4 ms·

> * 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

> * 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".
  - crpatino 12y ago
    If the ghosts of people who died in the road began to spook drivers and cause more accidents, you would see a rapid spike of mortality in the short term, followed maybe by change of behavior where ~90% of traffic is composed of professional bus/truck drivers that are hardened and not easily affected by ghosts.
- waps 12y ago
  It's easy to imagine scenarios that would have it spread in the US. 1) Scenario : some guy/girl lands in Florida, later that day goes for a swim in a big swimming pool with some 100+ people in it because it's a very hot day. Half of those people are on holiday and return to various places in the US before exhibiting symptoms. 2) Ebola is known for spreading fast in hospitals 3) Definitely diagnosing ebola takes several days The problem with ebola (and all the MRSA variants, a number of which do spread through the air, and a few others) is that it can go from a few patients infected to turning hospitals into death traps in 2 weeks flat.
  - weego 12y ago
    I agree there could be a wide initial spread, but I really feel that it would be contained much more efficiently in, for example, the US or UK than is possible in the outbreak areas of Africa, so the outcome would be a lot less catastrophic.
  - interdrift 12y ago
    I don't think it's possible for the virus to survive in a pool because of the Fluoride.
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      Chloride. The pool water is chlorinated.
    - waps 12y ago
      I haven't yet seen a paper claiming either way. It spreads through fluids, so likely it can remain stable in chlorinated water for at least a few seconds.
pdeuchler 12y ago
> "The U.S. government and international organizations recently announced commitments to support these measures. As these measures are rapidly implemented and sustained, the higher projections presented in this report become very unlikely." From the abstract of the report[0] you're citing. Essentially, it's rising exponentially (at smaller numbers) right now so of course if you extrapolate over long enough you're going to get a big scary number. The situation is bad, but we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet (a valid indictment on policy makers, not the situation). There's a difference between spreading caution and FUD, let's try and avoid the second. [0] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=su6303a1_w http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=... (cool read)
- nl 12y ago
  This is true, but it is still reasonable to discuss current infection rates. As you note, we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet. Until we see the effects of that engagement it makes complete sense to look at what is happening right now, not what countermeasures might or might not achieve.
  - socceroos 12y ago
    I roll D20 to cast Nuke From Orbit.
    - smoyer 12y ago
      This is quite an insensitive thing to say ... or maybe just an insensitive thing to say what everyone is wondering anyway. We don't have a cure ... and won't have one in time to help (almost) anyone who's contaminated in this outbreak. There's really not much we can do except to contain the virus (if we can do that). I don't necessary want to be nuked from orbit, but if I were to contract this illness I'd also rather not linger towards an almost certain death. I know it sounds a bit fatalistic, but why be an organ donor, draft a living will (etc) if you don't consider that one day you may perhaps die? And the truth is that most of us are unable to help the current situation in even the simplest way. Those of us who have a suitable belief system can only pray.

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".
- crpatino 12y ago
  If the ghosts of people who died in the road began to spook drivers and cause more accidents, you would see a rapid spike of mortality in the short term, followed maybe by change of behavior where ~90% of traffic is composed of professional bus/truck drivers that are hardened and not easily affected by ghosts.
waps 12y ago
It's easy to imagine scenarios that would have it spread in the US. 1) Scenario : some guy/girl lands in Florida, later that day goes for a swim in a big swimming pool with some 100+ people in it because it's a very hot day. Half of those people are on holiday and return to various places in the US before exhibiting symptoms. 2) Ebola is known for spreading fast in hospitals 3) Definitely diagnosing ebola takes several days The problem with ebola (and all the MRSA variants, a number of which do spread through the air, and a few others) is that it can go from a few patients infected to turning hospitals into death traps in 2 weeks flat.
- weego 12y ago
  I agree there could be a wide initial spread, but I really feel that it would be contained much more efficiently in, for example, the US or UK than is possible in the outbreak areas of Africa, so the outcome would be a lot less catastrophic.
- interdrift 12y ago
  I don't think it's possible for the virus to survive in a pool because of the Fluoride.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Chloride. The pool water is chlorinated.
  - waps 12y ago
    I haven't yet seen a paper claiming either way. It spreads through fluids, so likely it can remain stable in chlorinated water for at least a few seconds.

pdeuchler 12y ago

> "The U.S. government and international organizations recently announced commitments to support these measures. As these measures are rapidly implemented and sustained, the higher projections presented in this report become very unlikely." From the abstract of the report[0] you're citing. Essentially, it's rising exponentially (at smaller numbers) right now so of course if you extrapolate over long enough you're going to get a big scary number. The situation is bad, but we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet (a valid indictment on policy makers, not the situation). There's a difference between spreading caution and FUD, let's try and avoid the second. [0] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=su6303a1_w http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=... (cool read)

nl 12y ago
This is true, but it is still reasonable to discuss current infection rates. As you note, we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet. Until we see the effects of that engagement it makes complete sense to look at what is happening right now, not what countermeasures might or might not achieve.
- socceroos 12y ago
  I roll D20 to cast Nuke From Orbit.
  - smoyer 12y ago
    This is quite an insensitive thing to say ... or maybe just an insensitive thing to say what everyone is wondering anyway. We don't have a cure ... and won't have one in time to help (almost) anyone who's contaminated in this outbreak. There's really not much we can do except to contain the virus (if we can do that). I don't necessary want to be nuked from orbit, but if I were to contract this illness I'd also rather not linger towards an almost certain death. I know it sounds a bit fatalistic, but why be an organ donor, draft a living will (etc) if you don't consider that one day you may perhaps die? And the truth is that most of us are unable to help the current situation in even the simplest way. Those of us who have a suitable belief system can only pray.