9 ms·

Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Let's take

by lee 12y ago

Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Let's take a lot at what we can agree on: * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. * The virus doesn't appear to lie dormant, and is only contagious when the patient becomes symptomatic. The chances of contracting the disease in a western country so far is near 0. The chances of contracting the disease in AFRICA is fairly improbable too. It really sounds like sensationalism at its finest.

jonknee 12y ago
Far from the only one, but it's obvious why it is captivating. It has a high fatality rate (>50%) and is quick not to mention graphic. Oh and there's not a cure (though that may be changing!).
timr 12y ago
Is the current media frenzy "sensationalism"? Yes. Is there a risk here? Yes, a small one. I understand, but am frustrated by, the number of people who keep repeating "it's not airborne", as if this is some kind of definitive argument that a virus cannot spread here. Something like 80% of cold/flu infections happen via "bodily fluids" -- people snot on a surface, someone else touches the surface, then touch their face, etc. This is an effective means of virus transmission. A virus doesn't need to be airborne for a pandemic to occur. That said, we have a number of advantages over rural Africa in dealing with illnesses -- we have high standards of sanitation, good electricity, clean water, and our population is generally not afraid of physicians (with notable exceptions in some minority communities). But our biggest advantage, by far, is that Ebola isn't endemic here. Our best and most effective screen is "have you been to Africa recently?" If that screen loses its effectiveness, you start to have to worry about every patient presenting with a fever and diarrhea, and the epidemiology becomes quite difficult. We're not really prepared for everyone with a fever and vomiting showing up at the emergency room...and it won't take many patients (a few thousand, say) for things to get tense.
- marcelsalathe 12y ago
  Your 80% number is misleading. There is no good data on that. Flu has long been thought to be mainly transmitted through droplets, which fall to the ground quickly, rather than being dispensed in the air, being able to travel large distances (which would be truly airborne). If anything, the latest data suggest that we have actually underestimated the airborne route (relative to the droplet route). Yes, a pandemic can occur even if the pathogen is not transmitted through there air - see HIV/AIDS. Airborne and droplet spread make for fast spreading and hard to control epidemics. If something spreads through bodily fluids only, it's easier to do contact tracing and put the right measures in place. I think that's what people want to highlight if they say that Ebola is not airborne.
  - timr 12y ago
    I'm basing that number on a paper I read a while ago that estimated the infection channels from a variety of experimental and epidemiological data. I can't find the original article with a quick search, but there are plenty of other papers that show how efficient the hand-contact mechanism is. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/205151 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/205151 In that study, 11 of 15 hand-contact exposures to a rhinovirus led to infection, which is not 80%, but it's within the margin of error. Notably, it was almost as good as large-particle aerosol exposure at spreading the virus. But yes, the important point is that you don't need an airborne virus for a pandemic. Every virus is different, but there's this public fixation on "airborne" transmission that is a bit of a red herring. Ebola is doing just fine without it.
  - privong 12y ago
    > Flu has long been thought to be mainly transmitted through droplets, which fall to the ground quickly, rather than being dispensed in the air, being able to travel large distances (which would be truly airborne). Actually, there was a study earlier this year[0] which showed, with better data and more rigorous treatement of the fluid dynamics, dropplets can travel much farther than previously thought. [1] has a summary of the research, in case the article is not available. But their basic conclusion is that, depending on the size, droplets can travel up to 200 times farther than previously thought, because they are carried along with the "cloud" associated with the sneeze. [0] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9212918 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/sneeze-cloud_n_5110971.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/sneeze-cloud_n_5110...
arrrg 12y ago
The likelihood of any kind of pandemic is extremely low, sure. However, your dismissal of this epidemic and its impact is arrogant and disgusting. It’s still a disaster in the affected countries, with many knock-on effects. Also, it would have been better to spend more money earlier to prevent unnecessary deaths. This Ebola epidemic is actually something people hardly care about. Hardly anyone is donating, for example. Help is needed. Actually. For real. And with better support and a better reaction this could have turned out better.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > Hardly anyone is donating, for example. It might be beneficial to provide a link to where people could/should donate.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders is the first organization that jumps to mind -- they've been helping to lead the response in Africa, more or less on a shoestring. Their US donation page is here: https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/onetime.cfm https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/onetime.cfm Folks in other countries can find their local donation pages here: http://www.msf.org/donate http://www.msf.org/donate EDIT - To give you a sense of how involved MSF has been in the Ebola response: "Since March 2014, 14 MSF staff members have become ill, among whom 8 have sadly passed away." (Source: http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality-ebola-response-west-africa http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality...) There's a comprehensive rundown of their efforts to date to help contain Ebola across West Africa here: http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-crisis-update-sept-25th http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-crisis-update-sept-25th
    - Retric 12y ago
      Thanks for the info, just did a small donation. I suspect it's well beyond their ability to control at this point, but even slightly slowing down that exponential curve can be worth a lot.
    - deleted 12y ago
rdl 12y ago
I'm +inf more concerned about XDR TB and other airborne diseases.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
I think this is one of the few cases where parts of the sensationalism is legitimate. I think the media has desensitized many people to the point where they can't recognize a significant and potential danger.
guscost 12y ago
One thing the news stories never mention is that the death toll from malaria every day is comparable to the total deaths in this recent Ebola outbreak: http://www.malariaworld.org/lastweek http://www.malariaworld.org/lastweek
- 001sky 12y ago
  This is missing the point. Ebola is a far more dangerous pathogen. I dont think this needs further explanation.
  - guscost 12y ago
    The death toll from malaria throughout history is orders and orders of magnitude beyond that of Ebola. I don't see how there is any way you can accurately describe it as "a far more dangerous pathogen."
    - zo1 12y ago
      I think people find ebola more frightening. Even if it's caused a tiny amount of deaths compared to other, less frightening diseases.
      - 001sky 12y ago
        This is true, but Its a Biosafety level 4 pathogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level So its "literally more dangerous".
        cmdrfred 12y ago
        That is because no approved treatment is available for ebola if zmap is effective it will be level 2 like malaria soon enough.
        001sky 12y ago
razster 12y ago
Fear, you're not fearing this enough... Maybe we should ramp it up and make it airborne. Fear will come.
djcapelis 12y ago
> * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. This is no longer true. We have no idea how many people are infected anymore because Liberia has too many patients to even keep track. They're literally thousands of beds short and it's actively doubling. The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. > * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. To some degree. It's still highly contagious, especially since it happens to cause people to tend to eject all kinds of different fluids. This is the largest spread of a BSL4 virus in history. It isn't casual. > The chances of contracting the disease in AFRICA is fairly improbable too. In places where it's not spreading, absolutely. In Monrovia or Freetown, there's actually a real risk and it's growing worse daily. That's the scary part. This isn't even about what the risk is right now, though it's terrifying in comparison to where it was a month or two ago. It's about what happens two months from now. The situation is bad now and rapidly deteriorating.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism! /s The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdeveloped nations if not kept in check. Can you imagine what would happen if it started spreading in India?
  - rimantas 12y ago
    Define "epic proportions", because it seems that your threshold for "epic" is way too low. 10x more people are killed on US roads each year.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      The original claim would be hyperbolic, except that someone killed in a car crash doesn't increase the risk to other people on the road, but an Ebola infection certainly does. In the mathematics of exponential increase, a small initial amplification factor can produce very impressive results in a short time. Consider the hypothesis that just 1% of Ebola sufferers infect other people. Using this well-established mathematical method: y' = y (1+p/100)^t y = infected population % at time zero. y' = infected population % at time t. t = time in consistent units p = percentage increase for one unit of time So, if it takes a week for the infected population to increase by 1%, then: http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png IOW if after a week the infected population has increased by 1%, after a year (52 weeks) the infected population has increased by 67%. After 2 years (104 weeks) the infected population has increased to 281% of the original. And so forth. This isn't true for car crashes, and the above is what is meant by an "exponential increase".
dombili 12y ago
Yes, exactly. I recommend this episode (https://overcast.fm/podcasts/episode/110040344176 https://overcast.fm/podcasts/episode/110040344176) of Stuff To Blow Your Mind if you want to learn what Ebola really is. It was very informative and easy to understand for someone like me who doesn't know anything about diseases/viruses.
induscreep 12y ago
Also, there were patients with Lhasa fever and Marburg in the USA before - and nothing happened. Ebola is hyped up because there's an outbreak in Africa.
phkahler 12y ago
Most interesting is that this guy apparently became symptomatic 3-4 days before going to the hospital. Arrived on the 20th, felt sick on the 24th, went to hospital on 27th, was isolated on the 28th. How many people did he come in contact with? How many contacts are being traced? This may be very interesting, and I doubt it will stop at just the one case.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  There is a good chance it will stop with his contacts though, as anybody he infected will likely be isolated before they become infectious.
  - rasz_pl 12y ago
    except for that one monkey that bit him and then ran into the woods.
- robflynn 12y ago
  I found that interesting as well. If I had just returned from an area where Ebola is currently spreading and started to feel ill, my first thought would be to head immediately to the hospital as a precaution.
- crpatino 12y ago
  This is not completely accurate. The guy went to the hospital on the 26th, was misdiagnosed and sent home on antibiotics. Then he was taken to a different hospital by ambulance 2 days later when he obviously got worse instead of better.
mrgriscom 12y ago
It's almost as if people don't understand the concept of exponential growth...
- phacops 12y ago
  you’d think HN would understand ‘going viral'
- bripeace 12y ago
  People understand exponential growth, but the US is not conducive to spread of Ebola. The problems found in Africa that prevent effective management of the situation do not exist here: Lack of hospitals, suspicion of outsiders/doctors, general hygiene, etc.
  - hga 12y ago
    And different burial practices, including I gather different from Central Africa, generally speaking. The CDC just issued instructions for U.S. funeral homes.
URSpider94 12y ago
Despite what you write above, and the attention being paid to ebola, the infection is growing, not shrinking (each ebola patient infects, on average, more than one other person). Reasonable (not breathless) forecasts show the number of infected individuals growing to over 100,000 within a few months, and the CDC could see it growing to over a million cases by early 2015. Further, this is a disease with a 50% mortality rate, and no verified treatment other than palliative care (even ZMAPP, the supposed magic bullet, did not save at least two patients who were treated). I think we have good reason to be concerned.
- tjohns 12y ago
  The CFR (case fatality rate) in this outbreak is actually closer to 71% once adjusted for time between case onset and resolution. It only looks like 50% at first glance because people are catching the disease so quickly that the number of deaths hasn't had time to catch up. Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100
coldtea 12y ago
>Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Well, besides media sensenationalism, the idea is that we should be fearful of a possible pandemic BEFORE it becomes a pandemic, and that that's how we take the measures and care we need to contain it. (Being fearful of something like that AFTER it becomes a pandemic goes without saying). That said, in Nigeria there were abour 3,000 deaths and 6,000 cases. I wouldn't call that "fairly small". Plus stuff like that have a way of skyrocketing if they pass a certain threshold. In Nigeria at least, they had very good reasons to be fearful, and with modern travel, a few stray travellers could have wiped out similar numbers in other places, or even more.
- hga 12y ago
  Nigeria has so far been very lucky: a single index case who was already quite sick when he got on the plane to the country. 20 cases (19 lab confirmed), 8 dead, no new cases since the 5th (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/inde...). They need another 17 days to be sure, if memory serves, but it's looking good. For this index case....
robomartin 12y ago
No, no, it has to be taken very seriously before it spreads. This is the kind of thing that could completely upend the entire planet if not taken seriously. What would happen if the entire world had to self quarantine for three to four weeks and all transportation grounded for the same period of time. No, this is a huge deal. I have long believed that some kind of bacteria or virus is going to take out all or a huge chunk of humanity at one point or another. Evolution is a heartless SOB. We could very well be one or two random mutations away from losing half the planet's human population. And, BTW, the mutations in question don't have to attack us. Imagine losing half the worldwide crops, cattle or fish. Don't get me wrong, I don't lose any sleep over this and don't have a garage full of gas masks and HAZMAT materials. When/if it happens that stuff is likely to be absolutely useless. I wonder if that's what might finally make the religious "get it". You go ahead and pray to your powerless imaginary intelligent creator. I'll choose science thank you.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Insult unnecessary. At this point, prayer & science have similar influence over curing someone of Ebola. Contradictory to say you'll "choose science thank you" yet don't have (per hyperbolic statement) any sensible tangible preparations to meet an Ebola epidemic with.
  - robomartin 12y ago
    Calling nonsense "nonsense" is not an insult unless you believe in said nonsense. No religious person would find the statement "belief in Thor is nonsense" objectionable or offensive at all. In fact, most would agree without reservations. You also missed my point about taking a scientific approach to something like ebola. Gas masks are utterly irrelevant and pointeless. We know how the virus is spread and we know that if caught reasonably early it is easy to kill. Even if your entire neighborhood consists of people with ebola you and your children are safe as long as you don't swap bodily fluids. I don't know about you, I can't remember the last time I swapped bodily fluids with my neighbors. So, yeah, others can pray --which is utter nonsense-- I'll stick with scientific knowlege --which is not. Here's the difference with science: If tomorrow someone offered true evidence that ebola is now airborne and prayer kills it, I could not imagine a single scientist who, when presented with the evidence, would not accept these findings to have a high degree of probability of being true.
look_lookatme 12y ago
So far the chances of contracting the disease in a western country was near zero. It's no longer near zero if you define near zero as virtually impossible due to lack of extent cases. That's why this news is significant.
smtddr 12y ago
I can tell you that as someone with 90%+ relatives living in Lagos, Nigeria... they don't seem too concerned. But it is a real problem. Not the END OF THE HUMAN RACE ANDROMEDA STRAIN[1] like the western/UK media has been making it sound like, but a problem nonetheless. I also have a feeling if it even approached anything resembling a problem in a first world country, a cure/vaccine would magically be found and made promptly accessible to all...... 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424600/combined http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424600/combined
brownbat 12y ago
I think there's some exaggeration of ebola when you consider the lack of splashy headlines about heart disease, which by the numbers, is arguably far more important. That said, if there are rare issues where sensationalism might be justified, this might be one. This is one of those areas where preventative aid funding is incredibly hard to muster, even though money spent in containing the outbreak now could have an oversized impact. More at Radiolab on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-... Famines are similar, apparently aid workers all know they're coming, but just no one cares enough to donate until it's far too late to prevent.
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Scientists on Reddit seem to agree with you: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hy3r9/science_ama_series_ask_your_questions_about_ebola/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hy3r9/science_ama...
yardie 12y ago
Listen to this podcast[1] and get back to us. Compared to previous disasters this is a very slow moving disease, extremely contagious, and almost always fatal. And that is part of the problem. No one thinks it's a problem because it's all the way over there. The CDC and other NGOs are trying to hype up its effects because people, and you are not in the minority, don't think it's a real problem. I know people who think it's corrupt African countries trying to get more aid money. * 1 gets you 2, 2 gets you 4, 4 gets you 8, and 10 gets you 100. Exponential growth here. See, math is fun. * How many times have you touched your face today? What else have you touched while outside. Victims don't have to physically bleed all over you. But imagine if just 1 infected person took the NY Subway. * They become symptomatic and then what? Most people, when starting to feel sick, go to the supermarket and stock up on juice and vitamins. Possibly passing it along to coworkers, friends, and family. Only when they have overwhelming evidence that something is wrong do they head to the hospital. Meanwhile, the entire time, the virus is shedding. [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...
tripzilch 12y ago
> Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? If you only care whether the disease is going to hit at home, or (even worse) only if it hits a "western country", then yeah. Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. I'm pretty certain it won't hit that bad "at home", maybe a few isolated cases, we have the infrastructure(s) to contain it adequately. Not in Africa though. As you may recall, Africa is really really big (depending on map projection). May not literally count as a "pandemic", but this is a disaster of incredible proportions. ... and then there's people suggesting, only half-joking, to "nuke it from orbit". Would they suggest that if it was a "western country"? It's fine to worry if you may get the disease yourself, personally. The answer is "no / highly improbable". But just because its wreaking havoc mainly in non-western countries, doesn't mean news about the terribleness and spread of this epidemic, that is going on right now (also it's not just some flu, it makes one bleed from their internal organs o_O), doesn't mean it's "hype" or "sensationalism". This is actual human drama and suffering at a massive scale. And it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.
- clarky07 12y ago
  >Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. 3000 have died so far. 6500 have been infected. It certainly could grow much bigger, but it hasn't yet.
  - hga 12y ago
    ~3,000 are known to have died, officially. There are roughly three reasons this outbreak became so big: different location (West vs. Central Africa), it took a while for the differential diagnosis (the much less deadly Lasa Fever is endemic in the area, but doesn't cause hiccups), and when the foreigners arrived in force, the locals hid. The WHO et. al. actually thought it was under control, before it couldn't be hid anymore. Educated guesses would put actual fatalities in the 10s of thousands; 100s is possible, but I don't get the impression it's quite there yet. But with exponential growth, 1 case infecting an average of 3 others by one estimate, there's no way it isn't going to get that bad in West Africa.
TheCondor 12y ago
It is sensational. The truth is also that we know fairly little about Ebola. It's fairly recent that we've known any animal vectors for it. It is very effective at killing but until now it has been very isolated. We know it requires fluid exchange but that's a somewhat vague concept to many, is a sneeze in an office a fluid exchange? I mean, that's good enough for flu... I'm not sure that it's known how bats (a vector) exchange or transmit it. Just a lot of unknowns, the idea that the North American bat population could start carrying it is a little scary. We will stop it but it got a lot closer to home and if a dozen other contract it from this case, I'd say the sensationalism and paranoia are warranted.
joshdance 12y ago
Have you even been to Africa? I lived in Western Africa for 2 years. It is a big deal, and very bad. It is less bad for the US, but that is due to supplies, medical system, education, and other infrastructure improvements.

by lee 12y ago

jonknee 12y ago

Far from the only one, but it's obvious why it is captivating. It has a high fatality rate (>50%) and is quick not to mention graphic. Oh and there's not a cure (though that may be changing!).

timr 12y ago

Is the current media frenzy "sensationalism"? Yes. Is there a risk here? Yes, a small one. I understand, but am frustrated by, the number of people who keep repeating "it's not airborne", as if this is some kind of definitive argument that a virus cannot spread here. Something like 80% of cold/flu infections happen via "bodily fluids" -- people snot on a surface, someone else touches the surface, then touch their face, etc. This is an effective means of virus transmission. A virus doesn't need to be airborne for a pandemic to occur. That said, we have a number of advantages over rural Africa in dealing with illnesses -- we have high standards of sanitation, good electricity, clean water, and our population is generally not afraid of physicians (with notable exceptions in some minority communities). But our biggest advantage, by far, is that Ebola isn't endemic here. Our best and most effective screen is "have you been to Africa recently?" If that screen loses its effectiveness, you start to have to worry about every patient presenting with a fever and diarrhea, and the epidemiology becomes quite difficult. We're not really prepared for everyone with a fever and vomiting showing up at the emergency room...and it won't take many patients (a few thousand, say) for things to get tense.

marcelsalathe 12y ago
Your 80% number is misleading. There is no good data on that. Flu has long been thought to be mainly transmitted through droplets, which fall to the ground quickly, rather than being dispensed in the air, being able to travel large distances (which would be truly airborne). If anything, the latest data suggest that we have actually underestimated the airborne route (relative to the droplet route). Yes, a pandemic can occur even if the pathogen is not transmitted through there air - see HIV/AIDS. Airborne and droplet spread make for fast spreading and hard to control epidemics. If something spreads through bodily fluids only, it's easier to do contact tracing and put the right measures in place. I think that's what people want to highlight if they say that Ebola is not airborne.
- timr 12y ago
  I'm basing that number on a paper I read a while ago that estimated the infection channels from a variety of experimental and epidemiological data. I can't find the original article with a quick search, but there are plenty of other papers that show how efficient the hand-contact mechanism is. For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/205151 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/205151 In that study, 11 of 15 hand-contact exposures to a rhinovirus led to infection, which is not 80%, but it's within the margin of error. Notably, it was almost as good as large-particle aerosol exposure at spreading the virus. But yes, the important point is that you don't need an airborne virus for a pandemic. Every virus is different, but there's this public fixation on "airborne" transmission that is a bit of a red herring. Ebola is doing just fine without it.
- privong 12y ago
  > Flu has long been thought to be mainly transmitted through droplets, which fall to the ground quickly, rather than being dispensed in the air, being able to travel large distances (which would be truly airborne). Actually, there was a study earlier this year[0] which showed, with better data and more rigorous treatement of the fluid dynamics, dropplets can travel much farther than previously thought. [1] has a summary of the research, in case the article is not available. But their basic conclusion is that, depending on the size, droplets can travel up to 200 times farther than previously thought, because they are carried along with the "cloud" associated with the sneeze. [0] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9212918 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/sneeze-cloud_n_5110971.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/sneeze-cloud_n_5110...

arrrg 12y ago

The likelihood of any kind of pandemic is extremely low, sure. However, your dismissal of this epidemic and its impact is arrogant and disgusting. It’s still a disaster in the affected countries, with many knock-on effects. Also, it would have been better to spend more money earlier to prevent unnecessary deaths. This Ebola epidemic is actually something people hardly care about. Hardly anyone is donating, for example. Help is needed. Actually. For real. And with better support and a better reaction this could have turned out better.

frostmatthew 12y ago
> Hardly anyone is donating, for example. It might be beneficial to provide a link to where people could/should donate.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders is the first organization that jumps to mind -- they've been helping to lead the response in Africa, more or less on a shoestring. Their US donation page is here: https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/onetime.cfm https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/onetime.cfm Folks in other countries can find their local donation pages here: http://www.msf.org/donate http://www.msf.org/donate EDIT - To give you a sense of how involved MSF has been in the Ebola response: "Since March 2014, 14 MSF staff members have become ill, among whom 8 have sadly passed away." (Source: http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality-ebola-response-west-africa http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-workers-risk-tragic-reality...) There's a comprehensive rundown of their efforts to date to help contain Ebola across West Africa here: http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-crisis-update-sept-25th http://www.msf.org/article/ebola-crisis-update-sept-25th
  - Retric 12y ago
    Thanks for the info, just did a small donation. I suspect it's well beyond their ability to control at this point, but even slightly slowing down that exponential curve can be worth a lot.
  - deleted 12y ago

rdl 12y ago

I'm +inf more concerned about XDR TB and other airborne diseases.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

I think this is one of the few cases where parts of the sensationalism is legitimate. I think the media has desensitized many people to the point where they can't recognize a significant and potential danger.

guscost 12y ago

One thing the news stories never mention is that the death toll from malaria every day is comparable to the total deaths in this recent Ebola outbreak: http://www.malariaworld.org/lastweek http://www.malariaworld.org/lastweek

001sky 12y ago
This is missing the point. Ebola is a far more dangerous pathogen. I dont think this needs further explanation.
- guscost 12y ago
  The death toll from malaria throughout history is orders and orders of magnitude beyond that of Ebola. I don't see how there is any way you can accurately describe it as "a far more dangerous pathogen."
  - zo1 12y ago
    I think people find ebola more frightening. Even if it's caused a tiny amount of deaths compared to other, less frightening diseases.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      This is true, but Its a Biosafety level 4 pathogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level So its "literally more dangerous".
      - cmdrfred 12y ago
        That is because no approved treatment is available for ebola if zmap is effective it will be level 2 like malaria soon enough.
        001sky 12y ago

razster 12y ago

Fear, you're not fearing this enough... Maybe we should ramp it up and make it airborne. Fear will come.

djcapelis 12y ago

> * The number of cases of infected patients is fairly small. This is no longer true. We have no idea how many people are infected anymore because Liberia has too many patients to even keep track. They're literally thousands of beds short and it's actively doubling. The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. > * The vector of transmission is fluid exchange, so that reduces its ability to spread. To some degree. It's still highly contagious, especially since it happens to cause people to tend to eject all kinds of different fluids. This is the largest spread of a BSL4 virus in history. It isn't casual. > The chances of contracting the disease in AFRICA is fairly improbable too. In places where it's not spreading, absolutely. In Monrovia or Freetown, there's actually a real risk and it's growing worse daily. That's the scary part. This isn't even about what the risk is right now, though it's terrifying in comparison to where it was a month or two ago. It's about what happens two months from now. The situation is bad now and rapidly deteriorating.

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year. No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism! /s The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdeveloped nations if not kept in check. Can you imagine what would happen if it started spreading in India?
- rimantas 12y ago
  Define "epic proportions", because it seems that your threshold for "epic" is way too low. 10x more people are killed on US roads each year.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    The original claim would be hyperbolic, except that someone killed in a car crash doesn't increase the risk to other people on the road, but an Ebola infection certainly does. In the mathematics of exponential increase, a small initial amplification factor can produce very impressive results in a short time. Consider the hypothesis that just 1% of Ebola sufferers infect other people. Using this well-established mathematical method: y' = y (1+p/100)^t y = infected population % at time zero. y' = infected population % at time t. t = time in consistent units p = percentage increase for one unit of time So, if it takes a week for the infected population to increase by 1%, then: http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png IOW if after a week the infected population has increased by 1%, after a year (52 weeks) the infected population has increased by 67%. After 2 years (104 weeks) the infected population has increased to 281% of the original. And so forth. This isn't true for car crashes, and the above is what is meant by an "exponential increase".

dombili 12y ago

Yes, exactly. I recommend this episode (https://overcast.fm/podcasts/episode/110040344176 https://overcast.fm/podcasts/episode/110040344176) of Stuff To Blow Your Mind if you want to learn what Ebola really is. It was very informative and easy to understand for someone like me who doesn't know anything about diseases/viruses.

induscreep 12y ago

Also, there were patients with Lhasa fever and Marburg in the USA before - and nothing happened. Ebola is hyped up because there's an outbreak in Africa.

phkahler 12y ago

Most interesting is that this guy apparently became symptomatic 3-4 days before going to the hospital. Arrived on the 20th, felt sick on the 24th, went to hospital on 27th, was isolated on the 28th. How many people did he come in contact with? How many contacts are being traced? This may be very interesting, and I doubt it will stop at just the one case.

maxerickson 12y ago
There is a good chance it will stop with his contacts though, as anybody he infected will likely be isolated before they become infectious.
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  except for that one monkey that bit him and then ran into the woods.
robflynn 12y ago
I found that interesting as well. If I had just returned from an area where Ebola is currently spreading and started to feel ill, my first thought would be to head immediately to the hospital as a precaution.
crpatino 12y ago
This is not completely accurate. The guy went to the hospital on the 26th, was misdiagnosed and sent home on antibiotics. Then he was taken to a different hospital by ambulance 2 days later when he obviously got worse instead of better.

mrgriscom 12y ago

It's almost as if people don't understand the concept of exponential growth...

phacops 12y ago
you’d think HN would understand ‘going viral'
bripeace 12y ago
People understand exponential growth, but the US is not conducive to spread of Ebola. The problems found in Africa that prevent effective management of the situation do not exist here: Lack of hospitals, suspicion of outsiders/doctors, general hygiene, etc.
- hga 12y ago
  And different burial practices, including I gather different from Central Africa, generally speaking. The CDC just issued instructions for U.S. funeral homes.

URSpider94 12y ago

Despite what you write above, and the attention being paid to ebola, the infection is growing, not shrinking (each ebola patient infects, on average, more than one other person). Reasonable (not breathless) forecasts show the number of infected individuals growing to over 100,000 within a few months, and the CDC could see it growing to over a million cases by early 2015. Further, this is a disease with a 50% mortality rate, and no verified treatment other than palliative care (even ZMAPP, the supposed magic bullet, did not save at least two patients who were treated). I think we have good reason to be concerned.

tjohns 12y ago
The CFR (case fatality rate) in this outbreak is actually closer to 71% once adjusted for time between case onset and resolution. It only looks like 50% at first glance because people are catching the disease so quickly that the number of deaths hasn't had time to catch up. Source: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

coldtea 12y ago

>Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? Well, besides media sensenationalism, the idea is that we should be fearful of a possible pandemic BEFORE it becomes a pandemic, and that that's how we take the measures and care we need to contain it. (Being fearful of something like that AFTER it becomes a pandemic goes without saying). That said, in Nigeria there were abour 3,000 deaths and 6,000 cases. I wouldn't call that "fairly small". Plus stuff like that have a way of skyrocketing if they pass a certain threshold. In Nigeria at least, they had very good reasons to be fearful, and with modern travel, a few stray travellers could have wiped out similar numbers in other places, or even more.

hga 12y ago
Nigeria has so far been very lucky: a single index case who was already quite sick when he got on the plane to the country. 20 cases (19 lab confirmed), 8 dead, no new cases since the 5th (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/inde...). They need another 17 days to be sure, if memory serves, but it's looking good. For this index case....

robomartin 12y ago

No, no, it has to be taken very seriously before it spreads. This is the kind of thing that could completely upend the entire planet if not taken seriously. What would happen if the entire world had to self quarantine for three to four weeks and all transportation grounded for the same period of time. No, this is a huge deal. I have long believed that some kind of bacteria or virus is going to take out all or a huge chunk of humanity at one point or another. Evolution is a heartless SOB. We could very well be one or two random mutations away from losing half the planet's human population. And, BTW, the mutations in question don't have to attack us. Imagine losing half the worldwide crops, cattle or fish. Don't get me wrong, I don't lose any sleep over this and don't have a garage full of gas masks and HAZMAT materials. When/if it happens that stuff is likely to be absolutely useless. I wonder if that's what might finally make the religious "get it". You go ahead and pray to your powerless imaginary intelligent creator. I'll choose science thank you.

ctdonath 12y ago
Insult unnecessary. At this point, prayer & science have similar influence over curing someone of Ebola. Contradictory to say you'll "choose science thank you" yet don't have (per hyperbolic statement) any sensible tangible preparations to meet an Ebola epidemic with.
- robomartin 12y ago
  Calling nonsense "nonsense" is not an insult unless you believe in said nonsense. No religious person would find the statement "belief in Thor is nonsense" objectionable or offensive at all. In fact, most would agree without reservations. You also missed my point about taking a scientific approach to something like ebola. Gas masks are utterly irrelevant and pointeless. We know how the virus is spread and we know that if caught reasonably early it is easy to kill. Even if your entire neighborhood consists of people with ebola you and your children are safe as long as you don't swap bodily fluids. I don't know about you, I can't remember the last time I swapped bodily fluids with my neighbors. So, yeah, others can pray --which is utter nonsense-- I'll stick with scientific knowlege --which is not. Here's the difference with science: If tomorrow someone offered true evidence that ebola is now airborne and prayer kills it, I could not imagine a single scientist who, when presented with the evidence, would not accept these findings to have a high degree of probability of being true.

look_lookatme 12y ago

So far the chances of contracting the disease in a western country was near zero. It's no longer near zero if you define near zero as virtually impossible due to lack of extent cases. That's why this news is significant.

smtddr 12y ago

I can tell you that as someone with 90%+ relatives living in Lagos, Nigeria... they don't seem too concerned. But it is a real problem. Not the END OF THE HUMAN RACE ANDROMEDA STRAIN[1] like the western/UK media has been making it sound like, but a problem nonetheless. I also have a feeling if it even approached anything resembling a problem in a first world country, a cure/vaccine would magically be found and made promptly accessible to all...... 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424600/combined http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424600/combined

brownbat 12y ago

I think there's some exaggeration of ebola when you consider the lack of splashy headlines about heart disease, which by the numbers, is arguably far more important. That said, if there are rare issues where sensationalism might be justified, this might be one. This is one of those areas where preventative aid funding is incredibly hard to muster, even though money spent in containing the outbreak now could have an oversized impact. More at Radiolab on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-... Famines are similar, apparently aid workers all know they're coming, but just no one cares enough to donate until it's far too late to prevent.

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Scientists on Reddit seem to agree with you: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hy3r9/science_ama_series_ask_your_questions_about_ebola/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2hy3r9/science_ama...

yardie 12y ago

Listen to this podcast[1] and get back to us. Compared to previous disasters this is a very slow moving disease, extremely contagious, and almost always fatal. And that is part of the problem. No one thinks it's a problem because it's all the way over there. The CDC and other NGOs are trying to hype up its effects because people, and you are not in the minority, don't think it's a real problem. I know people who think it's corrupt African countries trying to get more aid money. * 1 gets you 2, 2 gets you 4, 4 gets you 8, and 10 gets you 100. Exponential growth here. See, math is fun. * How many times have you touched your face today? What else have you touched while outside. Victims don't have to physically bleed all over you. But imagine if just 1 infected person took the NY Subway. * They become symptomatic and then what? Most people, when starting to feel sick, go to the supermarket and stock up on juice and vitamins. Possibly passing it along to coworkers, friends, and family. Only when they have overwhelming evidence that something is wrong do they head to the hospital. Meanwhile, the entire time, the virus is shedding. [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-571-why-raising-money-for-ebola-is-hard http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/09/26/351515481/episode-...

tripzilch 12y ago

> Am I one of the minorities who believe that this hype about Ebola is more sensationalism and news than an actual pandemic we should be fearful for? If you only care whether the disease is going to hit at home, or (even worse) only if it hits a "western country", then yeah. Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. I'm pretty certain it won't hit that bad "at home", maybe a few isolated cases, we have the infrastructure(s) to contain it adequately. Not in Africa though. As you may recall, Africa is really really big (depending on map projection). May not literally count as a "pandemic", but this is a disaster of incredible proportions. ... and then there's people suggesting, only half-joking, to "nuke it from orbit". Would they suggest that if it was a "western country"? It's fine to worry if you may get the disease yourself, personally. The answer is "no / highly improbable". But just because its wreaking havoc mainly in non-western countries, doesn't mean news about the terribleness and spread of this epidemic, that is going on right now (also it's not just some flu, it makes one bleed from their internal organs o_O), doesn't mean it's "hype" or "sensationalism". This is actual human drama and suffering at a massive scale. And it's probably going to get worse before it gets better.

clarky07 12y ago
>Hundreds of thousands are dying, and it could hit millions. 3000 have died so far. 6500 have been infected. It certainly could grow much bigger, but it hasn't yet.
- hga 12y ago
  ~3,000 are known to have died, officially. There are roughly three reasons this outbreak became so big: different location (West vs. Central Africa), it took a while for the differential diagnosis (the much less deadly Lasa Fever is endemic in the area, but doesn't cause hiccups), and when the foreigners arrived in force, the locals hid. The WHO et. al. actually thought it was under control, before it couldn't be hid anymore. Educated guesses would put actual fatalities in the 10s of thousands; 100s is possible, but I don't get the impression it's quite there yet. But with exponential growth, 1 case infecting an average of 3 others by one estimate, there's no way it isn't going to get that bad in West Africa.

TheCondor 12y ago

It is sensational. The truth is also that we know fairly little about Ebola. It's fairly recent that we've known any animal vectors for it. It is very effective at killing but until now it has been very isolated. We know it requires fluid exchange but that's a somewhat vague concept to many, is a sneeze in an office a fluid exchange? I mean, that's good enough for flu... I'm not sure that it's known how bats (a vector) exchange or transmit it. Just a lot of unknowns, the idea that the North American bat population could start carrying it is a little scary. We will stop it but it got a lot closer to home and if a dozen other contract it from this case, I'd say the sensationalism and paranoia are warranted.

joshdance 12y ago

Have you even been to Africa? I lived in Western Africa for 2 years. It is a big deal, and very bad. It is less bad for the US, but that is due to supplies, medical system, education, and other infrastructure improvements.