Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gandydancer (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 30 September 2014 (→"Responses" section: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Western African Ebola epidemic was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western African Ebola epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Guinea / Liberia / Nigeria / Sierra Leone High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Guinea (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Liberia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sierra Leone (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western African Ebola epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 4 days

A news item involving Western African Ebola epidemic was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 March 2014.

A news item involving Western African Ebola epidemic was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 June 2014.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about politics of Ebola containment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about politics of Ebola containment at the Reference desk.

Fault on Timeline traced to 31 August.

On 31 August

• Sierra Leone reported 388 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 388 + 48 = 436
• WHO figures For Sl was 430 and 46 possible Total = 430 + 46 = 476

Note 476 - 46 = 430 Difference 46 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error. 6 difference between the report i still need to look into — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

3 Sept

• OCHA was the next source with 3 Sept 452 death confirmed and suspected

Sierra Leone reported 404 confirmed and 48 suspected Total 404 + 48 = 452 Report for 3 Sept is thus correct

7 Sept Then WHO Afro took over and the WHO report was erroneous

• Afro WHO figures for sl was 478 confirmed and 46 confirmed Total = 524
• Sierra Leone reported 428 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 428 + 48 = 476

Note 524 - 46 = 476 Difference 46 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error.

10 Sept

• OCHA report was correct 493 confirmed + suspected
• Sierra Leone reported 445 confirmed and 48 suspected Total 445 + 48 = 493

14 Sept Again Afro report erroneous

• Afro WHO figures for sl was 517 confirmed and 45 suspected Total = 562
• Sierra Leone reported 468 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 468 + 48 = 516

Note 562 - 45 = 517 Difference 45 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error.

I trust this is all clear explained it as best as i could. AFRO WHO are adding up there suspected cases double on each report.

I have e mailed them with error.

Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)BrianGroen (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, would it just make more sense to add another column to the timeline with a margin of error and we throw in the difference you calculated as a percentage? It might be better just to add that instead of telling people that these are accurate figures. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 will do something about it in the morning Nearly midnight here by me in South Africa , but yes a good idea.. Have a fab day in the US BrianGroen (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

17 Sept Again Afro WHO report erroneous

• Afro WHO figures for sl Death was 584 confirmed Total = 584 (Afro WHO report cases correct as per SL gov Report
• Sierra Leone reported 489 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 489 + 48 = 537

Note 584 - 48 = 536 Difference 48 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error.(Note Sl report differs by 1 death. Report from WHO state as of 18 Sept but figures are inline with respective gov reports for 17 Sept on timeline.) Hence leaving time line as is.

Added notes for 17 Sept BrianGroen (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

21 Sept Again Afro report erroneous

• Afro WHO figures for death in SL was 552 confirmed and 45 suspected Total = 597
• Sierra Leone reported 502 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 502 + 48 = 550

Note 597 - 45 = 502 Difference 45 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error

BrianGroen (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

23 Sept Again Afro report erroneous

• Afro WHO figures for death in SL was 557 confirmed and 48 suspected Total = 605
• Sierra Leone reported 502 Confirmed death and 48 probable Total = 509 + 48 = 557

Note 605 - 48 = 557 Difference 45 hence suspected was added up double. The crux of the disputed error BrianGroen (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC:Should Ebola death in Port Harcourt be included?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this previous well-sourced report on Ebola death in the Nigerian city of Port Harcourt be included in the Nigeria-sub section of the Nations with local transmission? Stanleytux (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. If it is done for Nigeria we will receive request from all the other countries in this epidemic. Calls for unnecessary clutter BrianGroen (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Relatively minor in the context of this topic, need to maintain focus on major topics and issues. Robertpedley (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose.It is minor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Unlike the other EVD cases in Africa, Nigeria have EVD confirmed in just 2 cities (Lagos and Rivers which are very far apart as Lagos is on the West while PH is on the South of Nigeria). I do not see how including a sentence or 2 in the Nigerian subsection be regarded as too much info. Ebola is confirmed in only 2 Nigerian Cities and that figure appear to have stabilized so there is no chance that other Nigerian cities will have Ebola cases. Are you people telling me that if there are 2 Ebola cases in both Chicago and Los Angeles you are going to include only one of the cities and ignore another city in the US subsection? If there were more cities affected with EVD in Nigeria then it can be excluded but since its just 2 states i believe it can stay. This is why I want to create a Nigerian Ebola article.Seanord (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose for reasons already stated above. However, I think that there is a lot of merit to Seanord's suggestions. As we are (hopefully) coming to an end for Nigeria's cases, it seems it would be a good idea to include the fact that the outbreak was confined to only the two cities when we write a "wrap-up" of their involvement in the West Africa epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Seanord and principles of epidemiology. It should be done for Nigeria and it should be done for all the cases that are part of this outbreak. All reported cases should be included in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All of Nigeria's cases are included in the article and no editor has suggested that they not be included. Please see my comment below. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The map and the reference to tracking cases in Port Harcourt is incongruous with the narrative that refers to Sawyer's arrival and isolation in Lagos. A brief sentence to summarise the nature of the transmittal of the disease to Port Harcourt would not seem inappropriate. Mattojgb (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment From previous conversation on this page, it is my understanding that there is no objection to stating in the article that there was a case reported in Port Harcourt, but rather an objection to the reporting details such as the highlighted wording below:

On 22 August, a doctor who treated a Liberian diplomat in an unnamed hotel—who had contact with Patrick Sawyer—died in Port Harcourt from Ebola. The BBC report says the diplomat had escaped from quarantine in Lagos and travelled to the city for medical treatment. He however survived after being treated. At present, the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria has been brought to six.The Good Heart Hospital and the unnamed hotel in Rivers State has been shut down. As a result 70 suspected contacts have been quarantined.

This article is already long and getting longer by the day. We are not going into such great detail in any of the other countries and there is no reason to make an exception for Nigeria. I agree that this information may be of great importance to some people of Nigeria where the epidemic has become a very intense political issue, but these details are not appropriate for our article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The article is giving scant attention to the individual countries when in fact they should be the priority and not sections such as "Responses," and "Bill and Melinda Gates," etc. The focus of the article should be the Ebola outbreak in these countries, not whether or not Doctors without Borders has enough manpower or the Saudi's gave a few million. Any information along these lines should be appropriately integrated into the country section. If there are none specific to countries, they should be deleted. In fact, I think it's time the countries were split off into subpages. They are individual countries, after all, not some anonymous clump of infected people. I've always been against the "West Africa" name. It would be all right and appropriate if we were talking about states in America, such as , "Midwest outbreak of Monkeypox," because that would be referring to an area in one country, America. But this outbreak covers individual countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request permission to condense timeline

Hi All just a request to condense the timeline till beginning Augustus on a monthly basis. Will divert to The figures to Talk page for reference. Timeline is getting massively long. Please consider. BrianGroen (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about weekly for starters? Mattojgb (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The timeline could actually be taken off to a new article. There are several articles on WP covering outbreaks with timelines. It is a beautifully done section and would be a shame to condense it. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Table Addition

It might be interesting to see a separate column for Reported Cases Delta -- that is, the average rate of change in cases reported over the length of time between reports. On the day I'm posting this (23Sep), the most recent data (20Sep) showed roughly a a rate of just over 100/day for the last week (+~800 from 14Sep-20Sep). This didn't strike me as especially high until looking at previous totals and noticing they were closer to ten, then twenty a day, and now over one hundred in a relatively short time. Just might be a figure of added interest, clarification. 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts anybody? DLanman (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what it would look like, but with better formatting.

DLanman (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of showing change but it is a bit long, don't you think? Perhaps monthly change? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I too like the idea but I would go with a 21 day cycle as ideal. Greg Glover (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ADDED: If you're into math, as I am, you could add another column with ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ for the rate of infection based on your numbers and a 21 day cycle. Hence: 22 MAR at 49 case to 12 APR (actually 11 APR) at 184 is ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 3.76; to 03 MAY 244, ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.33; to 24 MAY 270 (actually 23 MAY), ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.15; to 14 JUN 522, ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.93; to 05 JUL 844 (actually 06 JUL), ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.61; to 26 JUL 1,323 (actually 27 JUL), ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.56; to 16 AUG 2,240, ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.69; to 06 SEP 4,366 (actually 07 SEP), ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.95; to 27 SEP 6,574 (actually 23 SEP), ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.5.

This shows, to those that understand the math, the progression based on WHO projections. Seems there is a projection of 21,000 cases by 01 NOV. Based on a 21 day cycle at the last ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ of 1.5, the projection could be 16,435 cases. Not to far the WHO projection made in late August when there were just over 2,000 cases. Also, the average from an estimated start, on a 21 day cycle from 07 DEC 13 to 23 SEP 14, is ${\displaystyle \delta ^{n}}$ = 1.8737. That puts the WHO projection to 20,182 case by 01 NOV 14.Greg Glover (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the new field (table length and making it a subarticle are discussed in other sections), I often compute this statistic for myself to see if the epidemic is starting to level off, although that same statistic is theoretically shown in one of the graphs. Art LaPella (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd use a heading of "new cases per day" (only we math nerds understand the delta.) Art LaPella (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. As for the length, I was suggesting it just be added to the main article's table, maybe as a column before "total" or after "sources." This way it would be updated for every new report, and for any values cut into the separate table could be averaged over the entire time hidden, or as separate rows - at the bottom - for prior months. This would be very helpful if this (as is likely) lasts into next year and beyond -- and especially useful if we add historical data including original outbreak timeframe and the interim lull before the exponential growth now being reported. I would also title it something closer to "average new reported per day." DLanman (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, even as historical data for another outbreak. Exactly why I like this data. It has been said several times here that the infection rate will flatten out then descend. As to imply, this data is not necessary because the outbreak will be contained. I like the data even if it only stays here on the “talk page” because it is valuable historical information. This won't be the last time we see an outbreak of this magnitude. Greg Glover (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria and Senegal

Now that the WHO has stated that both Nigeria and Senegal have both successfully completed the 21-day observation of any person that had contact with an infected person, should we move them to a new category? Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. "countries in which the disease has been successfully contained" maybe? Robertpedley (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be a little premature; the rule of thumb for declaring an outbreak over is twice the incubation period - ie. 42 days. There's already been one false dawn in Nigeria. Donners (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we prune those countries off the timeline table? It would make it a bit more manageable. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And prune off some of the graphs as well. The Anome - your graphs are looking a bit stale! Robertpedley (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Donners (talk - I still think Gandy should go ahead with this edit - I know that Nigerian editors in particular are very keen to reclassify, so it might happen anyway. Maybe qualify the edit by mentioning your reservation - see here, page 9. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134771/1/roadmapsitrep_24Sept2014_eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 09:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Welll... I was going about doing just that because I can well imagine that Nigeria or any other country would want to be declared disease free, considering the terrible economic repercussions that they are going through. But going about it, I came across this: (also see Donner's above post) and I'd also run across the WHO's manner of doing their headings into widespread and local, and decided that perhaps we do need to use the 42d period before come right out and call them disease-free. I am still working on Nigeria and will add some of the info from the source I just listed above. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we certainly can't declare a country disease free before WHO does!! Robertpedley (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived timeline

BrianGroen (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@BrianGroen: I reverted the reduction. I think the better way to do this is move all the data to a timeline article and have this article just display the graphs. Glrx (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx the idea was to revert it here first then separate it in a article but still keep it bi-weekly on the timeline. But yes i know you did a lot of work in the beginning therefor did not want to wipe it out...Lets keep it for now but open a separate timeline article and only display the last months data here and preceding on monthly basis. This thing is going to become very long.. Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Glrx i did request permission to do it, but this is your original work and i don't want to just go ahead without consensus.. Especially not on your hard work on this..Greetings BrianGroen (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)

Sorry, but I've been doing other things, and this is the first time I've looked at this article in about a month.

I agree that the timeline information is too dense for the amount of info it provides here. I think a wholesale move is better than trimming, but I'm open to keeping some recent data on this page because it is used in summaries and would get more eyes here.

BTW, my original intention with the checkmark was to have editors enter the data, and then another editor come by and check the data for accuracy. But I never put that in writing anywhere.

We should come up with a name for the timeline article.

Glrx (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry Glrx "Ebola epidemic in West Africa Casualty timeline"...not to worry i check most of the figures and they are spot on.. give or take a margin of error of about 0,05 % i think in latter cases and a date or two perhaps a day out but not enough to whack the line out.. Just thought about it not a brilliant idea to put bit on talk , some BOT will archive it...lol..BrianGroen (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx been thinking about this. instead of moving it, i could build a collapsible table. Thus keeping it on the page but reducing and can be expand with on click. . greetings Brian.. BrianGroen (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx timeline condense with a collapsable table Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice jobMattojgb (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

sierra leone

why are sierra leones fatality numbers so low?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Under-reporting. Plenty about this in the article and in other Talk topics. Robertpedley (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa Sierra leone lock-down figures will only be out on Thursday... I expect a huge jump then.BrianGroen (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see update d timeline lead for evidence of under reporting. BrianGroen (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, the Thursday report doesn't show an increased number of deaths. The CFR is still below 30%. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 see note above.. Monrovia have note reported any cases and lock-down cases still not released.. I added it to the paragraph above the time line..Think it is going to be a massive increase soon. I monitor all sites that report cases daily no mention of it yet.Greetings Brian.. BrianGroen (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I was looking at this report. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 Still not in that one as well. BrianGroen (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of some parts

The article is getting really long. I think it is time to take out some of the content and place in new (sub)articles. For example the tables and graphs with cases and deaths.Nico (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. (See above where it is being discussed.) Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "Responses" could be split as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer timeline condense with a collapsable table Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep the graphs - they're a great way to convey a large amount of information in a small space. Is there any kind of Wiki guideline about the best way to manage a page like this which covers a complex and constantly changing situation? Robertpedley (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to archive the medevac cases as soon as possible, as they have very little relevance to the topic as a whole. Not just yet though. Robertpedley (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley looked into it i can do something similar with nations greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO epidemiologist

This guy was medevaced to Hamburg, Germany on 27 August - four weeks ago. I can't find any update. Anyone? Robertpedley (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany very tight lipped about this. been mentioned in a bulletin a week ago, but no updates..BrianGroen (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Responses section

I very strongly believe that we need to split this section into a separate article with a short summary left here. This section is already very large and is sure to grow, and contributes to the reason that our article now far exceeds the WP guidelines for article length. Please give feedback as I'd like to see this taken care asap. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Tricky. This is essentially a current affairs page, with content that evolves over time. At the moment, the two fastest moving areas are a) the countries with transmission(including timeline) and b) responses by NGO's and governments. I'd like to keep them together. If the article is too long, we should compress or move other bits. Experimental treatments, transmission both properly belong on the EVD page for example. Robertpedley (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I pretty much agree with you. Let's get rid of Experimental treatments and anything re transmission...and the intro to the Treatment section as well (but keep the "Level of care" section). But even still, that will not reduce the article nearly as much as we need to reduce it. I am constantly going over all of the info compressing it, but IMO if we do much more of that we will lose what the article is all about and devote more and more to the extremely lengthy (and bound to grow) Response section, which (other than the international organizations) I doubt is of much interest to most other than what their own country is doing. The last time I looked, the article was more than three times the recommended length. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HI Gandydancer, Robertpedley before we start deleting i ma busy sandboxing response with a "hide show"... It is within Wiki rules just must see that all browsers i.e smart phone support it.. Similar to what i done on the time line greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you go to all that work Brian, please hold off because while it seems like a good idea to me, it is something I have seldom seen done in a case like this. I'm going to ask an editor who did a little work on the article early on to come over and take a look at it and see if he has any suggestions - fresh eyes from an experienced editor can be very valuable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer gives me a bit of gap.. some tricky source codes to add.. will wait fir you then Greetings from Sunny South Africa Brian BrianGroen (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Transmission - list of body fluids etc. by Starstr

Various edits by Starstr aim to expand information about the mode of transmission. Opposed because

• we have sufficient information about modes of transmission in other sections
• detailed mode of transmission is relevant to Ebola Virus Disease page. This page is about the epidemic, which is a different focus

Robertpedley (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Its just a little summary which is really required. The page barely mentioned the word "bodily fluids" before this section was added. Starstr (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Its beyond unreasonable to exclude the very substances causing infection in an article about a disease epidemic. Starstr (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Starstr 5 mentions of fluids before your edit. Robertpedley (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no list of fluids in the article before I added it. Starstr (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley thanks . I support this. We are already trying to trim the article a bit. It is covered under Ebola Virus. BrianGroen (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sweat and tears are not mentioned in those articles either. Starstr (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Starstr, this article is about the outbreak, not the disease. The link to the disease article is provided in the lead. The only subjects that we cover here are things unique to the outbreak. Perhaps if you feel transmission is not being properly addressed you should enter that info at the disease article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

condensing

amazing job you all are doing keeping up with this fast moving event!

am at work but some quick thoughts:

• Congo section can be split off into its own article and a sentence or two left with a link to that article
• more complicated - there is a lot of repetition in the narrative of the spread (the "Initial outbreak (December 2013-March 2014)" and "Subsequent spread" sections) and the country-by-country stories. suggest condensing the narrative of the spread dramatically, maybe even reducing to bullet points.
• the country-by-country sections seem to have evolved from just describing spread of the disease to including other related news (e.g. third and fourth paragraphs in the Guinea section are not about the spread, but instead duplicate content found in the "complications" section
• virology section could be really condensed. too much blow by blow there. what readers need to know is the Answer not all the wrong stabs at it along the way. if we are not certain then the section can be very short. (!)
• Prevention section in general is meandering and could be reworked.
  • "Containment efforts" section content is actually alarms being sounded by health officials and not about containment efforts at all. This entire section seems like it could be distributed into the "response" section.
  • "Complications" section also could be better ordered, with a subsection on "health care workers" that could include the attacks on health care workers and the entire "infections of health care workers" section, condensed.
  • suggest re-org following the subsections in ] that is linked as Main there

have to go but wanted to put that out there.. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog - thanks, it looks as though you have put some careful thought into this. Without thoroughly re-reading the article, I think I agree with you. One problem is that a lot of edits are incremental - new item is added to the page, instead of replacing outdated content. I'm guilty of this as well - if you get too keen on replacing stuff you risk upsetting editors who placed it there originally, and then they undo it! But I would support moves along these lines. Robertpedley (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I had an edit conflict and will just go ahead and add this back:

• Congo section can be split off into its own article and a sentence or two left with a link to that article

This has been discussed earlier and we kept a "wait and see" attitude though there were not length problems at that time. ~Gandy

• more complicated - there is a lot of repetition in the narrative of the spread (the "Initial outbreak (December 2013-March 2014)" and "Subsequent spread" sections) and the country-by-country stories. suggest condensing the narrative of the spread dramatically, maybe even reducing to bullet points.

We're aware of the repetition, however keep in mind that the epidemic is of grave importance to everyone in Africa and IMO each country experiencing the epidemic needs its own section, however I believe that we all prefer to first give the epidemic a nutshell section of the spreading process. ~ Gandy

• the country-by-country sections seem to have evolved from just describing spread of the disease to including other related news (e.g. third and fourth paragraphs in the Guinea section are not about the spread, but instead duplicate content found in the "complications" section

While that's true (and I've considered it as well), the info IMO does belong in both sections. ~ Gandy

• virology section could be really condensed. too much blow by blow there. what readers need to know is the Answer not all the wrong stabs at it along the way. if we are not certain then the section can be very short. (!)

Agree and I've been trying to get to editing that section. This is one of the many examples of why this article has needed so much upkeep. ~ Gandy

I did work on it today and while it may still not be as short as some would like, I believe that its important to explain a few things. For one, people have come to the article again and again to point out to us that the Congo and the West Africa outbreaks are part of the same epidemic because they are the same virus strain. It is interesting to find that the most likely scenario is that the bats most likely migrated to the jungles of West Africa only about 10 years ago. Also, the recent study done in Sierra Leone is groundbreaking in that it is the first time that virologists have been able to study an epidemic as it is emerging. Gandydancer (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Prevention section in general is meandering and could be reworked.
• "Containment efforts" section content is actually alarms being sounded by health officials and not about containment efforts at all. This entire section seems like it could be distributed into the "response" section.

This problem has developed as the article went along. We have had quite a few editors come along and reorganize everything which has caused us time-consuming grief at times. It is meandering, for sure. We have been "short-staffed" and had just not had the time to do much-needed large reorganization. ~ Gandy

• "Complications" section also could be better ordered, with a subsection on "health care workers" that could include the attacks on health care workers and the entire "infections of health care workers" section, condensed.

As above... ~ Gandy

• suggest re-org following the subsections in ] that is linked as Main there

Not sure what you mean here. ~ Gandy

Thanks for your comments. Mine are rushed as well as I have little time right now. We are well-aware that the article is far from polished but very few editors are doing this sort of work. Though all things considered, I think we are doing quite well. I've worked on epidemics before and looking back at the shape they're in, they are an embarrassment to read and I'd never advertise that I worked on them - and that is with having many editors working on the article, unlike this one where we have so few. Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry if you took that as critical - i went looking for where things could be condensed and more tightly organized. would be happy to implement things where there are green lights.... Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not mean at all to be critical! I asked you to look over the article because I know you are so good at this sort of thing. I just tried to explain a few things. I'm going to work on the virology section tonight. I will warn you though, be sure to discuss your plans for the health providers section. As one myself, I consider those people modern day saints to continue to risk their life under these circumstances and I want to be sure that they receive good coverage. :) Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

amen sister on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove some of the duplication regarding Senegal and Nigeria? There's repeated detail in what used to be the "subsequent spread" section and in the country by country analysis. I suggest the initial mention is extremely brief just to note that the disease did spread to these countries, but any detail is reserved for the country by country bit. Could some of the treatment stuff also be removed as it's not specific to this outbreak and might be better in the main Ebola article? Mattojgb (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattojgb, I tend to agree with you and was all set to make an edit, but on second thought I changed my mind. As the article grows due to the unexpected explosion of cases, there has been talk of splitting all of the involved countries into separate articles. In that case more detail in the overall section would be warranted, so I thought better to wait a few more days and see what happens. Re the treatment section, I think a group discussion would be needed to remove the medical stuff. For one thing, it is being used as an intro and for another it does tend to tie in as readers can see that with no hospital beds available for sick people, people left to recover or die in their homes is not an acceptable alternative - who has the suggested drugs, IV equipment, etc., in their own homes? What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Outbreak in Republic of the Congo

I've removed this material on the suggestion of Jytdog as this material has nothing to do with the West African Ebola outbreak and will only confuse readers. So unless a connection can be made that the outbreak in the Congo is connected to the West African outbreak, there doesn't appear to be any reason to return the material to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested it. in an article like this watched and worked over I would never just bust in and delete something and i sure as hell would not edit war if i were reverted. give people a chance to discuss things, please. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL the Congo section is still relevant as their are still casing being reported. Before you delete discuss first There are a few editors that work extremely hard on this. Just don't go in and bust it up. Jytdog (btw thanks for the suggestion) used the correct method first discuss then if consensus go ahead. But for now i oppose such a edit. BrianGroen (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, s/he has made a new article already. In the past I have liked the info here, but I would go along with a split to the new article to save space if the group decides on it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

HI SW3 5DL Why the Congo section section is still here? This virus is mutating very rapidly. in fact it has now since the outbreak mutated in more than 300 genetic variants, so it is way to early to say that this may not have been the same reservoir but might be different strain due to migration. They have found bats that carries various strain of ebola. In fact the 15 countries could still be in line for ebola. Lets keep it here a while longer. I'm not saying you are wrong, nor trying to own ownership. But Ebola is Ebola and it is a 2014 outbreak, but who knows it might be the case in a few months from know. The bats are in migration as we speak now. Just a small note(and i will find the article), but among the mourners at the mothers of patient zero two deaths from there showed different strains. BrianGroen (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

BrianGroen Hi to you, too. Yes, those are all good points. Bats are the reservoir. Other animals, monkeys, apes, etc., can easily become infected from the bats and these animals can pass it on to humans, usually in the form of contact with hunters. Fruit bats are very popular bushmeat, easy to catch, easy to butcher because they cluster so well. Yes there are various strains. The strain in the Congo is not the same as the one in West Africa. That's been determined. My concern with keeping the section on the Congo is that it gives the impression that the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa is the same one as in the DRC. It is not. If there are new cases in the Congo with the Zaire ebolavirus species, then that would represent a new outbreak, not a continuation of this unrelated one. Even then, there would have to be an epidemiologically determined link that the outbreak in West Africa has spread to the Congo and/or vice versa and is not the result of a new bat/animal contact with a human. Also, the mutations always occur with a new host, in this case, humans. The mutations are not going to turn the West Africa virus into the Congo virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the West African EBOV had already drifted a bit from the Central African EBOVs at the beginning of the outbreak, and has drifted even further with the multitude of human cases. The DRC EBOV was found to be very similar to the recent Central African EBOVs. They're quite distinct and should be clearly separated. Donners (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL i see a valid point for moving congo , but for now i would prefer it here as well, but i built a link in to your page. This thing can go too ways DRC burns itself out and we remove and your article remain. Two the outbreak could subsequently break all boundaries and we have most of Africa infected . The last thing i want since i live in Africa and my brother in law or rather ex brother in law works in Guinea and my daughter might be exposed in the near future. Terrible thought but a possibility. But yes starting a separate Congo page is a good idea and i glanced in. Lets wait a week/two and see how your article progress and then remove it with consensus. Seem like a acceptable Dispute resolution. Greetings from a hot South Africa.. BrianGroen (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, but it needs updating and condensing. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Congo outbreak is NOT part of the "West Africa Epidemic" so it should have a separate page. Once sentence in this article is enough to link to it. Robertpedley (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus epidemic. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good idea . since this article is butchered into small pieces why don't you rename the article to 2014 Ebola epidemic links.. then add all the links so we can all hop around to read whats going on in Africa. The article was perfect then all of a sudden it is being butchered apart.41.13.86.167 (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

collapsible table

perhaps a collapsible table for the "Response" section (both organizations and nations), this might be a way of helping to trim the article in length?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa wwe are looking into it. see talks above.Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible tables are not recommended. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

SL death Toll

I been racking my mind why SL deaths are so low. Then i started checking the reports Liberia has a +-60% cfr .. Guinea +- 50 % cfr, but SL only 27% CFR. SL case load suspected do go up, but their suspected death remained 48 for the last couple of months. So in essence SL are only reporting Lab confirmed death since mid July. Their suspected cases are added up , but the reports to WHO only lab confirmed dearth are being tallied ---BrianGroen (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO & MSF have been warning about under-reporting for ages. These are countries with zero health infrastructure and weak administration, even before the epidemic. In a developed country every case would be tracked by a dozen statisticians but I guess SL doesn't have that resource. Robertpedley (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Article ownership

Jytdog,Gandydancer and BrianGroen I made well sourced edits to the article last night and I see Gandydancer came along and deleted all of them. Given the attitudes in the Congo section comments above, it appears that the three of you have serious ownership problems with this article. You need to allow other editors to participate here. Everybody has a contribution to make. There is no rationale for keeping the Congo section, and there is no reason to delete the source of the index patient's infection, especially as it is well sourced. Mention of Pardis Sabeti, a talented scientist who has worked tirelessly to genetically map this outbreak, deserves mention. The fact that the child's infection is the only one with direct contact from the bat, while the others he infected and on the down the line were all human-to-human transmissions. That is a huge discovery.

I noticed that when I removed the Congo section, my edit was reverted. Yet, Gandydancer has made multiple deletions today without any discussion. I suggest the three of you either take a break or start working with others. You've all made important contributions to the article. I'd like to make some, too. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the virus study, it is in the Virus section where it belongs. As for the boy getting it from a bat, numerous RS states that they do not know how he got it. It is thought that bats have formed a new reservoir in WA, but nothing is known for sure yet. As for the numerous RS that you have that the boy got it directly from a bat, offer even one RS that states that. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You're the one deleting it. Where are your sources that show the boy did not have contact with the bat? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, "bats have formed a new reservoir." What does that even mean? How do bats form a new reservoir? Where's your RS for that? The Harvard genome mapping has shown that the Ebola virus is from the same Zaire ebolavirus species as the one that caused the 1976 Sudan outbreak. That's how they know it isn't the same one in the Congo. How do you think that virus got all the way over to West Africa? Bats, migrating. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to do a little study as most of what you are saying makes no sense at all. I'm not saying this to criticize you, but you really need to read up on this before we can have an intelligent conversation. Try reading the disease and the virus pages. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it doesn't make sense to you. "bats have formed a new reservoir?" Please explain what you mean by that. Can you answer that question? I'm sure you can't. You delete material from the article that should stay, and you keep material that could be removed to improve the article. I'm still waiting for your RS to show that the child did not have contact with a bat and the Harvard researchers don't believe it was a bat, although you'll have to find a source that refutes the NIH press release. Instead of arguing here, why aren't you working together here? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

HI SW3 5DL the way you stated the last index case with sources is acceptable, researcher "believe" sounds acceptable, but i am a paid member of pubmed, primarily since i study Multiple Sclerosis on a ongoing basis and published books on it. I can drop articles here that states "presume" the same way you did now, but also other scenarios(articles only available to pubmed paid members). Remember even in research and i can state one particular case, I.e MS the disease that i have. In 2009 a lot of studies was published by various top medical doctors that MS is caused by a narrowing or blockage of the jugular vein in the neck and was hailed the "miracle cure" for MS. Thousand of patients believed it and paid top dollars for this "Liberation treatment". Only to have this theory debunked a year or so ago. But still today patients believe it. Why? because it is top doctors. DR's are human and make mistakes too. It take years to come to a definite conclusion. It is still in Misplaced Pages today. But for the small child I.e the boy change encounter, four scenarios. 1. he got bitten by a fruit bat. 2. he ate a fruit with fresh bat saliva on. Three he ate contaminated bat prepared by the mom. 4. Total different scenario, yes the common reservoir is bats, but another animals get ebola too i.e Duikers a small buck common in this area. The mom might have prepared a duiker caught in a trap. Just a small input from me and not criticism. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 2 year-old boy, those scenarios all describe contact with the bat. The boy's mother told relatives a bat bit him. I don't have RS on that at the moment. In any event, the presumption that it was a bat is being made by researchers because the genome has been mapped and the source is clear. They're calling it "animal" because they likely don't want the population going off on wholesale bat hunts like they did after the 1976 Sudan outbreak. It would increase contact with the bats, which would likely create new cases, and could adversely affect bat ecology. Other animals get Ebola but those animals are hosts, not natural reservoirs. On the MS miracle cure, that was tragic. So sorry to hear that you have MS. Often times, some of the best WP editors are patients or relatives of patients. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL hence the reason the first line is acceptable. No big elaboration. But in the Congo page you can add it. Doubt you'll get any resistance. . Small and precise to the point.. Elaborating on the Congo page is a good idea. BrianGroen (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In my haste to respond i made a slight error this should have read "i am a paid member of pubmed subsidiaries" and not "i am a paid member of pubmed". 41.13.72.80 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@ SW3 5DL, I have grown very tired of spending so much time on this straw-colored bat issue. I note that after numerous deletes, including the last one in which I added the WHO as a source who state that the source for the initial case remains uncertain, you have again replaced that info with a claim that the child was infected by a bat, using a news report that actually says that scientists speculate that the initial source may have been between a toddler and a straw-colored fruit bat. You state above, "The fact that the child's infection is the only one with direct contact from the bat, while the others he infected and on the down the line were all human-to-human transmissions. That this is a huge discovery." suggests to me that you clearly do not have the most basic understanding of Ebola transmission. There is no "huge discovery" here. It has been known for years that for reasons still poorly understood there is an Ebola reservoir among bats that may directly, or indirectly through bush meat, infect humans. There has been very little study on Ebola because until now the outbreaks have been small, and in a country so filled with tropical diseases, insignificant. This epidemic has changed all that and there are bound to suddenly see numerous studies crop up with what the researchers claim to be important new information - which will without question be questioned by other researchers. In the meantime, we use the WHO for our authority. If you change this information in the article one more time without getting consensus on this talk page I'm going to ask that you be banned from this article. Gandydancer (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer, WRT the importance of the human-to-human transmission in this outbreak, in other zoonotic outbreaks, including SARS, MERS, and hantavirus, casualties have included multiple individuals who each had acquired the virus through separate animal contact, and low human-to-human transmission. The fact that this little boy's infection has set off this multi-country epidemic with this many cases/deaths is huge. And the WHO agree with me as your own edit indicates.

As regards the child's possible contact with the bat, the edit should say, "May have had contact" per the sources, but the edit should be there because, the genomic sequencing of the child's strain indicates animal. WRT sourcing, certainly WHO is an excellent source, but it is not the only source and there is no WP policy that says this page can only have WHO sourcing or that WHO sources trump all others. Reliable secondary sources like the New York Tiimes, the Guardian, the Independent in the UK, especially when they are interviewing a scientist discussing studies, are all useful and can be used. Any of the NIH or CDC press releases, and of course, peer-reviewed journal articles, are also reliable sources for the article. And please stop deleting my edits. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3, I wish that you would do some basic reading about this disease. You said: The fact that this little boy's infection has set off this multi-country epidemic with this many cases/deaths is huge. And the WHO agree with me". Sure they agree with you, because that is how this disease works - the first case gets it from contact with an animal and that person then spreads it to other people. You say: As regards the child's possible contact with the bat, the edit should say, "May have had contact" per the sources, but the edit should be there because, the genomic sequencing of the child's strain indicates animal." SW3, all Ebola cases are the result of an initial person having contact with an animal and then infecting others. As for WP and the WHO, yes there is a policy that says that the WHO, CDC, etc. trumps news reports or individual studies. Incidentally, I've had to do a lot of reading for this article and it's surprising how many times I've come across errors in news reports, plus, keep in mind that not only do news reports tend to sensationalize the news, researchers are pretty good at it too when they want their work to be noticed. :). Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not certain, not even WHO suggest it. How do you explain two strains of this virus at healers funeral. It suggest that there were other infection as well and not just one fruit bat. "The data, on the whole, supports what epidemiologists have already deduced about how the virus spread into Sierra Leone. More than a dozen women became infected after attending the funeral of a traditional healer who had been treating Guinean Ebola patients and contracted the disease. One surprise from the paper is that two different strains of Ebola came out of that funeral. This suggests that either the healer was infected with two different strains or that another person at the funeral was already infected." extracts from a published science paper suggesting there might have been a different infection in a different regent involving animal to human transmission. This puzzle will take years to resolve41.13.76.236 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

virus variants

SW3 5DL"How you explain two strains of this virus at healers funeral" - WHO researchers were not there at the time, I guess this could fit into the category of error or contamination of samples taken a few months later.Robertpedley (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley. It's a subtype of the same virus. These variants are expected. As it passes through new hosts, it mutates. It doesn't represent a new virus. It can become more or less virulent, however, and given the right host, could become airborne. The Ebola variant among pigs is airborne. Some hosts have exceptionally virus friendly immune systems. They can become superspreaders. I think the index case was a superspreader. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone

so there is now a separate article on Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, developed (unfortunately) independently of this article by Starstr. The two articles need to be integrated. This provides a great opportunity to shrink this article a bit. Per WP:SUMMARY what should happen, is the main content goes into the head article )Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone) and there should be a stub section that is basically lead the lead of the head article (per WP:LEAD, the lead of that article should provide a summary of that article). Agreed? Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to comment on the length of the article (and almost 400 references), then I saw this and the other recent discussions. Seems like a good idea... as long as they're well-linked together? Certain sections have too much detail for the main article (and 5/6 references for a single point), but would be good reading in a subarticle. Snd0 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose one way to reduce the length of this article would be to split every section out into its own page. (Someone wanted to do that for Nigeria a while back). I can't agree to the idea of one page per nation though - the border between the three countries is not a physical barrier, it's a human artifice. There is one epidemic, not three (or five). Robertpedley (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good idea . since this article is butchered into small pieces why don't you rename the article to 2014 Ebola epidemic links.. then add all the links so we can all hop around to read whats going on in Africa. The article was perfect then all of a sudden it is being butchered apart.41.13.86.167 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it is a common thing for articles to spawn subarticles as they grow. it is how things go here, as content balloons. editors have to work hard to edit not just the main article, but to edit the whole encyclopedia so the suite of articles remain aligned. it is a credit to the work you all have done here that this article is that mature. Please do see WP:SUMMARY which describes this process. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

The two of you need to stop this. The edit I made is well-sourced and more up to date. It gives the reader a more clear understanding that these two outbreaks are not related. STOP! Both of you. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There were several things wrong with your edit. We use the WHO for info rather than a lone study. Nigeria is in West Africa. I can't remember what else...Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We use the best sources, the most up to date sources. I included Nigeria in the edit because there were questions about it and the source mentioned that. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL I have told you several times that the text you are trying to insert has a reference repeated three times. would you please at least acknowledge that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why delete the edit? You say there is a sourcing problem, then why didn't you ask me to fix it instead of deleting my edit? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WRT new content, the new content needs consensus before it should be added not the other way around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the WP: policy for that? New content is being added to articles all the time, if every time an editor wanted to add something new but they had to get consensus first, there would be very little editing on WP. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5Dl I am having a hard time understanding why you are being so intense about this. You deleted content from the article while we discussing whether to do that or not - being bold is great but getting all angry when you are reverted is not. You should not have re-deleted but instead should have just come and talked, simply and calmly, per WP:BRD. Then you added content that was messed up and which was rightly reverted, and again instead of coming and talking about it calmly, you had another foot-stomping cow. Everywhere in WP WP:BRD is the rule and if you cannot handle being reverted and then calmly discussing things you are going to have a bad bad time here, and make things unpleasant for the rest of us. Just calm down, please. Things go much more efficiently if you just talk, and simply, instead of yelling. So please just talk. Looking at your exact edit: a) the current versionofof the article uses the WHO source you used (but once, instead of three times); and you wanted reference to Nigeria, and it is there. What is or are the remaining things you care about in the Congo content you added? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, Thank you for asking. The Congo content needs to be summarized and with the most important point being that it is not related. I'm going to restore the edits I've made, I will double check on the sources, I don't know what went wrong there. But please do not revert my edits. I recognize that the two of you, plus Brian, have made epic contributions, but you can't simply disregard another editor's work with wholesale deletions. That is definitely not the way to make editing here congenial and pleasant. And I do give you massive credit for responding here and at the noticeboard. Engaging, even when frustrated and/or angry is the only way to resolve things. And just as an aside, we never template the regulars, especially regulars who've been here for 6 years and have many articles to their credit. I'd appreciate it if you'd go over to my talk page and delete that. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you reinstate your edit, you will DEFINITELY get a block for edit warring. If that is what you want, have at it. I recommend that you just talk, simply. But you will do as you will. I'd be happy to discuss whatever issues are outstanding. Thanks. (And if you were actually paying attention here you would see that I just started working on this article. Gandy and Brian and others are the epic workers.) Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry. I fully intend to put my edits here first and discuss. But I'm not going to just talk. I'm going to also edit this article. Just like all WP editors can do. And please do remove the template, I'd appreciate that. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

if you are offended by the edit warring notice, you should not have run the risk of getting it by edit warring. you are free to delete whatever you like off your Talk page. and of course you should edit the article just like any editor. just don't have a cow if you are reverted, just like any editor. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a very strange way of commenting to editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

prevention section

per my suggestion above, in this series of difs (including a fix by Geracudd - thanks for that!) I modelled the Prevention section on its "main" article, namely Ebola_virus_disease#Infection_control_and_containment. I created subsections here based on subsections there, and then re-ordered our content to fit that. I put actual "infection control and containment" last because that content was longest. I pulled in the previously-separate section on deaths of health care workers into that (and moved some of that content from there and into other parts) and created a new "criticism" section for content wasn't directly about prevention/containment. i understand this was dramatic and might be upsetting and would be happy to discuss or see it further improved! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog - Good edit, I was thinking along the same lines. I think there's a bit of tidying up to do but it's a great improvement. Robertpedley (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly successful Ebola treatment with Lamivudine

Definitely something to watch for developments, cnn has reported that a doctor has successfully treated 13 out of 15 ebola patients that were given Lamivudine Blacknail (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, getting a pile of headlines at the moment. I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors who are also claiming fantastic results. All sorts of reasons why it does not belong here - not good quality evidence being the principle one. Robertpedley (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Meodipt has added it under "Experimental Treatments". There's also been an announcement by a hospital in Thailand that they have invented a cure but I don't think anyone is taking that seriously either. Robertpedley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Responses" section

I'm not sure why we have a "Responses" section here. It reads like a daily news bulletin and isn't exactly up to date at that. I suggest removing it or at the very least, condensing it. Does anyone have a specific, policy based reason for keeping this? SW3 5DL (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL - Regrettably I'm completely ignorant of policy. But I don't think it is possible to have a meaningful article about the epidemic, (updated frequently with new statistics etc) without also charting the progress of efforts to bring it under control. It would be like describing only the white moves in a game of chess - apologies to non chess players, hope you get my point. The Responses section needs tidying up, and there may be a case for moving it to a separate page. Robertpedley (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley, In that case, a separate page would probably be a good idea. Not sure how that would be titled. Any ideas? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good idea . since this article is butchered into small pieces why don't you rename the article to 2014 Ebola epidemic links.. then add all the links so we can all hop around to read whats going on in Africa. The article was perfect then all of a sudden it is being butchered apart. 41.13.86.167 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to log-in to your account. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL No good ideas. "International response to the EBV epidemic in W Africa" is all I can think of.Robertpedley (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley that's a good one. Also, "International efforts in West Africa Ebola epidemic," maybe use Humanitarian in place of International? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"International response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa" is broad and I think would be good. Gandydancer (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Response" means verbal or written reply. "Effort" means a vigorous or determined attempt, which is what is actually taking place. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take either, but I prefer Response which we have used up to now. (not sure about your definition, mate). Not "Humanitarian", though - in the case of governments the motivation is self interest, and the military are just following orders. I've got no idea how to split an article, does anyone else have the skill to do this properly? Robertpedley (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jtydog knows how to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

gandy, do you want that to happen? Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I don't see any disagreements. We have to do something to pare the article down. Gandydancer (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would improve this section a lot to have its own page. There is a coordinated international response - UNMEER working with various governments and aid agencies - but this doesn't come over in the present article. Robertpedley (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Say Jytdog, off topic, but do you know what I can do about my contribution count in the pie chart of the data page? It seems that a vandal that changed Ebola Disease to Poo Poo Disease (on Sept. 21) has taken over my spot. My contribution number is, at least AFAIK accurate, and it makes it look like I make a lot of useless edits without getting much of anything done. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Virology section

I read through the sources in this section and I removed this sentence because it makes a claim of a possible 'new reservoir' which is not true and is not stated in the sources. I also did a copyedit to make things a bit more clear. The natural reservoir is the fruit bat and the fruit bat is ubiquitous in West, Central and South Africa. Bats are migratory but return to the same areas, always, like ducks flying south for the winter. Which means, the same bats that make Ebola Zaire endemic to Central Africa are the same bats that brought it to Guinea. It is from that single contact with the two year-old in Guinea, that the human infections have occurred. And in fact, all subsequent infections have been human-to-human. That is a significant fact and should also be included in this section. I believe I had that in there earlier, but it was deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphs that relate numbers to the populations of the countries

I added two graphs that show the rate of cases and deaths based on the total population of the affected countries. Again both linear and logharithmic. The diagramms show more clearly that in the most affected countries, now nearly 1 out of 1000 people are infected, at least based on the official numbers. I took the numbers from the table in this article and the population number from the wikipedia articles of the affected countries. I kept colouring and ordering of the data lines like in the graphs the user The Anome made. I think this graphs are helpful to visualize how much affected the countries are, and by doing the calculation in the graph, the reader does not have to do it by himself. --Malanoqa (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Presenting it as a rate, as opposed to just numbers, is really effective at communicating the seriousness of the current epidemic. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These will be very helpful. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the wording is a little confusing. Is it possible to put the world totals on a separate scale? Kactusotp (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand exactly what you mean by separate scale. Could you please explain with more details. And you are right, confusion is not good, and before it confuses, I would rather remove the Totals line. Maybe I just rename Total with World? --Malanoqa (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While other lines do a good job of indicating seriousness for each country, totals line does a good job of showing seriousness to entire world.89.235.242.130 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kactusotp, I now renamed Totals with World on the logarithmic diagramm. On the linear one I removed World (Total), Nigeria and Senegal, as the values are too small to be displayed. Is this now better? --Malanoqa (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That does make it much more clear now, thank you for putting all this together. Kactusotp (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the Guinea outbreak related to Congo..

Before deciding that the the DRC outbreak is not related to this outbreak read these articles.

41.13.76.236 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The West Africa outbreak started first in Guinea with a two-year old boy who had contact with a Straw-coloured fruit bat which is the natural reservoir for Ebola virus. The habitat for these bats include West Africa, Central Africa and South Africa. The bats migrate in clusters of up to 100,000 at a time between all areas. That said, the RS being used in the article here is stating that the outbreak in West Africa is not related to the one in the DRC. This conclusion is based on genome-sequencing, not speculation. And note that the DRC outbreak is included in this article, it's just been relocated as a subsection. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

hi, though they are separate, due to the unprecedented number of cases, it might be prudent to include Congo in the "cases" table (with an asterisk) so that the reader can see all the numbers WHO has used it (page 4)... (http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... and there might be further evidence of a link between both outbreaks,,, http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/elife.04395... map on page 45 (pdf) and lines 121-160.. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa Exactly the point above "Initial analysis suggested that the viruses isolated from the current outbreak, originating in Guinea, formed a separate clade within the five Ebolavirus species (Baize et al., 2014). Subsequent re-analysis of the same sequences however, indicated that these isolates instead nest within the Zaire ebolavirus lineage (Dudas and Rambaut, 2014), and diverged from Central Africa strains approximately ten years ago (Gire et al., 2014)."This catastrophe was set in motion nearly a decade ago. 41.16.92.92 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa See this extract. from Members of the genus Ebolavirus have caused outbreaks of haemorrhagic fever in humans in Africa. The most recent outbreak in Guinea, which began in February of 2014, is still ongoing. Recently published analyses of sequences from this outbreak suggest that the outbreak in Guinea is caused by a divergent lineage of Zaire ebolavirus. We report evidence that points to the same Zaire ebolavirus lineage that has previously caused outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo and Gabon as the culprit behind the outbreak in Guinea. 41.16.92.92 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already known. Where is the link that shows that the outbreak in Guinea caused the outbreak in the DRC? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The West African EBOV lineage arises from the EBOV which caused outbreaks in Central Africa, including DRC. It is thought to have been circulating (and evolving) in West Africa for 10 years. The current outbreak of EBOV is closely related to the 1995 DRC outbreak. If it arose from the West African strain, it would not be nearly as close, especially given the evolution of the West African virus over the course of the outbreak. As the Gabon laboratory report clearly stated, “the virus in the Boende district is definitely not derived from the variant currently circulating in west Africa.” - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/2-september-2014/en/ It can't be clearer than that. Donners (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

there should be concensus among all editors (or the majority) in any event, please give some thought to a unified cases table with Congo (and an asterisk), as I had mentioned above.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO are definite: no connection . Robertpedley (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the DRC outbreak. Totals for that outbreak can be tallied there. Don't add DRC cases to the timeline in the current article. Keep as is. 66.41.154.0 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO concludes EVD may become endemic among the human population of West Africa absent most forceful control measures

For the medium term, at least, we must therefore face the possibility that EVD will become endemic among the human population of West Africa, a prospect that has never previously been contemplated. The risk of continued epidemic expansion and the prospect of endemic EVD in West Africa call for the most forceful implementation of present control measures and for the rapid development and deployment of new drugs and vaccines.

WHO Ebola Response Team

Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa — The First 9 Months of the Epidemic and Forward Projections

NEJM September 23, 2014

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411100

Full Free text, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411100?query=featured_home&#t=articleResults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

corrected section header. please don't claim that the "NEJM" concludes anything. NEJM is a journal; it published an article with an article by the WHO response team. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Section headings

Are not for trying to describe details content. This article is getting worse. We now have a section called: "Unrelated Ebola virus outbreak in Democratic Republic of the Congo" which should be simply "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and "Initial outbreak (December 2013-March 2014)" which should be simply "Initial outbreak" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback! Please refer to previous Talk sections about the relevance of "Unrelated". And I agree with you about the "initial" bit, but I'm not sure what the difference is between and "intial outbreak" and a "subsequent outbreak" so I'd merge them. As far as I know up to March it was not identified as ebola and therefore no effort was made to contain it. Feel free to edit, Doc! Robertpedley (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I changed the Congo section per Doc's suggestion but I changed the wording as well to state right off the bat that it is not related. I also cut back some copy as it is now a separate article. I'll go ahead and merge "Subsequent spread" as well as that seems to make sense. We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandy, I salute the time and effort you are putting into this. no problems. Robertpedley (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you Robert! You put in more than your share as well and I so appreciate to have you here to work with. So, should we move the Responses and then see what our article length does? Last I checked it was around 209 bytes.

BTW, Thanks to Doc for dropping by from time to time as well! Gandydancer (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think? Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1,500,000

Search for "the 1,500,000 cases" in the article. "the" falsely implies that 1,500,000 were previously mentioned; it does say 1.4 million. So I checked the reference to see which number is right. It says 1.4 million, but it doesn't say anything about most experts stating either number to be unlikely. Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The passage was removed, so my issue is Resolved – Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

.IS there any reason that the line "The same report predicted that total cases, including unreported cases, could reach 1.4 million in Liberia and Sierra Leone by 20 January 2015 if no improvement in intervention or community behaviour occurred. " was removed?Mattojgb (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK Mattojgb, here's the story. Each morning I pick a few sections to go through and this morning as I went through that section I noted the Global Language Monitor info (that I now note was added just a few minutes earlier). The ref brought me to their webpage and since your edit did not have a ref, I assumed that they had added their site to some CDC info to make it seem more credible. In other words, I thought that it might be spam and deleted the whole thing due to poor sourcing. Looking over the whole thing now, I see that you should have added your copy ahead of the CDC source. I had looked through the CDC source and could not find the 1.4 million number, but now on a second more through read, I found it. (I hope I've been able to make this clear...)

Now, about the CDC prediction... If it was written by anyone but the CDC I'd suggest that it did not meet RS and we should skip it. But since the CDC did put out such large figures I am wondering if we should not devote more space to it, perhaps in the data section of that prognosis heading. It is an interesting (and frightening) set of information. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

CDC have some kind of modelling tool, but strictly speaking this is extrapolation, not information. Worth a mention, but no more. Robertpedley (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The CDC report has some interesting information, which I would like to read in the article. For instance, how effective home care can be following the authors. It is comparably effective as hospitalization in stopping the epidemic (Hospital R₀ = 0.12, safe home or community care R₀ = 0.18, Home with no effective isolation R₀ = 1.8) See table 1 Calculated risk for onward transmission of Ebola, by patient category — EbolaResponse modeling tool, West Africa, 2014 --Malanoqa (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Malanoqa - a) The article you reference is called "Estimating the Future Number of Cases in the Ebola Epidemic — Liberia and Sierra Leone, 2014–2015" - it's not a report, it's a supplement to the weekly MMWR. b) There's no information in it. They make assumptions about the possible growth of the epidemic base on a number of hypothetical care scenarios. One of the hypothetical care scenarios has the full title "home or in a community setting such that there is a reduced risk for disease transmission (including safe burial when needed)", which you refer to. So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the population or the governments of Lib or SL are currently able to provide care in this form. The article does not say exactly how to provide care at home in a safe way (I wouldn't have a clue if one of my family came down with Ebola, God forbid, and I've got a biomedical qualification) - it's just a pipe dream. The significance of the article is that IF the public could be educated sufficiently then the BRN could reduce below 1 and the epidemic would eventually fizzle out. And therefore massive public education is one of the tools being used. Robertpedley (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I sure agree with the "pipe dream" bit. I've seen enough of government officials sitting around making plans for action that have nothing whatever to do with reality and what works and what does not work. A good part of our tax money goes into so-called studies that a third grader could have done a better job with. Yes, the "care at home" bit just made my eyes cross at how out of touch these guys are. I just read that it takes four suited workers to bury a person and then add to that more workers to completely spray them down...what, people in their homes are going to be spraying each other before they go to the market to buy food, etc.? But what I was interested in were the numbers using the figures (of the cases/deaths) that are coming out compared to the more realistic ones that are not, the probable actual numbers, and making a prediction using them. But, all in all, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or another, for now... Gandydancer (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Health care workers come much more often in contact with ebola patients. If they have a 6% chance of becoming infected each day, they will be infected with 95 percentage after after 10 days. That is inacceptable. If I care for a relative at home using simpler techniques to prevent contamination, my additional risk of becoming infected afterwards is following the authors nearly 6%. I would say many relatives like me would accept this risk as tolerable when caring their beloved ones. And as I understand it, the relatives do not need that highly sophisticated techniques like professional health workers. As long, as they do it only in a few cases. And I do not find this information (supposed it is correct) in the article. --Malanoqa (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The other information from the CDC article that I found interesting was the modelling seems to require a 70% effective isolation (hospital or home) to start bringing the epidemic under control, compared with 10%-20% effective isolation at present. But there are a lot of assumptions in these figures so i didn't think it worth including anything other than the predicted cases (which use many of the same assumptions). Mattojgb (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why no new data since Sept. 23?

For a while, updated illness and death totals were being provided every three days or so. Why has there been nothing new since Sept. 23? Paul Davidson (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paul Davidson i have new numbers for SL and Liberia but only numbers on Guinea for 25 so still waiting latest there. BrianGroen (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Gross under reporting in Sierra Leone

On 29 September DR. Sylvia Blyden elaborated on the questionable figures in Sierra Leone government report and confirmed they are grossly under reported. The figures indicate they have 2,000 laboratory confirmed cases, of which 432 survived. In addition their are only 540 cases of deaths. This left 1028 patient unaccounted for. In a press release she confirmed that of those the bulk passed away, before being admitted to a treatment center, and are therefor not tallied in the report. "The fact is that a few of these unaccounted-for numbers are currently admitted in Ebola centers but I can categorically state today that the vast majority of the 1,000 patients are already DEAD and lying in their graves. Yes, they are dead and buried! Hundreds of them!" According to her the former health minister of Sierra Leone and a representative of WHO gave the order that only confirmed cases who passed away in a treatment facility be recognized as a death from this disease. If these figures are taken into account the CFR in Sierra Leone is 70% and not 25.9% as per their government report of 28 September. Based on these figures the death toll in the epidemic region is actually over 4000, thus indicating a 25% under reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.74.192 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This evidence came to light after the under reporting of figures went viral . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.74.192 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the CDC projected that there would be 20,000 infected by today (September 30th), taking underreporting into account. Considering the amount that they scaled their numbers by and the fact that they published a projection, it seems like they had a pretty high certainty that the cases and deaths (overall) are 2.5 to 3-fold underreported. This information, and (unfortunately) other articles, will come out supporting that assumption. Snd0 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just goes to show how credible WHO figures are Former Health Minister Miatta Kargbo and former World Health Organisation Representative Dr. Jacob Mufunda, had ordered that ONLY DEATHS INSIDE CLINICAL FACILITIES were to be recognised as "confirmed deaths" to be announced. extract from this article41.13.100.66 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Medevacs

Talking about paring down the article, I think the section on medically evacuated cases is not relevant and it should be removed. Would anyone mind? Robertpedley (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Africa articles
• High-importance Africa articles
• C-Class Guinea articles
• High-importance Guinea articles
• WikiProject Guinea articles
• C-Class Liberia articles
• High-importance Liberia articles
• WikiProject Liberia articles
• C-Class Nigeria articles
• Low-importance Nigeria articles
• WikiProject Nigeria articles
• C-Class Sierra Leone articles
• High-importance Sierra Leone articles
• WikiProject Sierra Leone articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class virus articles
• Mid-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment