3 ms·
First, its an entirely reasonable thing to model a disease under the assumptions of no interventions, as there's a great deal of value in knowing "Where is this
by Fomite 12y ago
First, its an entirely reasonable thing to model a disease under the assumptions of no interventions, as there's a great deal of value in knowing "Where is this headed if we don't do anything", and to find out whether or not the time and resources you're spending are actually having an impact.
Second, while the international response to this is good, putting in money doesn't have a linear return on reduction of disease. Consider HIV or Malaria.
- ghshephard 12y agoHIV and Malaria are both broadly endemic in Africa, including some conflict areas - it's going to be a long tough slog to rid the world of them. This breakout of Ebola is geographically isolated, and its nature (short infection period, burns out quickly, hard to catch) - makes it something that a strong effort right now would absolutely shut down. Regarding modeling the disease - yes, of course - from that perspective I can see how useful it would be to model, but the assumption should be pretty explicit. I.E. "Assuming traditional regional responses to this disease, this is what we would expect" - to make it clear that this is a model, and not a prediction.