Ebola Outbreak in exponential growth

[klapse]

"He said the report showed that if approximately 70 percent of people infected with the virus are isolated in medical facilities or Ebola treatment units, the epidemic will begin to decrease and will eventually end."

The difficult part is getting ahead of the new infections curve. We will see if the recent surge in treatment facilities will be enough. Based on what I read, it will not be nearly enough...

 

[Orkekum]

*grabs popcorn*

 

[levi]

Mind that popcorn hasn't been infected with bat blood!

 

[ekianjo]

Ebola frightens people due to the high mortality rate. but it do not spread well at all...

the 5000 or so death we currently got is quite low compared to the 250 to 500k annual death of the regular Influenza...

yeah, but influenza is not bit enough to talk about it

 

[Mr_Loon]

Ebola cases could reach 1.4 million by 2015

LOL. Sounds like the SARS time, we're all going to die from it! Too bad nothing happened this way in the recent past, despite all the "apocalypse warnings".

You know, when you cry "wolf" the whole time, nobody cares anymore.

The sub headline gives a far better summary of the article : 'CDC releases Ebola mapping tool projecting 550,000 to 1.4 million cases if wide-scale containment efforts don’t continue'

Hopefully wide scale containment efforts will not only continue but actively increase.

It's not so much a case of 'we're all going to die' but, if containment fails / stops, the already limited health service of some of the world's poorest nations would be effectively destroyed. The disease may then become endemic, spread throughout the rest of the world's least developed nations with the associated increased risks of mutation.

From my perspective it's not so much crying wolf, more a barely adequate response to a genuine risk.

Meanwhile in the crazy world of fear and scaremongering : A lady going for a bike ride becomes global news

 

[ekianjo]

Can you guys now admit you were completely wrong about exponential growth?

 

[klapse]

Thankfully, my sources were wrong about exponential growth continuing in the future, according to the CDCs own numbers http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/case-counts.html

I wonder why new infections slowed down.

EDIT: Some graphs here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033 .

 

[WizardStan]

I wonder why new infections slowed down.

Because it's actually a really easy disease to control. It only transmits through infected fluids, and has pretty obvious symptoms. In a society where quarantine is possible it's pretty simple to halt and treat. Airborne viruses are the ones that are really troubling.

 

[ekianjo]

Thankfully, my sources were wrong about exponential growth continuing in the future, according to the CDCs own numbers http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/case-counts.html

I wonder why new infections slowed down.

EDIT: Some graphs here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033 .

We are VERY FAR from the 500 000 deaths planned by the CDC in January. Again this was just fear mongering, and I was clearly right to point so earlier.

Because you know, viruses mutate, and do not necessarily remain as infectious as they are initially, so extrapolations are stupid. Even the HIV is becoming less infectious than it was.

 

[WizardStan]

To be fair, they did say "if wide-scale containment efforts don’t continue"

As in they already knew everything was under control, they just needed to keep at it.

Which, yeah, is pretty blatant fear mongering. "This thing you're doing, keep doing it or millions... no, BILLIONS of people will die! YEAH!"

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

On one hand, it's somewhat true.  On the other hand it's job security as like anything out there.  Look at global warming .. someone is making billion on fear mongering

 

[Mr_Loon]

We are VERY FAR from the 500 000 deaths planned by the CDC in January. Again this was just fear mongering, and I was clearly right to point so earlier.

This was an entirely plausible worst case scenario.

It's easy to play the armchair iconoclast and doubt the expertise of the CDC after reading a few articles about the (entirely reasonable) response to SARS etc. The problem is most people have no real understanding of appropriate response to the RISK of communicable disease. From my perspective the CDC know their stuff and should be listened to when it comes to judging an appropriate response to Ebola.

 

[Klumpen]

There's a single solution for most problems including this one (be it the epidemic of a virus or of fear):

Stay away from people!

 

[ekianjo]

This was an entirely plausible worst case scenario.

LOL, yeah, as plausible as Independence Day or fear mongering movies like that.

DO NOT FORGET that their salaries/fundings are closely related to how much the make people believe we need them, so they are far from being independent in that sense. They clearly have all the interest in the world to make you believe everyone is going to die so that they can get tons of resources. 

That's what they do every couple of years, with close to NO DATA to justify their absurd predictions. They are as reliable as the weather forecast for next month. 

To be fair, they did say "if wide-scale containment efforts don’t continue"

And what kind of a stupid ass would not do anything while swarms of people are dying because of the virus ? That's such an absurd assumption in the first place I don't even know how much that speaks of the intelligence of the CDC guys in the first place.  

 

[Nintendo]

Good. No zombie apocalypse.

 

[Mr_Loon]

LOL, yeah, as plausible as Independence Day or fear mongering movies like that.   DO NOT FORGET that their salaries/fundings are closely related to how much the make people believe we need them, so they are far from being independent in that sense. They clearly have all the interest in the world to make you believe everyone is going to die so that they can get tons of resources.    That's what they do every couple of years, with close to NO DATA to justify their absurd predictions. They are as reliable as the weather forecast for next month.

I can understand your confusion, the CDC / WHO etc. are considering risk, where often there are limited / almost no reliable data available, this consideration is based upon collective expertise. When considering risk it is prudent to look at the worst case scenario. The problem is that the media / public have little understanding of risk or appropriate response to risk.


The media do have an interest in sensationalism / hyperbole (it sells papers / generates clicks) so we get from the CDC 'if wide scale containment does not continue then there could be 550K-1.4M fatalities' to a click bating headline of 'Ebola cases could reach 1.4 million by 2015' etc.


Think of it like this, if experts believe there is a 1% chance of the worst case scenario for a disease occurring and the financial impact if this did occur was $100 then spending $1 to mitigate this risk is a reasonable response. If this was done 20 times and on no occasion did the worst case scenario occur, this is not a waste of $20 but a prudent response to risk (as per insurance). The problem comes in when the media report that 'experts say the disease will end up costing $100' and then look back and say they were wrong 20 times, we've wasted $20.

If you can provide any statistical evidence / link to a credible article where the CDC / WHO etc have been shown to be scaremongering for things like Ebola / Sars I'd be very interested to read it.

And what kind of a stupid ass would not do anything while swarms of people are dying because of the virus ? That's such an absurd assumption in the first place I don't even know how much that speaks of the intelligence of the CDC guys in the first place.  

Sad to say that from my perspective, far from being absurd, to 'not do anything while swarms of people are dying' is pretty much the normal governmental response to problems in the poorest nations from the wealthy nations of the world.

 

[DaMummy]

this is how im reading much of this thread.

 

[ekianjo]

this is how im reading much of this thread.

I'll quote you:

No, go away!

 

[ekianjo]

The media do have an interest in sensationalism / hyperbole (it sells papers / generates clicks) so we get from the CDC 'if wide scale containment does not continue then there could be 550K-1.4M fatalities' to a click bating headline of 'Ebola cases could reach 1.4 million by 2015' etc.

No, the problem is not with the media, it's from the CDC/WHO in the first place, who are blatantly using the media to reach their political agenda. It has been abundantly clear during the H1N1 crisis when they basically recommended to purchases stocks of Tamiflu while absolutely no clinical data was available to prove any effect against it. Yup, that's the same guys who did that and wasted billions of taxpayers money, probably taking some kickbacks from Roche at the same time.

Once a party has a vested interest in getting something done their way, you should always ponder, "wait, is it a true risk, or are they making the risk look way bigger than it is to get what they want?". That's Manipulation 101.

Sorry to see nobody has learnt the lesson no matter how many times they pull off that trick. It always works.

Get ready for next year's new virus/bacteria/killer bee that's going to cost the life of billions of people. It's getting a little old by now.

 

[ekianjo]

Think of it like this, if experts believe there is a 1% chance of the worst case scenario for a disease occurring and the financial impact if this did occur was $100 then spending $1 to mitigate this risk is a reasonable response

There are a bunch of risks out there and it's not up to CDC/WHO to decide where all the resources should be allocated. There are many more people dying of war and other regular boring old illnesses that need funding instead of trying to stop an epidemic that can be mostly prevented by basic hygiene and washing hands.