2 ms·
That's assuming the current count is accurate which boots on the floor consistently disagree with: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/africa/23ebola.ht
by FollowSteph3 12y ago
That's assuming the current count is accurate which boots on the floor consistently disagree with:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/africa/23ebola.html?referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/africa/23ebola.ht...
http://racingheartblog.tumblr.com http://racingheartblog.tumblr.com
Considering the doubling rate I would personally increase that number by at least 2-5 doublings...
- roywiggins 12y ago>These figures take into account the fact that many cases go undetected, and estimate that there are actually 2.5 times as many as reported.
- FollowSteph3 12y agoEven at 2.5, which to me is low, that 1.4x2=2.8 times another half doubling and were looking at 4.2 million. That's quite a difference. If the under estimation is by a factor of 5 then you're looking at 44.8 million. The exponential value is really important, especially in the early and end games ;)