Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic

Daily growth

In the big table, I assumed the new "% Daily growth" field was growth in the number of deaths not cases, because the field is next to the "Deaths" field and not by the "Cases" field; also because the heading is black, which matches the "Deaths" and not the red "Cases" field heading. However, a calculator shows it's a daily percentage of cases. So I suggest moving the field and making the header red. Art LaPella (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should slowly start moving away from this table. These numbers are not accurate, they're just what the governments are posting. Liberia is collapsing and Sierra Leone is not far behind. Even the WHO said there was major under-reporting in these countries. I think we should remove the % Daily Growth, only because this is only a show of the numbers in the report and how they change. This is NOT an accurate portrayal of how the virus is growing. Realistically, these numbers should be increasing. There is NOT a decline in cases OR deaths in West Africa, just a decline in reporting. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I liked the previous section heading "... reported cases and deaths". The table heading should also say "reported", and I don't know what pages of statistics are accomplishing compared to other things that were spun off into subarticles. But if we keep the Daily Growth column, please fix the heading. Art LaPella (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do we have reliable sources to back up the claim that there are lots more cases in Liberia, and that the rate of infection is growing? People seem to base these claims primarily on articles coming out a few weeks ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This report is indeed a few weeks old. Are you implying that everyone dying in Liberia lately makes sure they get counted, even if they can't get into a clinic, just because reporting difficulties aren't reported weekly? Art LaPella (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is underreporting in Liberia [1] and some of it may be intentional [2]. I mostly agree with AmericanXplorer that the table should be moved away from, or at least make sure the wording associated with it is deliberate (as Art suggests). If the epidemic unfortunately goes at the rate that the WHO expects [3], the gap between what's true and what's reported could become pretty large. Snd0 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Growth column is likely to be more accurate than the underlying declared statistics, in that even if the underlying figures are underestimates, the growth is likely to be more similar to that of the real (unquantifiable) stats. That's just the nature of statistics - it deals with approximations all the time, so I see no reason, on that basis, to discount the Daily Growth column.

That said, Daily Growth could give an unduly optimistic picture of the situation to those less familiar with the effect of the compound growth that has been evidenced by the epidemic so far. Dare I suggest that, to the layman in the street, a daily growth of 1.4% could feel more like an annual growth of 1.4 x 365 = ~500% annual growth, rather than the >15000% annual growth that it actually represents. (Just as an aside, a daily growth of 2%, when compounded, would amount to an annual growth of >130000%!). Nevertheless, I accept that citing an inferred annual growth could be viewed as unduly pessimistic and alarmist - "true" though it might be. Personally, I believe that more people and governments need to be seriously "alarmed" by the epidemic's potential, but that's my POV and therefore not appropriate for the wiki. Kirbett (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. If the statistics represent only those who the clinics have room for (and I don't know to what extent that is true), then it isn't an approximation like the approximate population of countries. It would be more like estimating the population of France by counting people in Paris. That is, it would be a better representation of growth in the number of beds provided, bearing no relation to how many people may be dying outside, waiting to get in. Art LaPella (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Daily growth would give useful data, if under reporting factor stays more or less stable over time. If however there is a bottleneck somewhere in reporting, then all that is reported is capacity to report new cases, without any relation to how many cases there really are. Its quite likely the latter is the case.194.126.122.67 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I second moving away from Daily Growth for a different reason. I've been reading a lot trying to learn more about base regeneration rate sometimes written as Ro or R(t). There is recent data in published paper (through a few weeks ago) estimating it for the three major countries. The R(t) fluctuates over time and seemed to be actually declining. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V19N36/Nishiura_fig2.jpg It is not a straight a/b calculation you have to use eigenvalues of matrices or other statistical methods and it is changing significantly over time. So I think unless we find at least two reliable sources that conclude that Daily Growth has significant meaning in an ongoing epidemic I think we have drifted slightly in to WP:OR territory and should shy away. R(t) may be better but I have not been able to find a clear explanation of the true meaning and implication so far. That being said, I really like this table I find it very valuable and sobering information at a glance.Greenbe (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest we align the growth rate not on daily but on time line dates i.e 1.4% should therefore read 7.3% , giving a better picture. Title should read growth rate and not daily and in red referring to cases..just my opinion.. gives you a better picture IMO greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "time line dates". 7.3% refers to the growth over the last 5 days of the table. If you're referring to the intervals between different rows of the table, then these vary widely. Any stats based on these non-uniform intervals would be incapable of being interpreted without simultaneously referencing the intervals themselves, row by row. Kirbett (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the growth rates could be normalized to weeks synchronized to the WHO definition of week number of the epidemic. This would smooth out the fluctuations in the %. However that would require me to pull it into Excel and run a normalizing regression if the report dates don't align to weeks - isn't that WP:OR? Regeneration rate is the only way to know if it is growing - that is the number of new infection each case generates, and the rate varies weekly. Deaths could be growing rapidly while regeneration is declining below 1. Greenbe (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it was WP:OR. To any statistician, wouldn't a regression calculation of this form just be WP:CALC? Kirbett (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. What I am thinking is a little more complicated than a simple calc, because it seems the reported dates don't align with epidemic weeks exactly (a few days off here and there). So you would have to figure out the compound daily growth from report to report then normalize it back to weekly smoothed average and you would have to make some decision about the smoothing window over several weeks. Anyway just an idea if anyone wants to take a crack at it to see if it reduces noise and makes a clearer trend (whether increasing or decreasing).Greenbe (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My 2cents - The Daily Growth numbers are interesting and informative. I was calculating them by hand until they were added to the table. They should be kept. None of us (unless you are actually in West Africa) knows anything beyond what is being reported. Perhaps there is some under-reporting, but is it better or worse than the previous under-reporting? Further, since this disease has a ~70% fatality rate, the under-reporting has some bounds: if, for example, there were actually, 50k infected, we'd be seeing mass quantities of corpses that would be difficult to hide. Some under-reporting, yes. Delayed reporting that makes the measured stats noisier than reality, absolutely. Still, sans conspiracy theories, the reported data likely tracks the real ground truth within some bounded percentile factor. And in any case, it's the best that can be offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddopson (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mine as well, i have a doctor friend in the area of Liberia and it is bad, .. Just the other day Liberia requested 160 000 body bags(must be a reason for that ; was in a news report will try to find it..The under reporting may be way higher than 2.5. In SL patient are being treated at home (most die) and are not included in most stats... BrianGroen (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean 160,000 hazmat suits? Art LaPella (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Art Art LaPella their was another news item , but i think the reporters switch the two around somehow.. cant find it now but it was 160 000 body bags and 5000 hazmat suits.. Reportes yikes...This one sounds more correct.. BrianGroen (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the true case rate, I ran across a statement made by MSF where they figured that the reported cases are only 20% of the true number of cases/deaths. I have looked for the report I read, but I have lost it. It does figure that it has become worse than the WHO's old report of 2.5 that was made before the epidemic seems to have run totally out of control. Gandydancer (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. the reported cases being only 20% of the true numbers: This transcript of an interview with Dr. Joanne Liu, President of MSF, quotes her as saying: "...but it’s difficult to get a reality check about what is the magnitude of the epidemic when we just look at some of the cold figures or think 'Oh, 4,700 people infected, about half of them died - well, compared to other context it is not that bad' - but the reality is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. First of all, we know that the figures underestimate it, we have only 20% visibility of the number of cases...". Here is that interview on YouTube. The interview was on 22 Sept. So, if the true total number of cases really was 5 times higher than the reported number - and the total number is doubling every 3 weeks - then, by 03 Nov, the actual number of cases would stand at 94,000 (4,700 x 5 x 2 x 2). Does anyone really believe that the true number of cases will be anywhere near that on 03 Nov? Back in September, I suspect that the health and medical agencies were stating worst case scenarios in order to provoke western nations into action. Stanley Oliver (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe she exaggerated. Maybe she didn't. 94,000 right now would be an undercount ratio of 8. In the absence of good data, is 2.5 in August, 5 in September, and 8 in October as good a guess as any? Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this table should definitely be kept. It is usually more up to date than the CDC page or the WHO page. Otherwise, I have to go to the individual health ministries myself. One note: I don't think the % daily growth is calculated correctly. My intuition is that the number is the daily compounded growth for the period of days between the two rows. I am not sure what it is now, but it isn't that.Weanhall (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, calculation problem. More specifically: The only way to get the current rate to come out to 4.1% is to calculate 12,008-9,936=2,072; 2,072/9,936=0.2085; 0.2085/5 days=0.0417; truncating instead of rounding gives 4.1%. Compounding would require about 3.7%. The linear calculation matches the figures at the top of the table, but then October 5 comes out 1.8% not 1.7%, and then September 21 and everything older comes out higher than the given percentage; perhaps they were calculated with compounding. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe can there be a column for 'new cases per day' instead of percentage?174.29.76.246 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Why was the figure showing the number of new cases and deaths per day removed?Hschantang (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a new graph of cases per day that is integrable, please take a look at it. The with is the timespan between reports.

Integrable figure of cases per day

Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

World Map is inconsistent

I feel that the world map is presenting data in a misleading way: national and subnational levels are mixed up. While it seems that you want to relate to the geographical distribution in the US by coloring on subnational level, all the other countries are coloured on national levels. So it looks like Svalbard is affected (which is wrong) while Alaska is not affected (which is right). Coloring Mali and Senegal as countries makes the whole of Westafrika look affected (an area, which is bigger than the three core countries together), while in fact there is only a single case in the very western corner in Mali and one single case in the capital of Senegal. I propose to stick to national levels only for all countries (including the US) to show which country is affected. If you want to show a geographical distribution, it is more appropiate to colour all countries at subnational Level. If you are only interested in the US, it might be more appropriate to create a seperate map for the US only in a section covering the US only. Semiliki (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Jimmy Wales added a good reason why it should stay the way it is, too. Also, when I generated the map, I was asked to do state level instead of national level for the US. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason? ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[4] <-- I believe that's what he's referencing. But I think Wales commented on something else as well.Snd0 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the reference: In fact Jimbo Wales didn't give a YES or NO answer. The reason he stated was that press coverage even in British papers reported the states instead of the nations. I feel, though, that most of the press over here in Europe is actually focussing on towns, which would be even more adequate. The problem is that the map is not consistent and you have to add exceptions only 'because it looks weird': you already removed French Guyana and Alaska - so while you are at it, you should remove Svalbard, the Northern territories of Mali, Ireland and so on for the same reasons. Where do you stop? If you want to avoid discussions about that, you have to take a decision whether you want a political or a spatial representation. BTW: Hope your exams go well. Semiliki (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think map should stay as is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support Semiliki; I raised this earlier, but since majority of people editing this article are from the US, most were bias and against it. The present map is just inappropriate! It's only gonna cause confusion for readers. Whatever is worth doing is worth doing well! It's either the map is presented on national levels or sub-nationals....this kinda inconsistency is just unacceptable. check how the spanish wikipedia presented its map here File:Mapamundi epidemia de ébola de 2014 - ES.png. This is how an appropriate map for the outbreak should look like. There's can't be any acceptable reason why US should be presented separately. Ofcourse another Map can be created for US to give the specific locations; but for the world map, the US as a country should be coloured.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As is, it's annoying to non-Americans. 154.20.88.158 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

According to your map-legend there is ebola in Georgia - any source for that? - Semiliki (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Timeline Section

The timeline section has multiple problems. First, it contains an indiscriminate collection of data, which violates WP:NOT. It is based on one source and is WP:OR because of the attempt to synthesize a chronological progression and a series of graphs based on these periodic WHO reports. Lastly, the tone and style of the section is way out of whack with the rest of the article.

The goal of the timeline section is to characterize the numeric progression of the disease, but it has turned into an academic exercise of sorts.

I propose to remove the section; in its place, let's cite secondary-source research that describes the progression of the disease, for example [5] and move it inline into the appropriate places in the main article. Lastly, as several have already pointed out, as the WHO revises its numbers, they're actually going DOWN in some cases which makes the raw table that much more inappropriate in this article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:DISCRIMINATE, the section is a discriminate collection, and thus not in violation of Wiki policy. As explained in earlier sections, I and others disagree that it is WP:OR for reasons explained in the RfC above.

The cited secondary source would be no improvement. It appears to be a one-off chart that was produced for its article, it is already out-of-date, and there is nothing to suggest that it would be kept up-to-date. Additionally, the cited source exhibits exactly the same artefacts that are objected to but makes no effort to explain those artefacts, other than by providing a disclaimer at the very end of its article which makes it clear that it is no better than what currently exists. -- Kirbett (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberia numbers have not been updated in days for one, but the big massive drop came in Sierra leone who drop a lot of suspected cases and only report on lab confirmed death. This Inconsistencies is only temporary for now. the head of WHO Africa was replaced in the week and i believe Unmeer is going to take a leading role in reporting. Hoping this will solve the problem in future reports. BrianGroen (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While its 100% true that the data is a mess its still best available collection of this data anywhere. Any other part of the article can be found somewhere else, this cannot. That pretty much makes Timeline section most valuable part of this article. While the epidemic is ongoing there is not going to be a better collection of this data. While situation keeps developing this section should be kept as is. Once researchers have a chance to look back at the event and compile better chronology, contents of this section can be replaced.89.235.226.134 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so I think it's kinda inappropriate for us to be treating this as something that is being updated day to day as if it were live coverage. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this is true, and following this convention we enter information that is of long-term interest. And the numbers are an important fact. But would it be better if we give only old values here? For me Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is also a source of encyclopedic information, that readers search for because they need it. And many readers need this information now and not in a year when the epidemic may be over. And some graphics for instance are of high relevance for some readers, so why delete them? I for instance do not react when I see a linear plot of cases. Even if it grows heavily. And then I see a linear plot with a linear line on it, and I understand geometrical growth, and I am shocked. The reason that I am active here is the logarithmic plot of cases that showed a straight line in mid september. The same is with the rate graphs, many readers may not understand it. People like me are trained not to care so much on absolute case numbers. But when I see a graph where 0.16 % of all liberian people are reported ill with Ebola, I think "1 out of 625 people". And as it is not possible to display all relevant information in a single graph, we are forced to make more. Malanoqa (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. According to Wikipedia is not a newspaper, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage . WP:NOTNEWS identifies particular types of newspaper content (such as Journalism) that should be avoided, but I don't see any category in WP:NOTNEWS that would exclude the timeline section of the article.

Given the billions being spent on this epidemic, this event must be one of the, if not the, most extensively reported, monitored, and analyzed epidemics in human history. This makes it uniquely deserving of documenting as it progresses. Just because this event is long running does not mean that efforts should not be made to keep the documenting of it up-to-date. After all, it was presumably considered quite appropriate to maintain up-to-date documentation on other long-running events as they progressed - such as the Olympics, or the Scottish Referendum Campaign, for example. The public interest in and demand for information about the Ebola epidemic is intense, at the moment, exactly because the event is current. That interest and demand will wane once the epidemic is over. It seems to me that it is quite appropriate for the wiki to strive to cater to that public interest while that demand for information is at its most intense. -- Kirbett (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am hugely in support of removing this section. I can't see any way for it to become anything other than a collection of unparsed, likely OR, hard-to-read graphs and charts. After the discussion about the charts, I thought maybe if I generated a prose version of the section that would alleviate a lot of concerns, but it was clear that there was no way to do that. From a purely editorial perspective I think it should be removed, even if it technically doesn't violate any policies (about which there is much concern). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The data is the best available, and there is a section which clearly explains its limitations (thanks, Greenbe and BrianGroen!). In the absence of better data, it's the basis which WHO, UMEER and other agencies are using to direct resources. The data table, so far as I know, is unique and a valuable resource for anyone researching the out break. The graphs, wahtever their limitations, show the trend clearly. Robertpedley (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the chart will only make WHO information harder to find. There is no substitute for this information. People are using to track the limit of our knowledge about the virus; Jimbo posted on this talk page to say that he himself had done so. I see it as a valuable addition to the article. Shii (tock) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

oppose it might be best to wait for a couple of "sitreps" to come out, see if numerical stability reestablishes itself. We don't really have another true source other than WHO , if it continues to be eratic, then a radical change might be needed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• A number of you have argued that the section can be kept because "it's not available anywhere else". If it's not available anywhere else, it's WP:OR. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not OR, it's WHO information. Shii (tock) 04:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons as those given above, and many thanks to the editors that have worked so hard to bring us this information. Gandydancer (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The Liberian numbers and Sierra Leone numbers are a bit in a a disarray at the moment, but this will be corrected in due course. Our stats are used by a lot of newspapers etc. I don't see any reason to drop it now. We have more coverage and page views as the CDC or WHO at the moment . on the 15 October we had 15 Million page views. the cdc had 200 thousand views on that day.BrianGroen (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that the information is available elsewhere, because it's all attributed. What is the case is that the information is not necessarily easily accessible or easily digestible - as Eric Morecambe would say "all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right places". One of the Wiki's great strengths, applicable to thousands of its topics, is the way it can pull together information from a multiplicity of sources into a single article, and this is what is not available anywhere else -- Kirbett (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have written my position at length in the archives, feel free to go back. My only new comment about not being a newspaper is that this is exactly the kind of information you would never find in a newspaper or the online equivalent of that medium. Those publications tend to sensationalize a headline that either implies "we're all going to die" or "it's not that bad compared to xyz" and then throws out one or two spurious "facts" to support that position. Yes I'm generalizing, but I think people will get my drift. We're putting out the best, cross-checked information available, with suitable restraint and explanation. Thanks to all for the incredible effort this is not easy data to curate.Greenbe (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Connected page - Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Thinking of renaming this page "Humanitarian responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" as with Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake or Humanitarian aid during the Syrian Civil War. But it would mean cutting out some of the non-humanitarian content. Thoughts, anyone? Robertpedley (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't do that. The page is about all sorts of responses, not just about humanitarian ones, and frankly, the other responses are just as (if not more) important. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert, what would need to be cut and where else could it go? Gandydancer (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Gandy - 2 sections which are currently small would not belong under the revised title.

(1) "Measures to protect national security". I think I said this a while back - there are 196 countries in the world and a large number of them have some kind of advisory or visa restriction. The article would become swamped if every one of them gets a mention (I can see that someone has added a large but incomplete list into this article!) - and its not relevant to the epidemic in west africa. So I don't propose to replace it anywhere.

- and (2) "Countries bordering the affected region". Not sure what to suggest about that. Robertpedley (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, first, I deleted that new addition to this article. I can't see where we should be working so hard to keep this article within bounds and add all that. As for the Response article I trust your judgement and will support whatever you decide. "Countries bordering the affected region" could be added here, working it into the three countries sections...or skipped. IMO we need to keep in mind what the general reader is interested in, and I doubt that they care whether or not exactly what border is open or closed, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs)

Can't make up my mind...I used the Haiti earthquake as an example above - of course no one closed their borders to Haiti after the earthquake so the current scenario is very different, and there's a case for recording all asspects of the response. I'll leave it for now. Robertpedley (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Prevention section

It seems like the section titled "Prevention" is primarily about preventing the spread of the epidemic, rather than measures to prevent the disease in a given individual. Hence it might be better to change the section title to something like "Containment" or "Prevention and Control". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Either one seems OK...perhaps the second idea is a little broader?... Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, especially as this article is about an epidemic .... so the implication is that the section is about prevention of an epidemic. I propose "Containment and control" Robertpedley (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good and there are no disagreements - I'll go ahead and change it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline errors

In the absence of a report for SL from the governments i cannot correct the 2 Nov dates as well as an error on Liberia report for that date. I have updated the previous reports as per governments as WHO have drop all SL all suspected and possible death. Used the numbers from the governments and OCHA. Will continue to try and update as best as possible. BrianGroen (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

what if we shorten the table to just the last 10 "sitreps" and place the rest in archive with the hidden collapsible table it isn't a complete solution but at least we could get these erratic numbers behind us quicker, also we could go directly to the health ministries site of each country, bypass WHO completely?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa thought about that too, but the main problem is the latest figures n SL :about 400 difference in deaths . I can get a report for 7 Nov and 2 Nov but none for 4 Nov with probable and suspected deaths . But that said the report has been done as the pdf numbers indicate oon the "sl gov" site but just not published. The Who report for 4 Nov have no suspected or probable deaths. I could add in the 6 Nov numbers to it but somebody will question it... hoping it will come online Monday.. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sierra leone updated with government and Unmeer report.BrianGroen (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Outbreak slowing down in Liberia - not in article?

Not sure if there's a reason this information has not been included in the article?

'Dr Christopher Dye, the director of strategy in the office of the director general at the World Health Organization, has the challenge of predicting the spread of Ebola.

"Things clearly have changed with respect to the trajectory of the epidemic," he told the BBC News website.

"What we've seen is, very clearly, a slowing down in the some of the affected areas in the three countries."

Dr Dye added: "When we look at the total epidemic now, with the best information we have got available I would guardedly say that the case incidence per week is not going to get larger than it is at the moment, so around 1,000 cases per week.

"In terms of the trend of the epidemic, it is possible it has flattened out.

"We know there's under-reporting so we have to emphasise caution, but broadly we're out of this big epidemic growth phase seen in August and September."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29847058

85.81.40.95 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sub-section on Liberia [6] its not entirely clear what is drawing the numbers down--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I just spoke to a contact in Liberia. He told me that the numbers (WHO statistic) are based on the urban regions. People are running away from infected areas to urban regions, so a new outbreak can easily start in these urban areas. There is also a serious outbreak in Grand Kru County now. The next Treatment center is 18 hours drive away. Malanoqa (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There are also articles like this: MSF warns Liberia’s Ebola ‘progress’ may be illusory. It's probably too soon to say one way or the other. The (good) data just isn't there. Though a similar comment was made by someone on the ground in MSF. I'd tend to believe that over a WHO administrator's statement. Snd0 (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is your answer and has been reported in many newspapers...[7].. Patient are no longer going fir treatment and rather go into hiding..We saw the same slump in Guinea only for it to flame up again. BrianGroen (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper - Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. It would be OK to mention this dip as a current trend, but we can remove it if it's not enduring. Robertpedley (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to read all of the suggestions above and several others as well, and I am thinking that this information could even go into a new section. One need not be African to understand the concept of the importance of burial ritual. My son-in-law recently lost his father and the family spent many thousands of dollars on the funeral. When their dad died the family washed his body and dressed him in his military outfit ("Dad held three things most dear: Family, God, and Country", my son-in-law said). Speaking at the funeral he spoke of his dad sailing off with the family all waving goodbye as the ship disappeared over the horizon and then of the ones who had preceded him waving hello on the other side. Just imagine if instead his body had just been taken away in a body bag never to be seen again and without even a grave site to visit.

One of the sources suggested a memorial site for the dead so at least the friends and family could have a place to go to remember their loved one. Think of, for instance, what a profound experience it is for friends a family to visit the Vietnam Memorial where it is not uncommon to see people sobbing with emotion. The only recent very large numbers of dead that were not allowed a "proper burial" is perhaps during the Bosnian war and they continue to hunt for the bodies. Whether or not the burial issue is related to the death toll numbers (and I'd guess it is), we should have a section about it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I agree with you. Good idea to make a new section. Your thoughts would also be well placed on the Ebola challenge on openIDEO.com. 93.203.193.63 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC) forgot to log in: Malanoqa (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, Agree too... Burial rituals are important in every religion and region of the world.. A section covering the issues with the locals (there are bits all over across the pages, and a consolidated piece sounds good).. Gremlinsa (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

so do I--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

An article on West African burial customs might be appropriate here, if anyone here knows where to find WP:RS on them. Here's a news article: [8], and a book: isbn 9780495009184 -- The Anome (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

On review: we already have Funeral#West_African_funerals, so that can be expanded. -- The Anome (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck -

• Guinea is approximately 85 percent Muslim, 8 percent Christian, with 7 percent adhering to indigenous religious beliefs
• Liberia 85.5% Christian, 12.2% Muslims, indigenous religions are practiced by 0.5% of the population
• Sierra Leone is Muslim 71.3%,Christianity at 27%, and Traditional African religion 2%

I expect you will find a lot of different practices - sounds like good material for 4 year doctoral thesis! Robertpedley (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The information about whether or not the rate of growth is slowing in Liberia is well covered in the last paragraph of the Liberia section. Didn't check when those edits were made, but it seems to be well covered right now IMO. I think that is the best place for it. I might add a small word about it in the Rate of Growth subsection of Timeline, later onGreenbe (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Liberian villages (Nov. 10)

outside Monrovia,[9] the reality--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is denying that the situation is Liberia is still desperate. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi all i have ask for a semi-protection due to vandalism.. we have two weeks .. so keep an eye out in two weeks.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks Brian. Robertpedley (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO quote

"The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times."

I'm pretty sure this means that this is the most severe "acute public health emergency", but I was wondering if there might be some sort of suitable Wikilink we might include there which explains to readers what an "acute public health emergency" is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question - perhaps you have been wondering why the other African diseases that kill many, many thousands, malaria for example, are not just as much of an emergency? I've wondered the same thing. I guess we only pay attention to what's in the news...and what could affect others around the world as well?... Gandydancer (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Titanium Dragon himself answered what he was really asking with this edit. There are some cool things I could say about malaria, but I think all of them would be considered off topic. Art LaPella (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The original WHO quote has a second sentence that explains how it is meant: "Never before in recorded history has a biosafety level four pathogen infected so many people so quickly, over such a broad geographical area, for so long." I like the anti-sensationalist objectivity so I've been bold and added it. Stupid girl (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

correct me if im wrong, but recorded history has been going on for some time.....the "Black Death" (bubonic plague) and "Spanish Influenza" certainly infected, spread across and killed a significant part of their respective populations when each occurred (Biolevel safety measures, just didn't exist....both certainly would have qualified).This, of course, doesn't minimalize the devastation the west Africa Ebola epidemic has done.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mid-Importance?

Is there a reason why this article is Mid-Importance on WikiProject Viruses, but Ebola Outbreak in the US (or something like that) is High-Importance? Thanks, 72.224.172.14 (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

it could be "high-importance", but we need consensus to do so--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this scale [[10]], for the virus "mid" seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

In the "Statistical Measures" section, the acronym BRN is used in paragraph 2 but not defined. I suggest replacing

The basic reproduction number (R₀)

by something like

The basic reproduction number (BRN, or R₀)

oldrider (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi oldrider done.. thanks for pointing it out..BrianGroen (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done by BrianGroen. Stickee (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit looks good. I would like to point out that the relevant information on R(t) may be more important than Ro for Ebola. I encourage those interested in the topic to try to find more and better sources of research on this. Why? Ro is essentially R(t) at t=0, or a characterization of the inherent rate at which a disease spreads. For example, flu has Ro>10. I haven't found much good explanation yet, but my understanding cobbled together from a bunch of reading is that for something like flu the R doesn't change much over time since we don't take many effective countermeasures. But for Ebola it seems that it does change over a number of weeks often starting near 2 and then declining well below 1. I don't know exactly why but it seems to me that the most effective countermeasures is aggressive contact following (see Nigeria). So once you realize you have a local outbreak and get organized to do contact following you push R(t) downwards. Doesn't mean that BRN/Ro is not valid, just needs to be in context of R(t).Greenbe (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ||Greenbe - too technical for this page Robertpedley (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New Mali outbreak

Mali should be 4 and 3 now rather than 3-2, as two more have died and a doctor is sick.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We will have to wait to see how WHO classes the Guinean's case and death, for now 3 - 2 stands.. as the body was even shipped back to Guinea.... Agreed consensus here is to follow the Published numbers from WHO(and respective gov health ministries), and not from the media....Gremlinsa (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's properly sourced, it's fine to include. We do not rely on single sources in Wikipedia and WHO lags other sources in providing information. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Different sources have different info on this... At best, the info is consistent with a nurse that died from ebola, however many make no mention of the infected doctor. also info regarding when the Guinean died is vague (Late october), and when the nurse died is missing.. best to wait for WHO report, posibly tomorrow or friday....Gremlinsa (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC) More info been released... the Second Index case .. "traditional Muslim healer in his 50s" admitted to Pasteur Clinic late 25 October, infected the nurse who was admitted on Sat 8 November, and died Tuesday 11 November. however Still very little on the Doctor previously mentioned.. Gremlinsa (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

as per the latest "sitrep" the situation in Mali seems to be worse, [11] there are now 4 deaths, whatsmore 70 people are now quarantined [12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone correct the picture?

In the picture in the "Countries with medically evacuated cases" section, it is written:
"Local transmissions - no deaths: Texas, Spain"
"Initial cases - deaths: Texas, Mali"
"Initial cases - no deaths: New York"
"Medically evacuated cases - no deaths: Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Switzerland"
Texas, New York, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland are countries?!?
188.37.81.120 (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact the picture is correct, if you look at underlying data.. then also the USA is broken up into individual states as per Jimbo wales comment made here. This has been discussed in length and it depicts the ongoing outbreak as per consensus among the numerous editors.. Gremlinsa (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just my fears, the map is confusing the readers. Maybe taking it down would be best.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is filled up with double standards whenever United States is involved. I am not even going to try to give reasons why the map is inappropriate, because the minds of the major editors of this article are made up concerning this issue. If it were to be Russia or China they will not do the same. Jimbo Wales is the creator of Wikipedia and I appreciate him for that, but that does not imply that he is always right. Reasons like UK media houses are reporting it as states is very laughable. In most part of the world, all we know is that Ebola has entered the US, the same way it got to Nigeria. The population of Nigeria is by far greater than most African countries, but it is never used as a pointer in African illustrations to designate states. I don't really care about the map, but including it using reasons like size and the reportage by UK media houses is so inept! Darreg (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the map is perfectly fine and correct. But, yes, it's a bit strange... notice that not only the US, but Australia, Brazil, and Canada are split up as well. This only seems correct if you're going by land area, but then Russian and China should be divided into regions as well. Snd0 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The GIS data I'm using for state level doesn't just limit to the US. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

maybe , it could be explained why there is a difference in some countries (ie US, Brazil) in contrast to other countries?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are saying that the "size rule" is not limited to US, because the US is involved and there is a need to bend the rules in the favour of US. There should be consistency in everything here, the map on the french Wikipedia considers all of the US and not just the affected states. It is disrrespectful and a slap to the face of all other soverign nations in the map to say that a state in the US is equivalent to our motherland. Whether a country or state is as big as the whole earth or as small as Tahiti, it does not change the fact that a country will always remain a country and a state will remain a state. If it were to be United Kingdom, it would have been ok by me because England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland do have a leval of autonomy that even FIFA recognizes but definitely not states in the United States. There is no diffrerence between the autonomy of Rivers State and that of Texas. States in Nigeria do make laws like US, in implementing federalism. This shows the mindset of most americans and how they view other smaller countries because of their size and power. Most media houses were also reporting the Nigeria case as Portharcourt and Lagos so that cancels the claim on reportage. Why is this happening in only the English Wikipedia? Mo dupe fun Jesu pe China ma ni agbara ju america lo nisin #LargestEconomyTinz. If I am cautioned for personal attacks masope koni dafun awon americanas to wa ninu ibi bai. "continues sipping my zobo".Darreg (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, actually I have never liked that comparatively huge map. This article is about an outbreak of Ebola disease in Africa and why on earth should a few cases of Ebola patients that were transferred to other countries for treatment have the largest map, while hundreds upon hundreds of people in Africa are dying? Our other illustrations, photos, etc., IMO help a person to visualize the outbreak. IMO, this map does little of that and I'd like to see it removed. All that it does, IMO, is to make a few individuals more "special" than others - so special that they were part of the few lucky ones that were evacuated so that they could get better medical care. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian, Gandy, Ozzie and Robert have been maintaining this article for months now. Their opinion needs to be put into consideration in-order not to discourage them from the great work they are doing, that is why it gladdens my heart that one of the top updaters of this article is also not satisfied with the the world map. Darreg (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Darreg, don't forget Art, our excellent copy editor who shapes our grammar up and helps to present a professional-looking article. But it's actually best to not single anybody out because naming leaves plenty of others out - including IPs who have made some very good suggestions as well. Anyway, about the map, you or Jamie could set up a poll I guess. I'd certainly come out strongly against including it or at least changing it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reduced archived numbers

Hi all just checking, can i reduced the archived numbers on the timeline to bi weekly basis. will reduce the notes considerably and clean up the section. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Robertpedley (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your great work Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mali new cases

Sorry all if i may be jumping the gun, but events seem to be developing in Mali.. Im not sure if the young girl or the woman are the same person, will correct if this is not the case. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New Mali case of girl confirmed [13] "Meanwhile, a hospital spokesman in Bamako, Mali's capital, confirmed Thursday that a girl has become the fourth suspected Ebola victim there."

"Anthony Banbury, the head of the U.N. mission fighting Ebola in West Africa, told the U.N. General Assembly that one of the men who died had visited three medical clinics. The body of the man, who Banbury called a local leader, was then brought back to his village "where traditional burial rites were performed, potentially exposing many more people."

Adama Traore, spokesman at Gabriel Toure Hospital, said Thursday that a young girl tested positive before dying from Ebola this week. It was not immediately clear if, or how, she may have come into contact with the other victims."

Should this go in the Mali section..BrianGroen (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Case is now confirmed by Mali Health Ministry and added in..BrianGroen (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

over 200 contacts[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fat fingers/ Face slap moment...

in this edit i meant to acctualy put WP:AGF and not ASF... Sorry...Gremlinsa (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

recent instability of the lead

The lead has recently become unstable. There have been edits to change the wording from "several countries" to listing the three major countries, to add Mali, to remove Mali (saying the deaths in Mali do not yet represent an "epidemic"), etc. The lead formerly called the US and the Spain cases "imported cases", but this wording has now been added for Senegal and Nigeria as well. And so on. The lead is long already and we need to be sure that it is kept as short as possible while to the point. I am going to revert to the stable version and ask that editors discuss changes before going ahead with them This is an important and widely read article right now, and the lead wording must be something that we can all agree with. Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

'Agreed the lede in it's current state has been stable.. Thanks for fixing the lede edits that i missed..Gremlinsa (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the current wording is contradictory: "currently ongoing in several<!--using number of countries experiencing the epidemic is better than using ambiguous adjectives--> [[West Africa]]n countries." So make up your minds. Art LaPella (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Plus what Art LaPella has already pointed out, the lead as it stands is ambiguous. West Africa consists of 17 countries, writing "several" makes it look like about 15 countries are experiencing the outbreak. I think since people have different ways on how that should be written, the lead can just be paraphrased to exempt "several", "certain", "three" or whatever. Then again, to present a neutral point of view, you either point out the other countries who had much publicized imported cases, or just remove mentions of imported cases.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making changes to the opening of the lead which has been very long-standing and seen as a good opening by many article readers and editors. The first sentence, "As of 2014, the most widespread epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in history is currently ongoing in several West African countries", is IMO, fine. It has, in the past, been only slightly different, using either certain or several, which are both adequate with the next few sentences naming the particular countries. Other editors may prefer Jamie Tubers version, but to avoid edit warring please first get consensus. (I removed the hidden note that I missed when I returned the wording to the long standing version.) Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Does "hidden note" mean the "using number of countries..." note? Jamie Tubers removed it, not Gandydancer. Gandydancer's undo actually re-added that note, thus restoring the contradiction. Art LaPella (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clearer - I think this version of the lead is best. Since some users here noted that lead is getting too bulky, this version reduces it a bit. Another advantage is; there'd be no need for any one to disagree with adjectives being used because the phrase will be out, and readers can conclude for themselves after reading the first paragraph of lead. If you guys think the mention of the imported cases is unnecessary, then I have no problem with it being removed from ALL the countries (US and Spain inclusive). Infact, every other country with Ebola cases outside the three worst hit countries had publicized imported initial case....so maybe we can just write a sentence to that effect at the end of the paragraph? That's better than the lopsidedness.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not see where it reduces the first para at all. ' You propose that the article open with this sentence: In December 2013, an epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) started in Guinea, and has since spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone.[10] In the first place, West Africa is not even mentioned. Secondly, "several" is better wording because your version does not mention Mali and to a lesser extent, since there is presently no further transmission ongoing, Senegal and Nigeria. Thirdly, "currently ongoing" and "most widespread in history" is significant information which is present in the long-standing version's opening sentence.

You also use the date December 2013. This has been discussed and it was decided that since the WHO did not declare the outbreak until 2014, we would use that date rather than 2013.

As for the "imported cases" wording, it has been my impression that editors favored that wording for the Spain and US outbreaks even though technically every initial case other than the ones in Guinea are imported. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: What about just listing the countries affected? The first sentence in the lead can be written like this: As of 2014, the most widespread epidemic of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as "Ebola") in history is currently ongoing in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Mali. Although I don't oppose the current sentence, I feel like people may get the impression that most of West Africa is experiencing the outbreak. The word "several" is subjective and can be interpreted differently. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's more important to say "in West Africa" in the opening sentence. I also don't think that most people consider that "several" could mean "most". As written, the opening sentence says what it is and why it's important (the worst in history). The exact countries follow rather than being lost somewhere farther down in the lead where they might be hard to find. While any wording in the lead might be improved, IMO when it has remained stable for an extended period of time this suggests that most editors/readers are satisfied with it, and this should be taken into consideration when one or two editors are dissatisfied with it. I might add that the illustration is directly to the right where the countries are pictured as well. Gandydancer (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk section disappeared?

I can't seem to find the Talk section Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Graphs_need_updating that is referenced at the head of the RfC on the subject. It doesn't seem to be in the archives. Anyone got any idea what's happened to it? -- Kirbett (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved to a date-specific archive for some reason: Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_2014-11. It should probably be manually placed in Archive 6. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest WHO report

Hi guys , tried my best to update the numbers for 11 Nov, but no government has reported suspected cases on this report, and the Liberian website is down due to their bandwidth being exceeded i cant access the numbers. Mali i updated with good news paper reports up to 14 Nov. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberian government website at http://www.emansion.gov.lr/ appears to be back up, as does the Malian government website at http://www.primature.gov.ml/ , albeit rather slowly. -- The Anome (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Anome the official Ebola reports are released here [15] and is still down to bandwidth exceeds...greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As wich as Mali which are released here [16]BrianGroen (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mali "suspect" cases jump to 38

See here.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст Is that an officially released document or a temporary working dokument? Can't seem to find a link from their web-site www.sante.gov.ml that leads there. 195.170.185.50 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[17] mali government medical website.. all ebola reports are released there.. BrianGroen (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Their document directory is probably easier to navigate (especially for non-French speakers): [18] Snd0 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Documents and Directory are blocked now (at least for me ;-) - so maybe it's just a local working directory with internal documents? 195.170.185.50 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's working for me as of a minute ago. Based on the modification times, they were updating things when you checked(?). (This is their most recent sitrep [19].) It looks like they're releasing one every day.. but, yeah, not sure if it's actually "released," or if they accidentally left it open. Snd0 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For what is worth, the internal Mali report dated Nov. 5 [20] already had 32 suspect cases and 8 suspect deaths (which were subsequently dropped), so I'm not sure that going to 38 suspect cases actually qualifies a jump. Rather it appears the WHO reports [21] have routinely been omitting the Mali suspect cases. Maybe there is some disagreement about what counts a suspect case? Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snd0 helps a lot..HI Dragons flight it seems like all governments are now actually dropping suspected cases... I.e various factorts, airline restrictions, damaging to country image and finances,. So guess we will never actually get the full picture. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

They are just coming out of the rainy season - so there should be lot's of fever cases because of malaria causing a confusion of symptoms. 195.170.185.50 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola" vs. "EVD"

Since this is an encyclopedia aimed at a general readership, I've changed it to refer to EVD either in full as "Ebola virus disease" or by the shorter form "Ebola" throughout, introducing the short form "Ebola" in the introductory paragraph, instead of using the initials "EVD" as the short form. I believe this increases readability without sacrificing correctness, and allows more natural usages such as "Ebola cases" instead of "cases of EVD". -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. When a person is not familiar with so many abbreviations, such as WHO, CDC, MSF, etc., it is hard to keep them all in mind, even though it's easy for us because we've seen them so many times. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Condensing the article

I'll trim the "Projections" section over the next couple of days. Do you think the Kaci Hickox incident can be removed now? Robertpedley (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Hickox incident was a major story, at least in the United States, for a few weeks. It probably deserves a sentence here at a minimum and a longer discussion in the US sub-article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of cutting, however, IMO, considering for instance that MSF actually refused money from Australia saying that what was much more needed was health care workers on the ground, this US episode is of much greater importance than just having a few states ignore CDC guidelines for those volunteers returning from Africa. All of the major players here, including the WHO, have made similar statements saying that the best way to prevent the spread is to control the spread in West Africa rather than using quarantines. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Martin Salia is dead

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-stricken-surgeon-dr-martin-salia-dies-nebraska/story?id=26964778

Time to make Nebraska purple on the map. 65.35.211.212 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of that map, Texas is in both the "red" and "orange" categories in the text description. It should be listed in only one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks

Two editors have now removed the same red links from the Ebola virus epidemic article. I can see that their edits were well-intentioned, but red links like this serve a useful purpose in building the encyclopedia.

Here's why: red links like this serve as a hook to indicate that an article on a topic is missing, and should be created. As government ministries, there is no question that these are article-worthy topics, and the fact that both are involved in the greatest public health crisis in recent history makes them of immediate topical interest.

Gandydancer, in particular, removed these links with the comments:

Mali: no need to alert editors of a need for a Mali health ministry article, furthermore this is confusing to readers

Outbreak: there is no need for Wikipedia to start an article on the health ministry of Guinea, furthermore readers do not understand why some wording is red

This is missing the entire point of Wikipedia. If we don't alert editors about the need to create articles, how will they get written? We have articles on individual burger bars, pop music singles, and even individual Pokemon and other video game characters, and we shouldn't have articles on African health ministries? Why? What makes African countries inferior to other countries, that they should not have articles here on their health ministries? Or, if there's nothing special about these countries, should we perhaps delete all the articles on health ministries everywhere?

The question should be not "why are these links red?" but "why aren't these links blue?", and the best way to turn these from red to blue is to create well-formed stub articles on them.

See WP:REDLINK and WP:STUB for more. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have now created (very inadequate) stubs on both ministries. If the editors involved still want to delete these links, I'd very much want to hear their explanations as to why. -- The Anome (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should create a stub unless you intend to fill it with valid material. Also I don't any point in building e.g. english language page about the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in France when there is already a very detailed page in French on fr.wikipedia.org → Bégin Military Teaching Hospital. French readers/editors will regard the French article as the prime source and keep it up to date, they won't waste their time duplicating it into the English page. Chrome users will get an automatic translation - not sure about other browsers, but there's always Google Translate.

is there a WP policy about creating stubs? Robertpedley (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From the above: See WP:REDLINK and WP:STUB And also: no, of course, you're right, we should only have one article in one language on each topic. Will you start the several million deletion nominations across all Wikipedia editions, or shall I? -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it says "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." - so an unwanted/unjustified stub would eventually revert to a redlink after a while. I can't see any benefit to the reader in a redlink - even less a link to a stub, it wastes time and reduces the value of WP as a source of information. Any WP article should stand on its own merits; the only motive I can conceive for linking to a stub would be to artificially drive traffic to it. There's some interesting stuff in overlinking such as "Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words" and "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" which may also be relevant.

And on the question of language versions - live translation is getting so good now that there might be a trend in that direction in a couple of years. We'll see! Robertpedley (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Anome, my main reason for not liking redlinks is that the general reader has no idea why the red lettering has been used. Around the world red is used as an alert color, but when it is being used to alert a handful of Wikipedia editors while the many thousands of readers don't have a clue, it should be used very sparingly, IMO. I can't see that this article is a reasonable place to advertise a need for a health ministry article, if there is one. Gandydancer (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal preferences aside, redlinking is an established Wikipedia practice and Anome's actions are supported by the guidelines. Having said that, there has been recent discussion about whether or not the redlinking guideline should change; perhaps it was on the village pump but I don't have a link handy. It sounds like you may want to contribute to that discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

case or not in India?

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/442368/man-tests-positive-ebola-delhi.html Not sure if recovered but still potentially contagious person classifies as a case, but there seems to be one like that in Delhi. This case(or not) probably won't develop into any kind of local outbreak, but there should be a consensus if such individuals are to be counted as cases or not. Potentially they could spread the disease, less so than cases actively sick, but the potential is still there. 89.235.220.1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be counted as a case, it's already known that the virus is present in semen for several months after recovery. On the other hand the reaction of the Indian authorities is noteworthy IMO, perhaps it could be discussed in the "responses" article. Siuenti (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Three blood test cleared hi, but his semen not.. Been treated but still may be contagious but not sick (Liberian case and not India)... None case in my IMO.. Lets not run away with this... for now.. greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a suspected case somewhere in England today as well. We should stick to the agreed policy - official stats only. Robertpedley (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Vaderzlk11

Can someone undo the edit made by Vaderxlk11? I highly doubt the US has 10,000 cases and 9,000 deaths, so his edits are therefore irrelevant. 24.41.226.211 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking the word "acute"

I have replaced the "acute" link which I feel is appropriate. The link reads, "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". This has been discussed awhile back. It is my feeling that while the link is not perfect, it does help to understand why the WHO might call it "the worst" while millions in Africa are dying of other diseases such as malaria. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though EVD can certainly be described as "acute" I am not sure that is the best term for the outbreak/epidemic since it has been ongoing for nearly a year. Perhaps "urgent" would be more suitable.Jaerik (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)