed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, you said, "Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations?" How much, money wise, has the World Food Program pledged? Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer for explaining your rationale for the ordering. I think that it is arbitrary and not intuitive, and, as such that it exposes us to criticism under WP:Neutral point of view. However, I will leave the list as per your liking unless the community's consensus evolves towards preference for a different order. As for your question about the total pledged by the WFP, I am not aware of total sums having been advertised, but adding up their projects listed in their operations database does not seem to get us passed about US$15 million. Thanks again for contributing to this discussion! F Camp (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you suggest that my answer is intuitive. Or why you would suggest that it is problematic because it may expose the article to criticism for using NPOV. Your statement as to why the WHO should not be listed first, "Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before?", suggests to me a lack of understanding of the chain of command, so as to speak, when it comes to world-wide medical matters. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to throw a curve into this debate...but one might suggest that the first division would be between Governmental organizations (WHO, CDC, World Bank, Country Ministeries of Health, etc...) and NGO's (Doctors without Borders, Samraitans Purse, etc...) Juan Riley (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not for it, that seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just tried to do something along those lines, Gandydancer, but you reverted my changes back by referring me to this Talk page. As far as I can tell, none of the changes I made contradicted what had been discussed here or in the discussion started below by BrianGroen. F Camp (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to argue for something along those lines in "Airlines?", above. F Camp (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV: you stated that "IMO, anyone willing to put medical workers into such dangerous working conditions ranks above organizations that have pledged cash or pledged food." That doesn't sound very neutral to me, it is a value-based judgment. I'll ignore the point about my so-called "apparent lack of understanding of the chain of command" to reiterate the point I am trying to make, namely that the order should not seem arbitrary. The section is not called "Response by levels of chain of command in world-wide medical matters" but "Response by organisations". F Camp (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

FCamp: Separating GO's from NGO's at least avoids the potential judgement POV you raise. Juan Riley (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Article title/RfC

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:

• 1) Keep the current title "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa"

OR

• 2) Move the page to "2014 West Africa Ebola virus epidemic" ? 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate support for either #1 or #2 below:

• Support #2. Best to go with what is accepted scientific practice per MEDMOS. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

• Close please - We just came to a consensus regarding the article title 9 days ago, and now you want an rfc to change it back or keep it the same? No thanks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) There's been no real consensus on the title. The RfC is the best way to do that. 2) The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks. 3) There shouldn't be any confusion as to the name of the virus as the ICTV has established the accepted nomenclature which WP follows in all virus articles. 4) 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? Best to get off on the right foot from the start. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this will continue into 2015 at this point. There's no sign of stopping soon based on the latest numbers over the past month. 2014 is superfluous in this case, since no other outbreak has occurred in West Africa. The title can always be revisited when another outbreak occurs in the future (assuming this one doesn't end with a cure or vaccine). Also, for the reasons given above / in the first move, it's best if number 2 was changed to 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, to avoid confusing the name as an outbreak of "West Africa Ebola virus disease" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it extends into 2015. It's the year the outbreak starts that matters, that's the identifier. That is how the scientific literature will refer to it. 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. It was 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. It can say 'epidemic' but it should go back to the correct format. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To SW3 5DL - The first instance of the current outbreak was believed to be in December 2013 (not recognised as Ebola until 4 months later). Maybe best to put this discussion on hold until the outbreak is over? I vote for option 1 Robertpedley (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley - Yes I'm aware of the earliest case, however, the literature is calling it the 2014 outbreak. The lede can mention the earliest case. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You just stated that "it's the year the outbreak starts that matters". Now that yet another factual inaccuracy has been brought to your attention, you've backpedaled. You seem to be inventing these supposed rules (with the goal of pointing to your preferred title) as you go along. —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The title 'Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa' was decided by one editor as his personal preference.

Some degree of misunderstanding occurred, but similar titles were discussed, and the current title has since received support (including mine, despite my previous suggestion of a different title).

It was not by consensus, and it is not based on any WP policy or scientific sources.

It's based on the article titles policy and numerous reliable sources identifying the article's subject as the first Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

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 "controversy" currently revolves around your complaints. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks.

Firstly, along with several other claims (all of which turned out to be original research comprising your personal opinions and/or flat-out incorrect statements of fact), you've made an uncorroborated declaration and expected us to accept it.

As evidence, you've provided links to two articles from reliable sources, both of which contain descriptions with contradictory formats. The first refers to the "2014 West African Ebola virus outbreak" and the "West African 2014 Ebola Outbreak". The second refers to the "2014 West Africa Outbreak", the "2014 Ebola outbreak", and the "2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa". Neither page contains the phrase "2014 West Africa Ebola", let alone the full construct that you advocate using as the article's title.

Secondly, even if it is the accepted scientific practice in describing outbreaks, we aren't bound by that. Again, Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal. We rely on our article titles policy and Manual of Style for guidance. (You've cited MEDMOS, but a description of an event is very different from the name of a disease or drug.) We certainly can consider outside literature, but we don't blindly defer to it on the basis that [x authority] knows best. What makes sense in the context of a specialist publication isn't necessarily the most practical solution for a generalist encyclopedia.

Thirdly, an RfC statement is supposed to summarize the issue in a neutral manner (explaining any relevant disagreement without taking sides). Yours describes the aforementioned epidemiological convention (represented as an undisputed matter of fact), followed by the assertion that "article titles should be based on what is accepted in the scientific community and is reflected in the scientific literature". This is your position in the dispute, presented in isolation (with no acknowledgment of dissenting views) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Do you seriously not see how that's non-neutral?

As far as saying, "There's no other Ebola outbreak" therefore, "use of 2014 is superfluous" makes absolutely no sense.

You needn't agree with the pratice, but you surely can understand the logic behind it.

The whole point of using dates is to mark when the outbreak occurred.

At Wikipedia, we include such information (a year, month and year, or the complete date) in an article's title is to distinguish the event from others that the title otherwise would describe. Unless and until West Africa experiences a second Ebola epidemic, no such disambiguation is called for.

There will be other outbreaks in future and what then if the 2014 outbreak has not been dated?

We'll append the date if and when that occurs, as is standard practice.

Who is going to go back and add in the date?

One or more Wikipedia editors. That's how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Did you overlook my multiple mentions of our article titles policy?

for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.'

I neither chose the current title nor argued that it should be retained because it sounds better (or anything of the sort). I'm baffled as to why you would attribute such a statement to me.

Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE

By expressing disagreement with you and contesting your incorrect and inconsistent claims?

and WP:OWN behaviour.

By supporting a title selected instead of the one that I suggested?

The literature supports the move that will include the date.

The literature that you cited, containing multiple descriptions (but not the one that you advocate we use)?

Stop taking it so personally.

I assure you that I don't. Given your perception that I'm attacking you, I suggest that you follow your own advice. —David Levy 23:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Including the date is unnecessary disambiguation, and speculation about future outbreaks is WP:CRYSTAL. We don't preemptively disambiguate articles, we disambiguate them when disambiguation is needed. It isn't. The present title is WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support current title: I'm adding my voice to what appears to be a near-consensus: the location and the name of the pathogen are sufficient. It's speculative per WP:CRYSTAL to include the date because we don't know the future course of this outbreak. In other words, HIV should never have been called "1981 New York City immune disease epidemic." Also, an article name that starts with the name of the virus is clearer and easier to find (yes, it can be redirected, but it needn't be). Roches (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pandemic" rename

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)

Oh heck, this must be the 4th or 5th rename so far. I though we had reached a consensus (see above). A please from the ehart - please stop changing the name, it makes it difficult for search engines to index the page and it messes up the traffic statistics. Is it possible to protect?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: moving it to call it a "pandemic" was a bad idea, and I've let the editor in question know this. Since, as you say, there's a consensus here for the current name, I've now move-protected it for one month. -- The Anome (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Great Robertpedley (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the nest of redirects created by that move has now been sorted as well. I've speedy-deleted the "pandemic" redirect itself, as it was both recently created and implausible, thus meeting the speedy deletion criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys are all wrong about this on multiple levels: 1) the present name is a hideous clunker. 2) the spread and distribution of the disease already satisfies the definition of "pandemic" (note: it is not necessary for a pandemic to be global -- the Ancient Greeks certainly didn't have any capacity to verify such when they coined the term; if the presently affected area were transposed over the Mediterranean, it would cover half the known world of Greek Antiquity). 3) The disease is out-of-control and accelerating exponentially, with half of all known cases in the last month; the death rate is now up to 200/day when it was only 100/day last week. With the WHO already predicting 20,000 deaths eventually (and that number almost immediately regarded as optimist), I submit that responsible agencies are already supplying far more "hysteria" than a mere name change would impart. 4) It would have killed no one here to toss "ebola pandemic" into Google instead of just assuming a lack of RS. In summation, you are going to have to rename this article very shortly anyway. (If you think it's a rat-race now in west-Africa, just wait until the Hajj begins next month.)--Froglich (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

All very interesting, but at this rate, we'll have to protect the page from the many unsupported rogue moves. Please suggest page moves here or at WP:RM, and we'll see how it goes. In the meantime, thanks for your enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Such processes are generally glacial; and this is a swiftly-developing topic. Instead, let's try to reach consensus here:

• I submit that take the current name is a poor one and that virtually any other name is less unwieldy.
• I submit that 2014 Ebola pandemic is more concise, accurate, and informative.--Froglich (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Why is the current name "poor"? It's an epidemic of the Ebola virus that has struck West Africa hard. Why is this a poor description? Why would you need a year in your new proposed title, are there any other Ebola pandemics? Do you have evidence to support that the COMMONNAME of this news item includes "pandemic" in generality? In the meantime, your enthusiasm is certainly exciting. (PS, try Googling your terms.) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO any article title regarding a historical event with six words in it is a clunker. The spread of the disease already satisfies the definition of pandemic (and certainly will going forward). Regards "commonname" problems; it should be the mission of an encyclopedia to educate the layman, not cater to "definition-drift" in language. Regards placing the year in the title, now that EV is well-established across a vast and still-expanding region, there are likely to be subsequent outbreaks in the future, and attendant subsequent Wikipedia articles will be best delineated by year. For the time being, would you object to "2014 Ebola epidemic"? (This hedges a bet that the disease halts its presently inexorable spread.) "2014 Ebola outbreak" is another possibility, but "outbreak" is a less-desirable and non-technical term.--Froglich (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps you should read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS! Either way, don't try to move the article unilaterally again, you need consensus and currently, you absolutely don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I just say I was trying to reach consensus? That's what I'm doing here: attempting to convince you why the suggested renaming is superior.--Froglich (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one disagree. A simple search will reveal that "Ebola pandemic" is not the common name for this outbreak. Your suggestion is clearly inferior to the current name I'm afraid, as yet you have nothing substantive to demonstrate why your preferred name would be better (other than your own personal opinion). But thanks for your enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my "For the time being..." offer above. We're not talking about pandemics anymore.--Froglich (talk) 19:23, 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)

We'll see who's "stupid" in a couple weeks. Say, are you aware that Prof John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and on-site in Monrovia, is now predicting that Ebola will infect "the majority" of the population of Liberia? Given a (generous) lethality of 50%, that means he's predicting over one million people will die of this disease in just Liberia. But hey: I'm @#&*% stupid, so don't listen to anything coming from me, OK, Tiger? Jeez.... --Froglich (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the constant moving of the article to satisfy personal preference as stupid, nothing else. Your personal interpretation is entirely inaccurate, but unsurprising. (P.S. "Experts" suggested we'd have a Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease pandemic a decade or so ago, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The broadening of your condescension prompts me to doubt the sincerity of your "sorry". Everyone: Understand that as of 11 Sep 2014 there is in play a prediction from an in situ paramount luminary in his field that 25% of the population of an entire nation will croak with a seven-figure death-toll.[1] In light of this, I would like to not-so-gently suggest that the "discordant mob" [2] take a back-seat and leave the article to those with timely expertise in the subject matter. As to CJD, to attempt to make an analogy between dithering over the course of an ailment transmitted by certain avoidable foods (or transfusions) with an ongoing highly virulent infectious plague is a confession of ignorance in the subject-matter. --Froglich (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If/when the epidemic spreads to other continents, then call it a pandemic? Very few would argue that a multi-continent epidemic is not a pandemic. Most non-crackpots will not make projections beyond a few months [3], and even though models have been published that put probabilities on its spread, they're pretty conservative [4]. But wait a little while and see if the models are correct (or even close?). Snd0 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Edmunds isn't a crack-pot; he's with Médecins Sans Frontières at ground-zero. If MSF's estimate that they're recording only one in four actual cases in Liberia is correct, then we're surging past the WHO's prediction of 20,000 cases by the end of this week. The WHO assumed a linear or logarithmic rate of spread when it's gone exponential.[5]. More worrisome, lethality has climbed back up to 70% (Frontline, 9/9).--Froglich (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again you entirely misunderstand my point. There are plenty of actions that can be taken to prevent the spread of Ebola, just as there are plenty of ways to reduce the chances of contracting CJD. Just as in the CJD case, there are usually a couple of people proclaiming the Doomsday scenario, while most others remain realistic. Even those shouting for Doomsday are keen to stress that there's plenty that can be done about. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, the article has been protected from being moved and that's a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll see about that.--Froglich (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed we will, in the meantime we should put the crystal ball back in the cupboard!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that pandemic is hyperbolic. I propose "2014 Ebolavirus Epidemic" as a title, it's more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.166.122 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "Pandemic" is hyperbolic, at the moment, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. This is a deadly serious matter of life and death for potentially millions of people, not a video game, and Wikipedia is taken seriously enough as an information source by other people for us to have a duty to be cautious in our use of language. If Edmunds is right about it becoming completely uncontrollable -- and let's hope it doesn't get that far -- we can always change the article title as appropriate then. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Hopefully User:Froglich is reading this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree way to early to call pandemic. Hoping US intervention is quick and decisive before we reach that stage. BrianGroen (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola virus" is redundant. For instance, we don't refer to "Malaria parasite epidemics".--Froglich (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotta admire your determination to change something! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RM, how old are you? ...oh never mind; the answer will undoubtedly shake my vestigial faith in mankind that anyone else is capable of logically rejoining in a conversation.--Froglich (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, but seriously, you really want something to change in the title don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a restless urge to improve all shat things.--Froglich (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Seperate Nigerian Article

I want to create a 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria but I dont want anyone to do delete it after creation that is why I want to know if creating it is allowed. I do not want to use epidemic because I don't think it was really an epidemic. The Nigeria case is unique for some of the following reasons.

• About 10 patients were reportedly cured without using Zmapp or any US drug which is the highest recovery rate in west africa
• People who were cured from Ebola are being stigmitized to the extent that a Liberian woman committed suicide in Lagos even though she does never had Ebola. 1, 2
• and so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanord (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't support this notion. 1. It is still to early to say if Nigeria have for one cleared all their cases. 2. The index case was from Liberia therefore the spread is from this area. 3. This outbreak is far from over and gathering from the staggering increase we will (i'm afraid to say it but) see other countries also involved. 15 other African countries have been identified as at very high risk. 4. This page is now in other languages following our lead an it will have an effect on them. BrianGroen (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seanord I agree with BrianGroen. Nigeria is clearly an instance of the same viral outbreak. It would not be helpful to fragment the information we are collating about this outbreak across several pages (Nigeria first - then Senegal maybe? How many more?). In a way it's important to keep Nigeria in this page because the method of spread, via a man who apparently disguised his symptoms until he got out of Liberia, was unprecedented. Robertpedley (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian and Robert. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As soon as Nigeria is declared "free of Ebola" by the WHO, I am going to create the article because I am not convinced with your defence. You people are free to nominate the article for deletion if you like. As long as the article passes Wikipedia guidelines for notablity and disease outbreak it will be kept. My problem with the present state of this article is that it gives a false impression of Ebola Status in Nigeria. It says "22 infected and 7 dead" making the reader to think that 15 people are still infected with the virus in Nigeria, when in reality, no one is infected. This impressions are what is causing the discrimination of Nigerian athlethes at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics. I know people that travelled to China and I know what they went through just because they were tagged as being part of "Ebola Striken Countries" Many People are still thinking that the case in Nigeria is as deadly as that of Liberia, Sieera Leone, Congo and Guinea. Consensus is NOT greater than Wikipedia guideline, so if you all vote delete, it will not be enough to delete the article. It is a shame that there are not many Nigerian Wikipedia users on Wikipedia if not we will trigger the consensus in our favour, but even if the people that want the article deleted are more, I believe Wikipedia guideline supercedes any kind of votes.Seanord (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Still 19 individuals under quarantine, due for release on 18 September. It will be a great relief to many people if Nigeria can be declared free of Ebola and of course it will be recognised by reclassification of the Nigeria section in this page. Robertpedley (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of graph

File:West African Ebola Outbreak New Cases Reported.jpg

The unsmoothed graph

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)

After attempting to re-create the un-smoothed graph myself, I've now removed even the unsmoothed version from the page. The combination of noisy data and irregular sampling makes this very difficult to generate a meaningful chart: readers can get a better picture of what's going on by looking at the changes in slope in the cumulative graphs. I will upload a cumulative chart shortly, to show what I mean. -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are two new cumulative-by-country graphs:

-- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Much better than the unsmoothed graph. I'm not sure that the log plot wouldn't be better without the inclusion of Senegal and Nigeria, though. --Aflafla1 (talk) 01:20, 15 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

Linear graph is useful to show the history, log graph indicates the trend. Both have their place. Personally I look at the log graph.

to improve the log graph, you should exclude data points near the beginning of the outbreak where n is less than 50 (add a note!) Robertpedley (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full support of having the country totals separated, especially on a log graph. (Yellow is a bit harder to see but not a huge problem and I can also see that excluding early points might help to avoid confusion).

Differences between Guinea and Liberia are important but since they are close to straight lines on a log graph I submit that both are geometric growth. I wonder if the difference is active containment or passive containment due to cultural and social differences. (I don't know that part of the world). Does anyone know of research on this topic? (I realize this is not the kind of speculation to put on the main page but big implications for public health and a link to applicable research could be very helpful).

On the matter of understandable graphs:

1. I suspect that those who reach these graphs have some understanding. (It is already a long page).
2. For those of us who do understand log graphs, they are very helpful.
3. For those who do not understand log graphs perhaps there could be a link to the appropriate area of mathematics? See Logarithmic_scale
4. It seems worthwhile putting up what 'we' in the wiki community can contribute as the various graphs might help someone to see things differently. (I don't know but perhaps a case for flexibility during an active crisis?).:: --Cjacooper (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Connees - your maths isn't quite correct. If the one has a function which is the *sum* of several geometric and arithmetic progressions, then the dominant function is the geometric (exponential) function. The fact that the line is basically exactly straight when graphed on log axis indicates it is an exponential function. "Highly inappropriate" is exceptionally strong language to use. It is an unchecked growth function, which by nature is geometric in progression, particularly as transmission seems to be (tragically) unchecked. How could it ever be polynomial? Winehoney (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The first indication that the outbreak is coming under control will be a flattening of the one or all of the log lines. Hopefully soon, now that various countries have promised to mobilise some serious assets to the region. Robertpedley (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Wrote somthing then realised it was rubbish) Robertpedley (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplication

In the "Country" section we have these headings, which appear to be mutually exclusive

• 9 Response by country
• 9.1 Countries with active local transmission
• 9.2 Countries with suspected or non-transmissive cases
• 9.3 Other countries and economic regions

However some countries appear in more than one category - examples US and UK. Does this matter? Robertpedley (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Countries that have "imported" infected individuals through medical evacuations should really be in a different category from those with suspected / non-transmissive cases; in one case, lack of transmission is largely luck, in the other, it's the unsurprising result of effective high-grade biosafety precautions being taken, and the risk of transmission was almost zero. -- The Anome (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi all i think our article should read like this. The Anome,Robertpedley,Gandydancer

• 9 Cases by other countries.
• 9.1 Countries with active local transmission
• 9.2 Countries with suspected or non-transmissive cases
• 9.3 Countries with imported cases - UK Us and other imported cases should be here

Separates the Countries with cases better in the article

• 10 Response by organisations and countries.
• 10.1 Other countries and economic regions--This should be in here then
• 10.2 World Health Organization
• 10.3 US Centers for Disease Control
• 10.4 Médecins Sans Frontières
• 10.5 Samaritan's Purse
• 10.6 World Food Program
• 10.7 World Bank Group
• 10.8 Private and foundation donations

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)

If only I had time. The biocontained cases were hot news a few weeks ago, I think in another 2 or 3 weeks we'll be able to reduce them to a couple of sentences & move them down. It would make sense - the US Government response to the crisis has been shaped in part by hostile public reaction to the 4 (so far) imported cases. Robertpedley (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could move it just want to see if i have a majority vote on it. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but I am having a hard time envisioning the changes you suggest. I'm all for making the change and then we can go from there... BTW, at one point I did some changing of the way things were listed and it was shortly changed back. Rethinking it, I think the editor that changed it back was correct. So I say, go for it - it can take forever to wait for consensus on some things. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Anome,Robertpedley,Gandydancer Took the bold step hope imm not in the hot waterBrianGroen (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrianGroen. Was working on fixing typos in your title but got interrupted in my tracks by Gandydancer who reverted the changes I was working on before I was done - even though my changes were going along the lines of the discussion here. Anyhow... F Camp (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi F Camp sorry re typos. my official language is Afrikaans and i'm partially sighted due to a dreaded disease called multiple Sclerosis. Hoe i manage to write and publish two books still is still a mystery to me. Luckily i had a good copy right editor.BrianGroen (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem at all BrianGroen! We're all bound to make typos sometimes! I just noticed that because my edits were partially undone by Gandydancer, the whole section about foundations is gone. I'll let Gandydancer finish off the job of undoing my edits. F Camp (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit removed the entire foundations section, which is still missing. But the edit summary says it was only about subheadings. Art LaPella (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes Art LaPella, it is correct that I tried to move the foundation section to a different, more logical subheading. I was in the middle of moving it but the prompt reversal of some but not all of my edits while I was working on the article has left the article without the important part about the foundations' response. I apologise for the confusion. I was hoping Gandydancer would quickly fix the situation; I do not wish to be appear to be messing with this section again before it has been clarified that I was simply trying to improve the article using by 1) fixing typos in the subheadings and 2) working towards implementing suggestions that had been made on this Talk page. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

added foundations back.. hope it is in the right placeBrianGroen (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Note to F Camp re changing order of foundations/organizations: Your suggestions re using alphabetical order were discussed but did not gain consensus. I, for one, strongly disagreed. As for your other changes, please note that Brian explained his intentions and asked for input before he implemented them. IMO, it would have been best if you would have done the same. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy for explaining your move. My changes were misinterpreted, however: I did not reorganise by alphabetical order, but by type, as this makes clear and as had been discussed and agreed upon when I first brought up the issue (although speaking of 'consensus' might be overkill, since we had very limited input from the wider community). I did drop my point about failure to keep a NPOV in your preferred order because of the apparent lack of interest from the community. I thus refrained from changing the order of organisations within type today. It just so happened that MSF and Samaritans were already alphabetically ordered, as were the foundations. With regards to the issue you raise, I shall be more forthcoming in the future before making changes, even though I honestly felt those were sufficiently minor to not bring about any backlash. F Camp (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer,F Camp i'm partly to blame i just sorted it a bit more in relevance..BrianGroen (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrianGroen. Maybe we could add "Response by" before foundations, so as to keep closer to the other subheadings? F Camp (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

F Camp done.. good suggestion BrianGroen (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

F Camp, thanks for your explanation and your correct note on "alphabetical" changes - I now realize that you were editing in a manner that seemed reasonable to you. I can imagine that I might have done the same in similar circumstances. Plus, Brian seems to have solved the foundation/individual problem as well. All's well that ends well! Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Gandydancer. F Camp (talk) 18:13, 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)

F Camp fine with me ThanksBrianGroen (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done! F Camp (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Very confused, BrianGroen. You seem to have reverted the changes you said you agreed with?? F Camp (talk) 20:13, 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)

All responses should be grouped together under a responses heading, by country or organization can than occur under that. Have changed before noticing this discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria edit- reverted back to original state. Below is highly speculative in nature

Nigeria

The first case in Nigeria was reported by the WHO on 25 July:"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 25 July 2014". WHO: Outbreak news. 25 July 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014. Patrick Sawyer, flew from Liberia to Nigeria after exposure to the virus, and died at Lagos soon after arrival.Wesee, Ben P. (4 August 2014). "I'm ok - Nigerian Ambassador Assures Public". The New Dawn, Monrovia. Retrieved 7 August 2014. In response, the hospital where he was being treated was shut down and quarantined, and the health officials who were treating him were isolated in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.Cocks, Tim (28 July 2014). "Nigeria isolates Lagos hospital where Ebola victim died". Reuters. Retrieved 1 August 2014."Sierra Leone hunts Ebola patient kidnapped in Freetown". British Broadcasting Corporation. 25 July 2014."Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 31 July 2014 - WHO | Regional Office for Africa". Afro.who.int. Retrieved 8 August 2014. However, a doctor and nurse who treated Sawyer both died from Ebola.Reuters (4 August 2014). "Lagos records second Ebola case in doctor who treated victim: Nigerian health minister". {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)Mark, Monica (6 August 2014). "Ebola Outbreak: Nurse who Treated First Victim in Nigeria Dies". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2014.[16/patrick-sawyer-emails-ebola-struck-close-to-home/ E-mail of Patrick Sawyer, Worldpress, August 2014] Sawyer's primary job was with a mining concern. In early July, he arrived with bloodied clothing and his pregnant sister, at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in Monrovia. Sawyer's sister's name was Miss Princess Christina Nyennetue, and she died from the virus. While at the hospital, Sawyer failed to heed staff directions. Six physicians and nurses that Sawyer came in contact with died. Sawyer also left that hospital knowing his sister had Ebola. The next day he reported for work at the offices of ArcelorMittal. He was directed to go home and remain in confinement for 21 days. Sawyer booked an E-ticket and claimed to be going to an important conference. He did not book via the local offices of ECOWAS nor inform the ambassador from ECOWAS, who was already set to go. He also did not inform the Ambassador of his sister's death. The Liberian official that approved Sawyer's departure is quoted as saying the request by ECOWAS to allow Sawyer to leave Liberia was unprecedented. Sawyer managed to make contact with at least 59 people. Of these, he successfully infected 44, and 17 of them later died.Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014 At First Consultants Hospital in Nigeria, Sawyer denied being near an Ebola case and told officials to test for malaria and HIV. Physicians tested him and found he was suffering from Ebola. He became unruly. Hospital Physician Ameyo Adadevoh has been credited for denial of requests that Sawyer be released after they knew it was Ebola, so he could attend the conference. Ameyo Adadevoh was one that Sawyer infected that died. Sawyer died on July 25, 2014. He was cremated at the hospital. His mother, Georgia Nah, demanded to see his ashes. Sawyer's wife was in Minnesota.AllAfrica On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her. In August and September 2014 the press in Nigeria was openly asking questions. Liberian Deputy Finance Minister, Mr. Sebastian Omar, was accused of knowing Sawyer had Ebola and his sister had died from it, yet still authorized travel to attend the conference. http://dailypost.ng/2014/08/24/femi-fani-kayode-ameyo-adadevoh-ebola-conspiracy/ Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014] The conference, Sawyer so desparately needed to go, was 750 km away in Calabar. He was too ill to get there.

Speculative in naturew and not in good faith.BrianGroen (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)BrianGroen (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't add value to the page Robertpedley (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley Fully agree on that . The above is a bit to much of negativity (more a personal attack on Sawyer) to add on. I moved it out and added it here to see other comments on it as well.BrianGroen (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There is 0 speculation when the Liberia government itself admits they knew his sister died and that he was supposed to be in isolation. Of course this sounds like an attack on Sawyer. He was an Ebola bomb headed to a 15 member nation conferencr. He left a trail of death from Monrovia to Lagos. He was intentionally trying to infect. Meanwhile who here still tthinks ABC's statement that the US should send thousands of troops to halt the Ebola sweeping over Nigeria has anything to do with ebola? (unsigned)

I've read most of the sources that Pbmaise has been offering (including several on my talk page) First of all, I think that we all would agree that this disease is having very sever economic effects on all the countries involved, including Nigeria - and that Nigerians are furious with Sawyer who spread it to their country. And, I think we'd all agree that just like every country, the African press has it's share of scandal sheets, thus there are reports that Sawyer was infecting people on purpose, was "covered in blood" from his sister who died of Ebola, and such. But the source All Africa [6], which AFAICT seems WP:RS, most likely is giving an accurate report of the circumstances of Sawyer's flight from Liberia to Nigeria: He visited his sister shortly before she died of Ebola (on the 8th) and he was under surveillance. On the 20th he either slipped through or, IMO more likely was allowed to leave, perhaps due to his high position, to attend a conference in Nigeria. My impression is that he was already getting sick as he boarded the plane. If that is the case, there is plenty of room for criticism. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also agree that the section doesn't really belong in the article. --Aflafla1 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it doesn't belong unless the group should decide it is worth a very small mention - I would be open to that. Gandydancer (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable because (a) First case in Nigeria (b) first case to travel by aeroplane, (c) presumed abuse of VIP status (which I understand is fairly common practice and an ongoing risk) Robertpedley (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On the behalf of billion+ with cell phones B r e a k up

I wait minutes for pages to load.

Please one protected summary page like

2014 Ebola virus disease outbreaks: MAIN PAGE 2014 ......:Liberia ...etc 2014 .. ...:Donations by foundations 2014........:United States response 2014 ...... Theories & studies (Peer reviewed) 2014........Thoughts by people wearing tin hats

Cut ... new...paste .. Save..crosslink Pbmaise (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

At first I was joking. But no, call the page Thoughts by people wearing tin hats

Some theories advanced might well make it to the peer review page. By having a page a community can build a case. There are bits of evidence many wikipedia editors can accumulate.

Instead we, speaking as a tin hat society member, feel our theories are more real because a denial to vette amongst the public us seen as being manipulated. Pbmaise (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you using browser or app? No prob on my cheap android phone using Wiki app. Robertpedley (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edits containing analysis of data in timeline section.

This is not just a textual explanation of what's on the graphs. It contains data analysis which is not supported by a citation. It is original research. It is disallowed by wiki guidelines. See comments by Jimbo Wales above. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also controversial. You are doing a regression using full data from the start of the outbreak. If you look at the log plots, this is not supported. The exponential growth phase really started around the end of May. Also as Jimbo pointed out above, the growth is actually faster than exponential. This is because the rates are different in the different areas, and Liberia's rate is higher than SIerra Leone, or Guinea. But because it started later in Liberia, the growth rate had less effect initially. It's now starting to dominate. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The effect of the way you did your analysis is to underestimate, rather substantially, the current growth rate of the outbreak. It is currently spreading closer to 3% per day. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

<eyebrow lift> Are you having a conversation with yourself? Who's this other "you" you keep referring to? ...anyway, the better way to have dealt with this innocuous (rather than "controversial") paragraph was either with a citation-needed tag, or, just removing the "hard numbers" from the description. The average layman reader doesn't have the slightest clue what a straight, upsloping line on a logarithm chart means, and the text was helpful in that regard.--Froglich (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was a textual explanation of what was on the log-scale graphic, and the "Total" column of the accompanying statistics table. The regression fit was not colored in any way, either: the over 2% exponential growth, at over 0.95 correlation was correct. That Liberia has a higher growth rate is important, and could have been added to the numeric regression explanation. The fitting of numbers, already published on this article's tables, is hardly original research. You might as well say that "1 + 1 = 2" would be original research, and against wikipedia rules, without a citation of some bloke that predates history. I say that as hyperbole, but also to point out that there are no definable limits on what mathematical derivations may be original research, and what are just digests of the obvious. We'll leave it out for now, but perhaps I will introduce it again. GoatGuy 14:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy (talk • contribs)

ECOWAS diplomat in Harcourt

ECOWAS diplomat Olubukun Doye met Sawyer in Lagos. He was placed in isolation but escaped to Harcourt. This makes him the second person from the same group infected with Ebola to escape isolation and head towards the same conference. Harcourt is within 150 km of Calabar and site of the conference. A doctor treated this person secretely in a hotel. When? Before, or after conference?

The doctor, died August 22, 2014. According to news website, Sahara Reporters, he secretly treated a diplomat who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American, who brought the virus to Nigeria. [7] Compare local press and WHO. WHO fails to mention key facts. [8]

15 was the number of States facing Ebola soon. 15 is the number of nations in ECOWAS. Denmark have bushmeat?Pbmaise (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The 15 countries in line for possible Ebola is based on study by Oxford scientists [9] and not relate to the ECOWAS summit.BrianGroen (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The last ECOWAS meeting in Callabar was one day before Sawyer arrived in Nigeria. 24 July [10]BrianGroen (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New Case numbers

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)

Thanks for keeping the numbers up-to-date, Brian. Snd0 (talk) 19:00, 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)

This is in the news now. Dire stuff. Please add.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11097444/Black-market-in-blood-of-Ebola-survivors-to-treat-victims-doctors-report.html

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:9F:10:100:8C8F:72F8:6671:348E (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that is definitely relevant. Do you have the original WHO article? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Added under containment BrianGroen (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

13 sept Numbers incorrect.

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)

New WHO numbers: [11]. Can't find them on the WHO website though. Snd0 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian Article continuously being changed by unreliable gossip source

On July 20, 2014 a group of 7 Liberians arrived at Lagos airport. The trip from Monrovia involved 2 flights and 1 stopover. One of the 7 in this group should not have been there. He was supposed to be in isolation. He was infected with the Ebola virus. His name was Patrick Oliver Sawyer and he had a dual Liberian-American citizenship. Sawyer's sister had died just 12 days earlier from the disease. Sawyer had taken her to the hospital. Hospital staff say he failed to follow safety procedure. The hospital believe his actions help cause the infections and deaths of 6 staff members. Sawyer taken on arrival to hospital, All Africa, August 20, 2014 Precise number contacts unknown, Daily Mail Victims may sure, This Day Live Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014

Sawyer was supposed to remain in isolation for at least 21 days. However, after only 12 days, he was at the Monrovia airport and already ill. Liberia's Finance Minister had granted approval for Sawyer to go with the 6 other Liberians to a conference in Calabar, Nigeria. The minister was not aware Sawyer was ill or in isolation. Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014

The 7 Liberians were going to a conference of a 15-member nation group called ECOWAS . It was being held in Calabar. That city is 750 km away from Lagos. One more flight was necessary to get there.

Sawyer was a "burly" man. When Sawyer arrived he was weak after bouts of vomiting and diarrhea. Five airport handlers and the other Liberians helped Sawyer into a car and he was taken to First Consultants Hospital. Sawyer denied being around anyone that suffered from the disease. No special precautions were taken on his initial examination. The doctor that admitted him into the hospital listed him as a potential malaria case.

On July 23, 2014 Liberia attempted to recall the 7. Many calls came into the hospital.

On July 25, Patrick Sawyer died in the hospital and was found by Dr. Igonon. Her personal account was delayed owing to the fact she was fighting an infection from Sawyer.

On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh, who realized Sawyer was not truthful, died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.

On August 22, 2014 a doctor in Harcourt, 150 km from Calabar, died from the Ebola Virus disease. He was secretly treating a Nigerian representative of ECOWAS now facing manslaughter charges. Diplomat faces charges, Nigeria Daily Post, August 31, 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Source file not reliable as per wiki rules. Pbmaise (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

At Pbmaise This has been discussed before and deemed unfit to be in the article. Please refrain from chancing this article on Nigeria. See [12]Pbmaise (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer your input? Others? Should we document how a country of 140 million got infected? Ignore African papers and doctorvaccounts....or just reprint WHO press releases?Pbmaise (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My revision and rewrite is based on Dr. Ada Igonon who was infected and lost coworkers. I dare not call her gossip. I believve every word she wrote. It is on my user page. Pbmaise (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pbmaise were do we start and stop, reporting all individual cases..Whritebol, Kent Bradley, Sacrra, Pooley etc. and all the dozen of others who survived this disease and how they contracted it. It is all over the world on personal blogs etc. We have around 301 health care workers with this disease some survived while other passed away. If we start by one where do we stop. As for the initial spread do we report how each individual contracted it in each country. ??? It just add clutter to the page. If you feel strongly about getting the Nigerian stories out there is nothing stopping you from creating your own page. BrianGroen (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pbmaise, IMO the fact that you went right ahead and added material that has gained no group consensus was highly disruptive, and if you do it again I would strongly support that you be banned from this article. I am totally in agreement with Brian for removing your edit from the article on sight, and I would have done the same thing.

That said, I've done a fair amount of reading on this incident and it is my impression that All Africa is a reliable source per our guidelines, and they report that Sawyer was well aware that he had been exposed and went right ahead and exposed others. On the other hand, from my further reading (today) it sounds like the incident has become a political battleground and as any of you that have worked on our political articles knows, our Wikipedia reporting becomes a nightmarish ordeal when it comes to politics. But at any rate, this is an Ebola article and to go into detail about Sawyer is not appropriate for this article. On the other hand, I would not oppose a sentence or two, such as "According to an article in All Africa...". Even so, argument against any mention could change my mind if I thought that it was well-thoughtout. Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to use high quality sources. Some material is overly specific for this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

US Military Intervention

I know that the article is currently locked, but could someone with authority to go in and edit the story, please add in a section on the military intervention of the USA, it's a pretty big deal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.49.27 (talk • contribs) 0:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC+2)

Us military intervention is covered under united states response and containment efforts. BrianGroen (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Whole page rip to pieces and not as per previous discussion.

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)

The previous version had issues [13]

Why a section called "Containment efforts" and than a separate section right below it called "Complications in containment efforts". The second should be a subsection of the first.

We than had one section for "Fatality rate" and than a second section for "Projected casualties and deaths" also should be put together.

We than had three sections dealing with stats around the outbreak. "Development of the outbreak", "Countries with active or imported cases" and "Timeline of the outbreak". One in the beginning of the article, one in the middle of the article and one at the end of the article. I am wondering if this section should go first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James i'm a it confused now. We had a discussion on this. See talk [14] where a consensus was reach and the article was changed. Agreed certain section as you mentioned above carry merit. It's just the article as it reads now cause far a lengthy scroll to get to relevant section.BrianGroen (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Which section is most relevant and do you feel should go first? I would support the epidemiology section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doc, we are using consensus for making major decisions for this article. For people that want to see an Ebola medical article they can go to the medical page. This article is meant more for people that are interested in the progress of the disease in Africa and general information - for instance, to start with Virology makes no sense for this article. I am going to make a few reverts back to the previous agreed-upon version.Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Should keep the epidemiology together. Happy to see it first as I agree it is most relevant for an outbreak related article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I can hardly say this strongly enough. Editors on this page are over-worked as it is. Now you have done more moving things around without consensus. Please stop doing it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 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)

Yes, Doc James is an excellent and very experienced medical editor. The article is now more in line with our other medical articles and I think it now reads very well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 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)

Latest 13 September Number.

Sorry Galerita please note this section on the report.

"1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION

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." [15]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)

All good, mistakes is human to make a complete stuff up you need a computer...lol. Believe me i make a lot.BrianGroen (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

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)

Hello, I answered there :

Yes I saw the case numbers for Liberia are for the 9 september cause it's clearly indicated in the WHO document. That's why I can understand you want to put more up-to-date datas (even if I think it's not a very good thing) but for Sierra Leone it is not indicated anywhere. And it's only your own opinion that's a wrongness.(not mine for example).

It can be a matter of disputed borders, or of date : the Sierra Leone situation report reckons the cumulative deaths since 23 May 2014 only.[16]

I really think you have to contact WHO, if you want to dispute their datas. Cause we need references, solid and reliable references.

--Dernier Siècle (talk) 22:24, 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. [17] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13, Dernier Siècle,Galerita The reports are updated as per government reports that goes to WHO from the respective health departments. Here is the link to 13 Sept Report on SL [18] clearly indicating the figures for SL at 1603/511. My figures are not based on original research but on the reports cited by the governments. See footnote on WHO report. "Data reported are based on official information reported by Ministries of Health." There was a lengthy discussion on the reports which eventually led to a Dispute resolution(DRN). The results of this discussion and DRN(Dispute resolution by wikipedia) is we will base our reports on the WHO reports, but where there are clear inconsistencies we will revert to respective government reports. The DRN was closed with a consensus that we will correlate with government reports to get the best figures out there. This is not original research but cited sourced from a reliable source. WHO is swamped with worked and we tried to contact them by email but to date no response. BrianGroen (talk) 05:11, 18 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 reportBrianGroen (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello BrianGroen

I'm sorry but I don't see any consensus on this specific point. Furthermore a consensus that breaks rules and even WP:FIVEPILLARS is not an acceptable consensus.

As you can see on the Sierra Leone MoH Facebook page, these figures are disputed [19]

We must contact WHO [20] or the office of the WHO Representative in Sierra Leone [21].

And for this moment these figures are dubious. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dernier Siècle the talk started in on 28 August and then 10 Sept, all of them now archived. Trust me i would not not have taken this route if it was not cleared by a DRN volunteer. I have tried to contact WHO on their contact page back then, but to date no response. But i'm all for stepping away from this issue but the heat will then come down on you if the numbers is not changed as per DRN and discussion resolution. Less work for me to correlate and update the numbers. [22] suggest you contact Blehair,Gandydancer kind regards Brian. BrianGroen (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I only find this thing in the archives on this specific point Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_2#sierra_leone_death_count --Dernier Siècle (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blehair,Gandydancer stepping away from this issue. With all due respect is was discussed in length before. Not going down that route again just because a new editor does not agree. A consensus was reached and i cannot see that this should now change since a different editor came into play. Noted the reports date and press release numbers substantially. WHO uses the sit-reps by the governments and as discussed before these figures will be correlated with respective government reports. See difference in press release and official report for two dates. Sit-rep the one WHO use [23] 1603/511 and press release dated 14 sept [24] 1,454/463. Also on Facebook scroll to date 14 Sept.[25] as stated by Dernier Siècle. Press release is not specific as to which date. Q: since when is Facebook used as a source? Regards BrianGroen (talk) 08:47, 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 [26] and [27] . But as i'm am all for avoiding conflict so i'd rather step awayBrianGroen (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)

I have not followed the numbers problem at all and as such can't make an intelligent suggestion, but we must not lose Brian! But it seems that he should not have to post about this over and over as it can get to be just too time consuming and take all the joy out of contributing. Brian, there is a place to post to ask for help from editors not connected to this article, but who are good with selected topics. Perhaps they could come up with a way to handle this. Would that be a good idea? Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 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)

@BrianGroen the solution is to find(with a reliable source) why there is this gap between WHO figures and SL-MoHS figures.

By the way, for the SL-MoHS press release you have to add up yourself confirmed,probable and suspected cases/deaths to obtain totals. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 19:42, 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)

More Duplication

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)

OK, now I remember what happened. At one time we had 2 sections, the second one being about the subsequent spread. and the larger section with longer versions farther down. Then Brian divided it into the separate sections for each country. But then Doc changed the positions of the larger individual countries and we ended up with what we've got. Clear as mud? :) So, at any rate I agree we need to do something. Should we just eliminate the shorter ones after being sure that the longer ones include any pertinent info? Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO subsequent spread should be combined into initial outbreak our the nations with local transmission. No strong feelings though. We should keep the content together IMO though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a trial solution and kept the small country sections but put them together for a nutshell version of the subsequent spread, and then followed with the quite lengthy more detailed accounts of the countries affected. How is that? Gandydancer (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Robertpedley (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September Responses edit

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)

• I reorganized the "Responses" section because a number of items were out of place or proper sequence or had redundant information. I reorganized the section into three subsections containing (1) Responses by international organizations, (2) National responses, and (3) Responses by charitable organizations, foundations and individuals. I placed items within each subsection in alphabetical order in accordance with the order that some (but not all) subsections within the "Responses" section had previously been placed. I placed in chronological order all of the information within each item.

I recognize that there are many ways to organize a section. I consider the reorganized section to be a logical one that is consistent with the organization of some parts of the existing section and with other sections within the article. Corker1 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revert your changes until you get consensus. I have many problems with the changes you made. I reverted your first change but was unable to revert the following two. You must work with the editing group rather than do these changes on your own. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reorganize the section in any way that you or a consensus wishes. I will not make any further changes to the organization of this article. Corker1 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the break down into international, national and charities. Among international organizations I would put the WHO first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor believes in alphabetical order. Further, the WHO and a couple of others are actually the only international foundations. What about MSF based in France but does work worldwide, same for a few others. The CDC has been entirely omitted, where does it go? This is why changes should be discussed first rather than ignore previous group discussion. The stable editors here who watch over the article are becoming weary of always doing so much catchup work. Gandydancer (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

CDC is under US. Being an arm of the US government I see that as appropriate. MSF is an international organization with chapters all over the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is an old version, IMO much better. A lot of discussion has been put into these decisions and unless there is prior agreement, they should not be changed. [28] Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

that doesn't make it better, "WHO" should go first,,,,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been first till the recent reorganization. I put it back and added the CDC which was lost in the shuffle. Also, MSF was deleted due to a copy vio and I put it back with rewording. They are doing an outstanding job and have been very verbal about their dissatisfaction with the international response and could use more copy. Gandydancer (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

semen infectious 3 Months?!

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)

Semen in particular isn't so important, but it is a bodily fluid . . . Here are some references for that information [29][30][31]. It's relevant since this could certainly fall under "household contact," a route of transmission. Snd0 (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref says 7 weeks [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Men who have recovered from the illness can still spread the virus to their partner through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery. [33] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The second JID article I gave says the virus was detected in semen 91 days after disease onset, so either the statement could be changed to "7 weeks" or "detectable levels of virus has been found in semen.." and leave it at 3 months. Snd0 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the CDC ref. WHO factsheet 103 gives seven weeks for semen. Feel free to edit!! Actually bits of this paragraph look a bit faded, I'll take a proper look at the whole thing tomorrow if I get time Robertpedley (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated casualty numbers from WHO

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? [34] 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 messed up guys

I was editing the article and forgot that my browser replaces all 'forces' with 'horses'...

I would go back and edit them out, but I'm about to go to class.

I'm sorry.

AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Art LaPella (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why for the sake of god, do you even want your browser to do such a thing? --Halbarath (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And I want to know, are the armed horses being properly cared for? Plenty of hay, water, and an occasional apple or carrot and such? Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

THank you AmericanXplorer13 for coming clean about this! Rumours that Obama is sending in the cavalry are definitely untrue, then. Robertpedley (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sept. 18th WHO Situation Report - Depiction of Last 21 days cases / total cases-quotient

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)

National Reponses Section

National responses can be categorised as follows:

1. government pledge of money, materials, or expertise to fight the outbreak
2. travel restrictions or advisories, either on travellers coming from or going to the region
3. government prepares quarantine / biocontainment facilities, stockpiles drugs, other preparedness exercises
4. Nationals of the country are repatriated and treated after having contracted Ebola
5. Incoming travellers are quarantined amid huge publicity but in the end it's a false alarm. A variant of this is that a recently arrived traveller dies of a heart attack / stroke but it's initially reported as ebola
6. Ban on imports of meat or agricultural products

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)

Average new cases per day should be a log graph also.

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)

14 Sept wrong totals in table

Note: Sl and LR numbers are incorrect on WHO report

• Liberia as at 14 Sept 2,720/1, 461 and not 2,710/1,459 see report by Liberia [35]
• Sierra Leone as at 14 Sept 1,655/516 and not 1,673/562 see report [36]

BrianGroen (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Health Workers and Journos murdered in Guinea.

Can some one please add this to the article. [37]. I have retracted myself contributing to this article but this is of significant importance. BrianGroen (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)