Latest comment: 10 years ago76 comments14 people in discussion
As an informed layman it was not clear to me that this was a graph of total cases and not new cases. I'd like to see a little more explanatory text of precisely what measurements are depicted and I think a graph showing NEW cases per unit time in the manner of the daily cases graph on the talk page. Such a graph makes it more obvious how the outbreak is progressing. While total cases will only go up, the number of new cases will peak (perhaps already has) and begin to decline, giving a better graphic representation of the extent of the disease at any one time. Think of it like a population. The total historic population of even an extinct species cannot go down, but saying that the total historic population of dinosaurs is presently six make-a-guess-illion doesn't really help you understand that the current population is zero. (Depending a little on your cladistic definitions, of course.) The total number of cases in the outbreak thus far may well be a couple thousand, but how many people are suffering from the disease right now? (And how many were there yesterday and last week.) New cases isn't a precise measure of that, but at least it gives you an understanding of extent. (And I'd guess it's easier to measure.)
We had something a bit like that, averaging the number of cases between dates, but as it was derived from the data at hand (i.e. original research) it had to go. If you can find a reliable source providing the necessary data I'm sure it would make a re-appearance. -Oosh (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In the mean time I've updated the description text to "Cumulative totals of cases and deaths over time." Hopefully that's a little clearer. -Oosh (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Cases per day is not a very good metric because the number is small and has a lot of variance. In two days, the cases went up by 68 (34/day); three days later, cases were up by 69 (23/day). I hope that's a tapering off, but it might be due to randomness, the way cases are discovered, or even structural timing such as the weekend (more transportation delays; some labs closed or understaffed). The thing we want to see is a slowing growth in cases (such as around May 1) rather than the horrendous exponential since June 1.
In some ways, it would be better to show the trend on a semilog graph such as the one at right; it will also give more room for individual countries. The semilog plot shows exponential growth as a straight line and gives a better impression of the long term trend. The semilog plot, however, does not have the same impact as a linear plot. Glrx (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you're looking for, and agree that it is something that would be useful to have. But like Glrx indicates, the 'new cases per day' number jumps around so badly that you can't see any meaningful trend when it is plotted. Maybe if you plotted 'new cases in last three weeks' you might get something more meaningful. --Aflafla1 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion a good way to reach the point would be something like a 4-week relative value. I've been doing by mind to reach the real situation of the illness developement. Just an example, 6 AUG data is 1779 cases. This numer would be checked for 3 JUL wich is not official day, i have done an aritmethical media between closer days considering same infections for those days, doing this on 3rd July there were 773 affected, this is a groth of +130%. Doing the same for the 9th Aug the data would be 1848 affected for 816 on July 6th for a total increase of +126%. Doing this calculations for all the data we have we could reach much more closer how the outbreak is moving and would give much less moving info as if we take just the last infected data. Excuse my english i'm not native ilasamper (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (GMT+1)
Here's a CDC bar graph for earlier numbers that uses weekly averages. The graph is not very illuminating. Even summing 2 or 3 weeks does not look like it would help.
Although we can use various moving averages to smooth the data, it's not clear what such smoothed data means. Infection is something that by its nature has burst characteristics. A family member gets infected, theres some delay, and then 3 or 4 family members get infected.
Intriguingly, the graph can supply earlier Guinea numbers for cases for the weeks ending:
Jan 1, 2 = 2
Jan 8,
Jan 15,
Jan 22,
Jan 29, + 5 = 7
Feb 5, + 3 = 10
Feb 12, + 6 = 16
Feb 19, + 2 = 18
Feb 26, + 5 = 23
Mar 5, +18 = 41
Mar 12, +10 = 51
Mar 19, +33 = 86
Mar 26, +24 = 110
Apr 2, +35 = 145
Unfortunately, the data doesn't quite sync. The ending Mar 19 = 86, but 86 is Guinea cases for March 26 in the article. The ending March 26 = 110, but that does not match the article's Apr 2 value (which is 127). The Jun 18 total is 398, and that exactly matches the article's Jun 18 value. (I didn't total the 398.) The 528 number also matches Jun 18.
Nothing, WHO is 'numerically challanged'. Because of this you really can't take too much stock in their numbers. --Aflafla1 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't Agree, calculating the increase of the number of infected in % is not interpreting nothing, interpreting would be to give an opinion about the outbreak is going up or down, the interpretation would be done by readers. I would agree on the minimal manipulation necessary to reach the real data of non-official-data days, but it could be unnecessary also if we do not place numbers but just a grafic calculated over estimated points, and the numbers just for the real points.Ilasamper (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It is exactly the same manipulation we are doing at this moment on the graphic displayed. When we draw a line between 2 real points we are doing exactly the same i'm asking for here. If you don't agree to this then we should remove that line graphic and replace it by one representing data by dots Ilasamper (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I agree, in my opinion is a bit extreme, but your argumentation is reasonable. I'll try to find another way to represent how the infection is advancing without using any non-official data Ilasamper (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ilasamper here in that simple manipulations of data are not original research, as long as you're not interpreting what they mean. Calculating a % increase in a number over a previous one is not original research. WHO's numbers, though are pretty rough. They seem to be numerically challenged, unable to understand basic accounting. Hard to say how they reach their counts when the summing the 'number of new cases' doesn't add up, even closely, to the totals.--Aflafla1 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There are more issues than just WP:OR or WP:CALC or even WP:SYN. There's editorial judgment.
We have sources that provide data points. We can certainly plot those points (or make bar graphs). We can also plot the points on a semilog plane; that's manipulation, but it is a common practice for presenting data. Such a plot helps show a linear trend line for an exponential function.
There's an issue about whether we can connect (interpolate) successive points with a line. I don't exactly love the practice because it is a continuous represention of a discrete process (a person is either infected or not). When the numbers get large, the effect is small, discrete processes begin to look continuous, and there is little harm. But how large is large? When we start looking at day-to-day changes, the numbers are still small.
Instead of a piecewise linear fit, there may be some better trend lines to use. I think it is WP:CALC to make a least-squares fit of a function to a set of points. The problem is choosing which function to fit. There are plenty of functions out there, and nobody is telling us a good one. We could choose a bunch of functions, perform the fits, and select one based on its degrees of freedom and reduced chisquare. Maybe we can fit a simple function, but better fits are probably WP:OR; we'd be exercising our judgment.
There are some simple calculations that could be done. A percentage increase over the previous value is simple enough to do. The problem is that when we do it, we get a number that jumps around and does not provide any significant insight. I would use editorial judgment to exclude such numbers rather than OR or SYN. There might be a better simple calculation, but point-to-point calculations will be noisy because the numbers are small.
A moving average is also a simple calculation, but then we get into the same function trouble: which moving average should be used? If some RS on diseases told us a resonable calculation to make, then we might be able to do that calculation without treading too hard on WP:SYN.
To me, the real bottom line is whether the plot or calculation provides something reasonable. If it doesn't look reasonable, then we should not put it in.
This would be the data. Consider it and decide. In my opinion gives a lot of information. ANd working by countries more... would also avoid initial info because until spread reaches al least around 100 infections data appears to be superbig, and it's not realistic
The problem is that when we do it, we get a number that jumps around and does not provide any significant insight. — User:Glrx
This is not a problem. There is no reason not to show the noisy cases per day graph, and no reason to try to smooth it out. I agree that any sort of smoothing would be WP:OR while a simple calculation of cases per day would not. I strongly disagree that the noise inherent in the data decreases its insightfulness. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I also see no problem with connecting the dots (piecewise linear). I prefer the piecewise linear plot, but I would be ok with a scatter plot. I propose we add this plot back to the article. For reference, there is some discussion higher on the page at Talk:2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak#Trend.2FFit_line. The author of the graph has been good about updating it, and has indicated that he is willing to make changes.--Taylornate (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have any "cases per day" data, what we have is overall figures updated every few days, it is a routine calculation but the resultant number would be an average and that would need to made clear. -Oosh (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Would changing to a scatter plot clear that up from your view? What else would you propose? Personally, I don't see what is unclear. Cases per day is number of cases divided by number of days. It is explicitly clear and does not imply that there is one data point per day. I wouldn't be opposed to some explanatory text as a figure caption, or to changing to a scatter. Anyway, I'm going to put it back in for now. We can continue to discuss and make improvements, but I don't see how any of this discussion implies that there are such egregious problems that it should stay out of the article for now. Looking at previous discussion, it was removed for reasons that have since been resolved.--Taylornate (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We may be able to come to a compromise position... please don't jeopardise that by jumping the gun and acting unilaterally. Let's get this right. -Oosh (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the objection is totally without merit. It is a narrow objection because the resulting plot may not reflect the actual cases per day. I'm sympathetic to the objection, but I'm willing to accept simple averages. Glrx (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Dismissive? You are the one being dismissive of this chart. You removed it because it contained a trend line that violated WP:OR. I agree with that reasoning, but the WP:OR trend line has been removed. So I added it back, with an edit summary stating that the WP:OR issue has been resolved.[2] You reverted me, stating that it has not been resolved.[3] So please tell me, what is the WP:OR issue with the current chart, or what other policy reason do you have for removing it now? I'm happy to continue to discuss and to compromise on specific details of the chart, but we can do that with the chart in place. If you remove it again, please back your reasoning with policy.--Taylornate (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There are many issues being addressed here. There's whether an average is appropriate (OR v CALC), the level of disclosure such a graph should make ("but the resultant number would be an average and that would need to made clear"), the appropriate presentation (scatter, piecewise linear, bar), and whether the graph is appropriate to include. I think there is consensus that providing a cases-per-day graph would be permissible, but some issues still remain as evidenced in the discussion below. We are in the discussion stage of WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose insertion of the cases per day graph. It has lots of noise and little insight. Even if I were to support its inclusion, then I'd want it in the form of a bar chart where the width of the bars varied to show the number of days for the data point and the area represented the new cases. Glrx (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you please explain why you think the chart is not insightful and what the noise has to do with that? I don't understand at all.--Taylornate (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated above, there's a lot of variance in the data. That variance is due to randomness and other factors (e.g., timing, discovery, diagnosis, or political whims). If we were to discuss the national economy, a detailed look at a day-to-day stock market index would not provide a lot of insight. The long-term trend is important. If someone looks at the current plot, he will wonder what happened around Aug 1. The chaotic jumps (noise) have too much impact. Glrx (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have two separate but related points. First, people are good at pattern recognition. The average reader should have no trouble looking at this plot and recognizing the overall trends. Second, the scenario you describe will still happen without the chart, as people look at the new rows in the table coming in, and new points added to the cumulative chart. The cases per day chart won't make this worse, rather, it will help by providing context. Without the chart, someone looking at the table (and cumulative chart) when the August 1st data point came out may wonder what happened, just as you say. The cases per day chart in this scenario would show the reader that the data is noisy and that this spike may be a nonsignificant outlier. To put it another way, the noise is absolutely present in the table and cumulative chart, and the cases per day chart helps people understand it. Attempting to hide the noise just causes more confusion.--Taylornate (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well put, Taylornate — I strongly agree. Long-term trends and short-term randomness are the two most-important aspects of any time series, and a straightforward graph is usually the quickest way for people to see both aspects in perspective. —Patrug (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Conditional support While I'm inclined to agree re: its (lack of) utility to the article, I'm not fundamentally opposed to its inclusion, provided it's done right. Not sure about the bar graph but I think we can hash out the details of how best to represent it BEFORE it's re-included within the article. -Oosh (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Conditional support.
Cumulative totals of cases and deaths over time (Linear scale)Cumulative totals of cases and deaths over time (Log scale)Average new cases and deaths per day (Linear scale)
In the cited source (Disease Outbreak News), WHO itself is beginning each report with a sentence like: "Between 7 and 9 August 2014, a total of 69 new cases of Ebola virus disease as well as 52 deaths were reported." Surely it's a routine calculation to compute "Average Cases Per Day" and "Average Deaths Per Day" by dividing WHO's "new" reports by the number of included days. WHO and SymphonicPoet are correct that this is important and useful information. Oosh is correct that any numerical smoothing would be inappropriate original research. Taylornate is correct that the jumpiness is an important part of the data. Glrx is correct that each WHO average must be displayed for the corresponding number of days, whether it's a line graph or bar graph, so that the visual impact of 1-day averages and 9-day averages will be proportional. The simplest solution might be to repeat each average for each of the included dates. For example, the sentence that I just quoted from the WHO source could be graphed as (69÷3=) 23.0 "Average Cases Per Day" for 7 August and 8 August and 9 August. (Note that we could occasionally see negative averages, if the removal of suspected cases ever outnumbers new patients.) I would also recommend including the Cumulative graph twice, once with the linear vertical axis (which emphasizes how fast the number of cases is increasing), as we've been showing, and once with a logarithmic vertical axis (which emphasizes the proportional growth rate), as Aflafla1 helpfully plotted near the beginning of this section. The Timeline table is already large enough that there's plenty of space for displaying three thumbnail graphs to the right of the table: Cumulative (linear), Cumulative (log), and Average Per Day (linear). See what you think. —Patrug (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I support your proposal of having all three graphs, as they each provide their own insight. I'm undecided on how best to represent the cases per day. I think a scatter plot would be best, as a bar graph may be sort of clunky and harder to interpret visually. Though, I do understand the need to give weight based on the number of days. I oppose the idea of repeating data points, but maybe we could have heavier-looking data points for more days averaged, or have horizontal wings come out from each point.--Taylornate (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm realizing that my idea with the horizontal wings on a scatter plot is quite similar to a bar graph, except that only the tops of the bars are included. Could be a good compromise--It seems to be the best of both worlds.--Taylornate (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that could work well. Regarding your use of the word average in the caption--I'm not going to revert it because I appreciate the compromise, but I don't think it is appropriate. To me, it implies that multiple data points have been averaged together, which is not the case. The units (cases per day) unambiguously explain that each data point total would be divided by number of days. Any specific frequency of data points is not implied by these units. Actually, as I think more about it, I'm not 100% sure it is inappropriate, either. I'd like to hear other people's view on this, preferably from those with backgrounds in statistics.--Taylornate (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
After a long career in applied statistics (yes, you smoked me out), unfortunately I'm sure many casual readers assume that "cases per day" would represent an exact day-by-day count, rather than the result of a division. Even though the word "average" might not be strictly necessary, it helps reduce misunderstanding, so let's keep it as we continue to tweak the phrasing. However, the current graph still gives "undue weight" to WHO's shorter versus longer reporting periods. In choosing an appropriate graph format to convey the number of days represented by each data point, ideally we should try to keep it simple enough that multiple editors could update it without difficulty. Would this be true of your proposed bubble charts, or points with horizontal wings? If so, can someone post sample graphs of the WHO data in these formats, to see if they're visually better than simple line or bar graphs with repeated values? —Patrug (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Conditional support.
Same reasoning as for Oosh. As for the inclusion of the log plot, Glrx mentioned above a drawback, it doesn't have the impact of a linear plot, and I agree. But it does support that the growth in the last couple of months is exponential. I'm on the fence with it's inclusion, and leave it up to the community to decide whether or not it should be included. --Aflafla1 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, one can fit a line to the data from end of May to present, and calculate the equation for the cumulative number of cases. Take the derivative of this and you get a good idea of the number of cases per day. (Turns out to be close to 50 presently, if you assume that the exponential growth rate is still continuing.) --Aflafla1 (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The observation from a log plot would not be cases per day but rather a ratio per unit time. Right now, the plot shows the cases are doubling every month (table above showing about 100 percent every 4 weeks). That would be a slope (increase) of 2.3 percent per day: 1.02330 = 2. Glrx (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, finally you added a graph. In my opinion this graph gives the same info as the cumulative one, and drives to confusion. Having a 100 new infected when the previous day they were 1000 is much worse than having 1000 when the previous day were 100000. We can't forget that the more agents infected there are, the most easy to cause more infections, so the real data to know the evolution of the spread is not the absolute number of infected but the relative. I really don't care if you want to add as the las 4 weeks as i placed before because its more stable o just add the easiest one, the refered to the previous info (11AUG would be 3,44% more infected per day than the 9 AUG) This would be real info about the spread and would allow people to realise if Ebola is spreading or fading. Ilasamper (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ilasamper, a decrease in the percentage growth rate would indeed be welcome news. But Ebola won't be "fading" until the "absolute number" of new daily cases eventually trends downward, and the graph starts to become a bell curve. Almost everyone would say that 1000 cases per day are "worse" than 100, contrary to your argument. If new cases had a "relative" slowdown to a steady 1% per day, Ebola would still be "spreading", and still with exponential growth.
Glrx, I was also thinking about the doubling time, and that it might be a simple, intuitive, and powerful item to include in the Timeline text of the article. Not a statistical fit (original research), but pure lookups from the WHO table and routine calculations of time intervals, with an academic citation confirming the concept — maybe a sentence like this:
Note that, as the WHO death toll rose past 80 (1 April) and 160 (5 May) and 320 (18 June) and 640 (20 July), each of these doublings occurred in 5 or 6 weeks, characteristic of an epidemic's exponential growth phase.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/tracking-the-virus/ |title=Battling Ebola: Tracking the Virus |last=Seligson |first=Susan |publisher=Boston University |date=6 August 2014 |accessdate=15 August 2014}}</ref>
What do you think? Meanwhile, great if someone is able to build & post a Log version of the Cumulative graph, matching the format of the Linear version as closely as possible, as the simplest way to graph the proportional growth that Ilasamper sensibly wants to convey. —Patrug (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A log plot is available. See above right. The trace colors are chosen to match the colors on the column headings in the article. Changing the one to red would be no problem. Eliminating background shade altogether also not a problem. One thing though: the graph contradicts what Susan Seligson states. An initial exponential growth segment (ending about mid April) showed much higher growth rate than 6 week doubling time. The later section (since end of May) shows a doubling time of a bit less than a month, also less than the 6 week doubling time she states. And between - it wasn't exponential at all. --Aflafla1 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Patrug, I agree, a doubling rate would be enough to show much more realisticly how the spread is evolving, i look at the cumulative or daily infections and I see it both exponential, and this could be too "scary" for readers. Having a Doubling time that mantains Stable will show much more clearly that the spread is not completelly "out of control" or if it is, WHERE it is will be much more clear to be seen than the other 2 graphs. This data makes real differences for each of the 3 affected countries. People should be ase Scared in Liberia than in Guinea Ilasamper (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Semilog graphs
Ive uploaded a scatter and line-conected version of the graph. I want to upgrade it a little by tightening the margins, but please let me know if you think this row-style graph is Ok or single files are better. I´m more on the line-connected version of the graphs, its much more visual.
Cases, cases in log scale and cases per day of the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Using scatter plotCases, cases in log scale and cases per day of the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Using line conected plot.
And this is the semiLog plot:
Evolution of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in semiLog plot.
I think your row form display is too small. It also aligns the ordinates, but the ordinate scales are different. A column display would match the meaningful axis.
I did a scatter logplot of totals and countries yesterday. I give it below and put the linear display in column below to match abscissas. There's no legend for the countries, but Guinea (green), Liberia (blue), Sierra Leone (yellow), and Nigeria (pink). It looks like Guinea and Liberia had control for awhile, but then it got away. Sierra Leone never had control. Nigeria looks like it has control.
I thought it would be less confusing that it is; many points cover other points. Converting it to a line plot would make it less busy and possibly easier to follow. It has the problem that the low end of my log scale is a single case.
The data errors are troubling, but the difference is large only for 18 and 24 June.
I agree, the line-connected charts are more visually appealing and easier to read, and to me this outweighs the arguments against it, which I think are overblown. The scatter plot of cases per day is especially difficult to read.
I think separate files arranged vertically on the page is the way to go. Vertical will fit better next to the table, and separate so they can each have their own figure text.--Taylornate (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Scatter plots look fine to me. As you say any crowding on per country one can be alleviated by using separate charts, if the axes ranges are kept the same they're still easily comparable.
But if despite that any of it remains a bit of a mess I don't think that's a problem, it is instructional in the way it highlights the state of the underlying data, case in point (which I've added by way of example on the right) is a plot of results from opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum.
example of a graph for the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak
What about just using a scatter plot but adding a trendline with the r-squared values? I'd hope that's not considered "original research." It's representing the data in a clear way. Snd0 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Trendlines were discussed above; it's not clear that we should add them. Reporting R2 values does not fix the problem. How are the point variances chosen? Which function should be used for the fit? How many degrees of freedom should be used? Glrx (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite there being disagreement on the optimal formatting of these charts I would suggest including the total cases semilog chart in the main article asap. This is the most pertinent chart for visualising the progression by eye given its exponential nature, the line connected chart is most consistent with the charts already in the main article so woudl be tempted to start with that. Nanoblade (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree, the semi-log format seems a necessary addition. (Many people will need the linear but those interested in identifying turning points will be much better served with the semi-log format). I suggest at the moment the best would be to have the existing linear plots showing cumulative and daily cases & deaths. But to add a semi-log of cases (without deaths) identified by country. This is something I did last night quickly in Excel. I'm sure it doesn't conform to wikipedia standards but guessing someone else will have a way to replicate this and tidy it up.
Plotting the different countries separately highlights that countries have different characteristic exponential rates of infection - something that is not at all obvious on linear graphs. Compare slope of cases for Guinea vs Liberia. Why they are different is an interesting question to ponder. It might just be delayed reporting - the cases existed but weren't known or reported during earlier stages, or it might be dramatically different social processes having an impact on infection rates.
|Semilog Plot of Ebola outbreak from data on Wikipedia page as of 28-Aug-2014.
Cases per day and Deaths per day graphs are both still wrong. They should be bar graphs. For example, look at the highest peak of "Deaths per day". It's plotted as 60.5 deaths on Aug 18th and it slopes downwards on both sides -- as though on the preceding day, and on the following day, there were fewer deaths. That's absolutely false! The WHO reported 121 new deaths for the two-day interval of Aug 17-18. That gives 60.5 deaths for each day if you want to average it: Aug 17th and Aug 18th. The graph shows that number, 60.5, but it fails to plot it on each of the 2 days! Instead, it's shown for just one day! Those sharp peaks should **all** be histogram bars, and both Aug 17 and Aug 18 should be plotted as having 60.5 deaths each, if you want to average it. The way it is now is terrible! KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any references that show this is inappropriate, or is it only your opinion? I think you are incorrectly inferring things that are not implied by this type of plot. They are just lines connecting each data point, to make it easier to follow them. The idea that the data between samples is following the line is not implied.--Taylornate (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it only my opinion? Is 2 + 2 = 4 an opinion? The current graph shows neither the official data (121 deaths for Aug 17-18) nor that the data covers a two-day period. There's no way to infer **anything** correct from that graph. There *is* a proper way of presenting the official WHO data (see "Liberia New Ebola Cases" on the right for an example of what I mean). Putting lines to connect the peaks would only make a mess of the chart.
I forgot to add the month names. The graph begins with Jul 2 and ends with Aug 20. The numbers above each column are the official WHO numbers for new cases for the corresponding intervals. Those numbers also refer to the **area** of each column. No "cases per day" written nor implied. We don't really *have* data for cases per day. Anything we calculated would be *average* cases per day -- not nessarily true cases per day for the desired day. We shouldn't make those calculations.
Liberia New Ebola Cases from Jul 2 to Aug 20, 2014
Again, each *area* represents the number of new cases over the official interval. That's **exactly** the data WHO provided. Nothing more. No cases per day. The numbers don't represent the *height* of the columns, but the *area* -- as would be the case with bubbles. The second column from the left, 11, is taller than the leftmost, 16. But those numbers represent the areas and are the official WHO numbers over the shown interval. The height *does* represent an average case per day value but **let the reader figure it out** if they want -- since the result would not be official WHO numbers anyway, only a calculated average.
Notice there's *no* Y axis. There should not be a Y axis with graduations. The number of new cases for the interval is represented by the **area** in the bar, not the height of the bar. The *height* must remain basically unmeasured, unlabeled. Therefore, no Y axis at all. A Y axis would only tempt people to try to eyeball the height of the bar, to work out cases per day. We don't want that. We don't want people to eyeball the height. We're not offering calculations nor average cases per day. No Y axis. It's the **areas** which represent the number of deaths, not the heights. That's all. Though the height *does* represent case per day but since they're not official numbers, we don't calculate it for the reader. We provide the interval and the total for that interval. Those are the official WHO numbers. Let the reader make their own assumptions. We provide just the exact WHO data.
I know it's a reflex that we have to ask where the Y axis is and what does the height represent. Too bad. Bubbles don't have Y axes. We're not plotting heights, we're plotting **areas** so we don't provide a measure for the heights -- though they are correctly represented. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
One final thing. Instead of putting the numbers *above* each column, as I did for this example, we could put them **inside** each column. This could help convey that the numbers represent the *area* rather than the height. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Cases and deaths per day is the relevant information that people want to know. Deliberately obscuring this would be incredibly counter-productive. All I see here is a bunch of opinions stated as facts.--Taylornate (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Cases and deaths per day is the relevant information that people want to know." Then here's an opinion of mine: you don't **have** that information. Oops, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Here's another opinion of mine: you performed a calculation to produce your so-called cases/deaths per day. Oops, that too is not an opinion, it's a fact. Here's another opinion: what you calculated is not a cases/deaths per day, it's a cases/deaths per day **averaged over the interval reported on by the WHO**. Oops again! That's also not an opinion. It's a fact. Yet none of these facts are stated. They are "deliberately obscured", as you say. Furthermore, when data says 20 deaths over 2 days, there isn't just *averaging* which can be performed. If the previous 2-day interval had zero deaths, and if the following 2-day interval had 40 deaths, then the 20 death 2-day interval between the two could be distributed as 7 deaths on the first day and 13 on the next. That's a more sophisticated way of distributing the 20 for the interval but distributes it in accordance with the numbers on *each side* of the interval. This type of distribution of data over intervals is an active area of algorithm research. So, again, *averaging* over an interval is **not** the only way to proceed, it's the least sophisticated way, and you **should** clearly write that you *did* choose to proceed with averaging.
If you insist on presenting averages of cases/deaths per day, your Y axis should clearly state ***average # of cases/deaths per day over reported interval** or **cases/deaths per day averaged over reported interval**, or something similar. Now **that's** an opinion this time: that you should be transparent and honest, rather than creating the illusion of having daily numbers that you don't truly have and that the WHO never provided, and which could actually be distributed in more sophisticated ways than simple averaging.
Finally, after having clearly named your graph and clearly labelled your Y axis, you should plot it as a bar chart. Each bar should clearly span its proper interval. The only difference with the graph example I provided above is that you would emphasize the *heights* of the columns -- by providing a Y axis, removing my new-case number labels, and perhaps replacing my labels with your own **average cases/deaths per day** number labels. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
For someone who claims to value transparency, you sure do modify your posts a lot (On Wikipedia, this is somewhat discouraged). I'm not necessarily all that opposed to the histogram if most people prefer it and it is labelled as average cases per day rather than cases per reporting period. Consensus has been that this simple calculation is allowable.--Taylornate (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am getting close to the conclusion that the variations in plotting (if not the provenance of the data) are beginning to not just smell like OR. Juan Riley (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you be more specific with your concerns? Many of the proposed plots would certainly have violated WP:OR, but I think the current plots as well as the histogram would be compliant.--Taylornate (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Answer these questions yourself: Most innocuously, are the cumulative data being plotted in some open source (without manipulations)? Is inventing a workable way of estimating daily average cases/death from this data not OR? Should I go on? Juan Riley (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
look, I admire the work that went into this but...look at the notes to the data table. Are those not indicative of OR? Perhaps good OR..but OR nonetheless? Juan Riley (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of everyone ganging up on me, I am going to boldly delete the "average cases per day" plot. I think such a plot is quite informative but it must be based on secondary sources (and methods) that are referenced. Juan Riley (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that raw tabulated data and/or plots from another source would completely clear up the issue. However, I believe the WHO material is copyrighted..unlike the CDC. I'd like to find out otherwsie..however. Juan Riley (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Taylornate --> "For someone who claims to value transparency, you sure do modify your posts a lot" -- I'm an ignorant newbie here. I had no time for this, when my disagreement with the graphs came up. I still don't know how to properly format and enter my comments here. Secondly, modifying one's own posts, when nobody has yet responded to them, is not anti-transparency. What kind of *truth* would I be hiding? (You labelled everything I said as opinion anyway.) KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Taylornate --> "I'm not necessarily all that opposed to the histogram ... labelled as average cases per day rather than cases per reporting period." A histogram could provide it all. Look at my latest example on the right here. Avg new cases per day - with cases per interval You get your Y axis of average # of cases per day, per interval, and the corresponding correct column heights (slight inaccuracies in this quick handmade version, though). I get columns of the correct interval widths, and correct areas corresponding to actual reported # of new cases per interval. You can have horizontal grid lines to help eyeball the avg # of cases per day from the graph. My own labels, in red, of the actual reported # of new cases for each column/interval, could also be present to make the graph even more informative, or left out. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Example of two ways to distribute data reported in two-day intervalsTaylornate --> "Consensus has been that this simple calculation is allowable." Calculating averages is allowable *if* it's properly identified. Calculating averages is only one way out of many, and also the *least* sophisticated way, to distribute numbers in a reporting period. A more sophisticated way looks at the *neighboring* reporting periods and distributes the numbers in such a way as to smoothly join the neighbors. Take a look at the histograms on the right. Each column represents a 2-day interval. The data comes as follows: 10 cases during the first 2-day interval, 20 cases during the next 2-day interval, and 30 cases in the final interval. Focusing on the middle columns, you can see two ways to distribute its 20 cases: on the left, a single column with a height corresponding to the average cases per day (10) ; and on the right, a more sophisticated distribution of the 20 cases -- assigning 8 cases on the first day of the interval and 12 cases on the second day. This more sophisticated distribution is likely to be closer to the truth. But if you prefer plotting an average instead, like on the left, then you must *at least* label it that way: **average** cases per day over interval. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Snd0 --> "I'm reverting. There has been significant discussion of this, and consensus has been that this is a routine calculation permitted under WP:CALC" It is impermissible to **mislabel** an axis. "Cases/deaths per day" falsely implies those numbers are *WHO reported numbers* rather than *created numbers*. The correct label is "Average Cases/deaths per day per reporting period/interval" (or something similar). KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The axis need only be labelled with the units. Cases per day is the correct units. The averaging is explained in the figure text exactly how you are saying you want it.--Taylornate (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Good for that but the plotting is still problematic. When the average cases per day is 127.6 over 5 days (which is exactly the case for the data of Aug 31), that 127.6 should be plotted for each of those 5 days. Plotting it on just one day forces you to choose which day to use and to explain/justify it in some text. Which day did you choose to plot on? Is it the the last of the five? The first? The middle one? Your choice is completely creative, arbitrary, not a natural or conventional one, and so must be explained, since there are five days for which that 127.6 actually applies. The only option which would require no explanation is to plot 127.6 for each of the 5 days. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Support replacing the current cases/deaths per day graph with a bar chart/histogram type graph. Primarily this is because I believe the area under the graph should represent total cases/deaths. I don't see that is the case for the current version. Presenting the data this way also seems to be a more accurate reflection of the data on which the chart is based and less open to OR criticism. Not fussed about the inclusion (or not) of a Y-axis. Mattojgb (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ebola in West Africa: New Cases per day (evenly distributed per reported period)
Mattojgb --> "I believe the area under the graph should represent total cases/deaths." That's correct. The area under the graph should equate to total cases/deaths. Currently, it doesn't at all. The way to fix it is to use columns (a histogram) where the averaged cases/deaths per day are plotted for each day, as in the example on the right. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Funerary practices as sources of transmission
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Opening section has a "citation needed" tag for the phrase sentence "Other factors include belief in – and reliance on – traditional folk remedies, magical beliefs, and cultural practices that predispose to physical contact with the deceased, especially death customs such as washing the body of the deceased." Due to the article's semi-protected status, I cannot add citations directly, but I can put a few sources here:
OK, I can take some of the blame here, not that I've ever seen a problem because according to WP lead guidelines, uncontroversial statements in the lead need not be sourced. I wrote that lead section based on info from the Containment difficulties section but then another editor came along and added a lengthy addition to it, so, for instance "magical thinking" and "folk remedies" were, if I remember correctly, his/her words (the addition was too detailed for the lead and I shortened what s/he put in). But according to the editor that added all those "citation needed" requests, Ebola is not at all contagious so they are all controversial statements. Go figure. At any rate, I will try to help with the refs. Gandydancer (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Timeline of the outbreak Table
Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
The table in the timeline is a mess now. It seems to have too much info, plus some death and case totals have been deleted. All that really is needed is the WHO case/death totals for the countries in the different updates. A line or two at the bottom to inform people of any other information (like that some totals do not match or that some cases were reclassified, etc) would be cleaner. Rump1234 (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Although the table looks authoritative, it is far from it. The data is full of errors, unsourced, and some of it may be WP:SYN. Many numbers do not match the sources and do not have an explanation. Many of the notes I added show that the table fails WP:V. The data in the table needs to be fixed. Look at March 25 and 26; it looks like those rows can be fixed by just correcting some counts and sums. Jun 18 and 24 are harder; the WHO text gives some guidance for SL; the refs may provide enough to calculate better numbers from interval changes.
Right now, there is no short answer to describe what is wrong with the data. Some of the dates are wildly off. Some of the data looks wrong. It's not clear right now. The standard way to deal with confusion is placing {{cn}} on the suspects; if it isn't dealt with, then the text/data is eventually removed.
I've essentially been doing that. Instead of just tagging, I'm adding the citations to show from where the data came. I'm also finding a lot of bad or suspect data. The dates are also poorly tied to the data.
I have not deleted any numbers, but I have gone through all the WHO reports in DON. I uncovered some reports that were not used, and that resulted in several new lines.
The data is only clear after 1 July.
In general, Guinea was reporting totals all the time, and that data seems reasonably stable. WHO was reporting no change since day X for other numbers.
In large part, the table became ugly when auto sizing decided to make the data columns larger than they needed to be. I'm sure there is a way to shrink the fields to make the table pretty, but I'm not interested in pretty right now.
The notes should be left in for a few days at least. Then there can be a debate about moving the data to another page, stuffing details into footnotes (possibly a special section), or employing some other method.
However, before I go changing numbers in the table, I want the reasonableness of those changes discussed on the talk page. There have been many reasonable discussions in the sections above -- and some editors have remarked about problems with the table's data.
I as a start think altering the date field from "reported" to "as of" would be more accurate and go a long way to cleaning of the ref field. -Oosh (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "as of" dates make a lot more sense. The problem is what to do when a single report has several "as of" dates. I propose a narrow narrow view there because we don't know the actual value at that date. Put each "as of" date is a separate row and leave the columns for countries that don't have data for that date blank. Each ref used in multiple rows can get a name="DON 2014-xx-xx". Glrx (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Although style-wise I think I'd rather have an em dash in the blank fields to indicate they've been intentionally left so. -Oosh (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Totals
Generally, the totals are interesting, but they were only included in WHO reports starting 1 July 2014. That means that all the earlier totals are calculations done by us. I propose we keep the totals, but make the totals be the sums across the row. Blank entries would use the first number below. Then we can delete many of the warnings at the bottom of the table. Glrx (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've worked my way through most of the table, but there are several spots that the data are confusing. The row for 29 March is troublesome, and I'd like some other editors to look at it. A couple days earlier, there were 8 suspected cases with 6 deaths. By 29 March, 7 suspected cases were tested, and 5 were negative for Ebola. That should drop cases to 3 (= 8 - 5). Following report is back to 8, but it might using cases that were negative. Deaths are similarly confused. Glrx (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
30 April deleted.. no source found. Updated 1 and 2 may (as of date ) reports. Cumulative Totals in 2 may is calculated on 2 May Who report BrianGroen (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted BrianGroen's edit because it confused reporting dates from the WHO source.
The GN numbers are quoted in the CDC source. CDC apparently is looking at official GN reports, so I left it. I replaced CDC numbers for LR and SL with "—" because CDC apparently bases its number on WHO reports. Glrx (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
10 Jun
I'm tempted to put emdashs in LI and SL. Its ref is CDC, but the CDC report is based on numbers from GU and from WHO. The GU numbers look OK, LI don't quite match, and SL numbers match but could be stale. Glrx (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced CDC numbers for LR and SL with "—" because CDC apparently bases its number on WHO reports. Glrx (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
20 June Sierra Leone
Here some cumulative totals are given, but they don't match the deltas for the neighbors. I don't know what is happening. Any ideas? Glrx (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
New Data but not from WHO
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Better to use the Sept 6 WHO source that specifically excludes Liberia Sept 6th numbers, while keeping the erroneous Sept 5th number as if 300 new cases came in a single day. Whoever is in charge of the Timeline section keeps putting up wrong information.
Blehair (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why are IP editors locked out of helping? No evidence of problems. 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.211.131 (talk)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The primary sources for the cases and deaths are taken from the affected countries' own daily Sit-Rep updates. It is factually wrong to attribute the Aug 24th numbers as Aug 26th, and mostly Sept 3rd numbers as Sept 5th. How else do you explain how the WHO reported Sept 5th numbers during Sept 5th, before any Sept 5th updates were released? The WHO clearly does not always intend "as of (date)" to include that particular date, but, rather, as of reports released by that date.
I go into detail regarding the Aug 26th numbers under the section regarding the Aug 28th WHO update with the primary sources. The primary sources refute what the timeline is saying as of Aug 26th and Sept 5th. Even on the Roadmap 2, which is the source for the Sept 5th number, they include the number of cases per week. Simple math points out the impossibility of the Aug 26th numbers with respect to the accurately labeled Aug 31st numbers.
In short, those 2 rows should be eliminated, or the timeline section should consider supplementing WHO sources with the primary sources from the Health Ministries themselves.
UN has reported figures from the Ministry of Health (same source for WHO figures) of the 3 major affected countries as of Sept 6th, corresponding with figures released directly from the ministries. There were 4354 cases as of Sept 6th. Obviously there were not nearly 400 new cases from Sept 5th so please remove Sept 5th and Aug 26th figures.
Blehair (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
From my modeling of the ebola number of cases. The data for 5th Sep 2014 is rubbish as it does not fit into the model at all. Where as the data for 6th Sep 2014 is compatible with the model. This indicates the 5th Sep 2014 data is either outdated or inaccurate. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the data from Sep 5 should be avoided is nonsense and belongs to some report, probably non-updated to Sept 5.
Is not in the graph. Let me know if you think it should be inlcuded.--Leopoldo Martin R (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
With regards to 5 September figures it is not unlikely that the results might have jumped drastically in one day, but since it is not stated as off, but rather as at this figures could be called into question.My opinion on this result might have been hastily drawn up by WHO in the Geneva meeting and it is likely that the date is incorrect. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Common Reservoir?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes, it is pretty well documented that bats are the common reservoir and that they carry several species of the Ebola virus. It can be difficult to understand why this outbreak is not considered to be related to past outbreaks. Reading the main article and the virus article may help. I added a illustration that may help as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Data definition
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the exact definition of cases and of death?
For example, on the 6 July the cases in Guinea decreases from 412 to 408, indicating this number is the number of person currently ill. Is this number, the number of the previous period plus the number of new cases minus the number of recoveries minus the number of death? A number that, everybody hope, will eventually goes down to zero.
While the number of death seams to be the cumulative number of death. A number that increase and, at best, will become stationary (horizontal).
Nope, a case is a person who is suspected, probably or laboratory confirmed infected with ebola, including all deaths. The decrease you mentioned is caused by the fact, that a suspected or probable case can be confirmed by laboratory to be not ebola, and is therefore subtracted from the number of cases. --Halbarath (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Under the Timeline section, change 26 Aug 2014 to 24 Aug 2014 because the report cited doesn't actually specify the time period. Further details provided on the Talk page under Aug 26th WHO update.
Blehair (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This will be the last time I press this edit request. Under the Timeline of the outbreak, "26 Aug 2014" should read "24 Aug 2014". The WHO incorrectly assigned the 3069 figure to "26 Aug 2014" when all the primary sources from the field point towards 24 Aug 2014.
Here are the figures for cumulative cases for each affected country:
Aug 31
Liberia 1690
Guinea 771
Sierra Leone 1216
Nigeria 19
Total: 3696. The average daily rate over 4 or so days is over 100, and so it's reasonable to assume that the WHO's figure for 31 Aug 2014 is correct even though it differs by 11 cases. Tested suspected cases could have later been shown to be negative for Ebola.
Aug 26
Liberia 1416
Guinea 663
Sierra Leone 1057
Nigeria 14
Total: 3150. There were actually comparatively few new cases during Aug 25th-26th. For the WHO to report 3069 instead, or a number that is 81 less than 3150, seems to raise some red flags. Why would the average number of cases ruled negative for Ebola suddenly increase by a factor of more than 7? Doesn't make sense.
Aug 24
Liberia 1378
Guinea 646
Sierra Leone 1025
Nigeria 17
Total: 3066. This is only 3 away from the reported WHO figure for Aug 26, which suggests that it was in fact the Aug 24th number.
If you look at previous WHO numbers, you find that they all correspond very closely with the primary sources, never off by a ridiculous 81 cases.
Previous WHO updates are also far more specific about the time period that they attribute new cases to. For instance, they'll state "Between __ and __ August 2014" (with the exception of the Aug 28th and Sept 4th update) and title the Disease update table to include the date, like "Confirmed, probable, and suspect cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, as of __ August 2014" (again, with the exception of just the Aug 28th update).
I think the evidence is compelling that the WHO reported Aug 24th numbers incorrectly as being as of Aug 26th. WHO's reports are secondary sources, and for the Aug 28th update it is pretty clear it incorrectly used the primary sources. Rather than leave an incorrect datapoint up there, it would be better if it were simply removed if it can't be fixed.
Blehair (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Still unable to. As of the new roadmap, we can see that the WHO themselves counted far less than 700 cases for week 35, making the reported Aug 26 number impossible. Considering there is no CDC or WHO source that corresponds with the primary sources from the Health Ministries, the Aug 26 row should simply be removed from the section. That is unless we decide to start using the primary sources, but per Wikipedia rules, the WHO source for Aug 26 is factually wrong, even disproved by its own Roadmap 2. At best, the WHO did not intend for us to think "as of Aug 26" meant Aug 26 numbers were included. Regardless, the way the Aug 24th numbers are presented as Aug 26th is misleading and needs to be changed or removed.
Blehair (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair. I spent the whole day looking at the numbers. The date on the Who site is wrong for 26 August as well as the numbers. Found sit/rep 1 from WHO stating date as 25 August. With Regards to Sit/rep two the date of the report is 5 Sept, but the case load correlate with 3 Sept. Hence i changed the date. I have e-mailed Afro Who to get clarity but i don't expect a response soon. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey BrianGroen, the Timeline is looking better. For the Aug 24, it may in fact be Aug 25, we know the numbers don't always align perfectly between the WHO and Health Ministries, and, in fact, Aug 25th was a low caseload day afterall. As you can see, the WHO is not reliable at all about what dates they are actually reporting on. Regardless, As long as the timeline is averaging about 90-100/day for the past couple or so weeks, then it's good enough from an analysis stand-point. On another note, since the WHO did not specify Sept 3rd, how do we cite that particular date without resorting to the primary sources? If we're going to go down that road, we might aswell go all the way because, unlike the WHO, the Health Ministries have consistently reported the daily numbers without ambiguity. There is also the issue that the Sept 6th citation explicitly stated that the Sept 6th numbers for Liberia were not included. Blehair (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair i understand your reasoning as to site a report without validation of correct date , but i will see if i get a response from WHO else we scrap that line in two weeks or so, but for statistical analysis it will be useful i think. As for the 6 Sept number Liberia number did increase so i can only assume WHO used there own sources for numbers. Problem we have here is governments reporting late and WHO getting additional input from the field as well. At some stage we will have to condense that timeline if this epemic continues. i.e we will have to group up on a monthly basis older timeline figures else the timeline is going to become massively long. Kind Regards BrianGroen (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry BrianGroen, I wasn't clear about the Sept 6th number for Liberia, but from the roadmap report the WHO states "For Liberia, information is as of 5 September 2014.", which would explain why it had increased since Sept ~3rd. Blehair (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blehair sory for all the updates but i decided to Use Primary Source OCHA for 3 Sept ties closely in with my above calculation. 5 September is definitely wrong. Source OCHO [5] Hope this clarify figures better. Date is 3 September except Nigeria which is 1 September . Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Name of article
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Shouldn't this article be named ...Ebola virus disease epidemic....,not ...Ebola virus epidemic...?
For example, we don't say P. falciparum epidemic(s), rather we use Malaria epidemic(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valjevo123 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh noooo! *Gandy pulls a big chunk of her hair out* This editor is absolutely correct - here it's been staring us right in the face all this time and we didn't see it. It seems we could just skip the word "virus" or add "disease" to the title. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "virus" in the title is unnecessarily redundant. "West African Ebola epidemic" would shave two words from the currently unwieldy six-word title, but is still problematic down the road as future renaming would be required if the present outbreak jumps regions, or another outbreak in later years occurs in the same region.--Froglich (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Numbers updates -- why nothing for 5 days?
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hey, these are real people who are getting sick and dying at an exponential rate. Those who treat and count the sick are getting sick and dying themselves too. So have a little patience. Lklundin (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi The Rambling Man,Lklundin As for new data i expect a substantial (staggering) increase in case within in the next day or so which will whack out any linear line . Iris- where WHO store the data is unfortunately down for maintenance till Monday. Hoping to find another source -- Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Projected Casualties and Deaths
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I added a section titled "Projected Casualties and Deaths", which was reverted by Juan Riley with the comment "(Undid revision 624060888 by Craigster0 (talk) reverting good faith edit..upon reading it seems to contain numerous instances of primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues.)". The added section can be found here
[6]
It seems to me that a section on the projected number of casualties and deaths is quite relevant to an article on the Ebola outbreak. The fact that the estimated range is quite large does not detract from the value of the estimate, it simply shows that there are a lot of unknown or unpredictable variables. The fact that the projected number of casualties and deaths might change based on actions taken by local, state, or international actors does not detract from its value, particularly when the projection is frequently updated with current information. This is even more true if the projection includes the effects of taking action, or not taking, certain actions are made explicit.
The added section includes a summary of a report published by WHO which predicts 20,000 casualties (which is also under discussion here in this talk page [7]. Note that that discussion (not the article) states that 20,000 casualties is the projected minimum under optimistic assumptions, and not a maximum. The fact that a large number of projected casualties might "scare people" does not seem like a good reason to suppress the projections.
Full disclosure: much of the information I posted comes from an analysis performed by Robert Van Buskirk, who is a friend of mine that I've worked with on a couple of successful third-world development projects. He has a PhD in Math and Physics from Harvard. He was the key driver of a succesful project (that I also worked on) to bring email connectivity to the country of Eritrea in 1998[1]; he has made significant contributions to Meteorology research in Eritrea[2], and has published, in peer reviewed journals, at least 16 papers on subjects ranging from the economic effects of energy efficiency standards to "Observation of chaotic dynamics of coupled nonlinear oscillators"[3].
Juan Riley (talk) listed his objections to the section I added as "primary source, RS, and perhaps OR issues". Taking these cursory objections in turn:
primary source -- the added section is indeed primarily based on primary sources: information from the World Health Organization (WHO) and from Robert Van Buskirk, with most of the material coming from Original Research (really original analysis) performed by Robert Van Buskirk based on the data published by WHO. That is significant, but by my reading of Wikipedia policies, not a reason to reject the submission outright. For an epidemic where new information is published daily and the fundamental situation changes on a weekly basis, you must necessarily rely on primary sources with newspapers, as a secondary source. Publication in peer reviewed journals takes months to years to occur.
Reliable source -- i think the WHO can be considered a reliable source. The analysis by Van Buskirk is more debateable, since he is not an expert in infectious diseases. However, he is an expert in math and physics, and there is precedent for the application of math (statistics) to infectious disease outbreaks. For an interesting historical perspective there is the example of an application of statistics to determine the source of a Cholera outbreak in 1854 by a physician, Dr. John Snow[8]. Also, see the information about Robert Van Buskirk that I included, above.
OR issues -- the article contains no original research. The added section contains a number of citations and I believe the contents of every sentence in the added section are based on information in the cited material. If you feel the article contains Original Research, please be more explicit as to where it lies.
# One of the problems with primary sources is that it's difficult to assess their reliability, and that applies especially to the Buskirk piece because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal in epidemiology, applied math, theoretical ecology, or a related field.
# While mathematically-trained individuals can and often do make contributions to the field of biology (e.g. Gregor Mendel), the source does not inspire confidence by assuming exponential growth instead of more refined epidemiological models developed for the purpose. See for example epidemic_model.
# Choosing a model to apply to a data set is research. The source also makes little attempt to explain and justify the model used.
Primary sources should only be used for raw facts/data, and never for the opinions expressed, which should be left to secondary or tertiary sources. - Floydianτ¢14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Floydian, I think your analysiss is incorrect, but after a Google serach of Wikipedia I'm unable to locate the exact text that you are quoting. As I read the policy on WP:NOR and as i generally understand the term Primary source, Van Buskirk is a secondary source since he is presenting an analysis of data published by WHO, not reporting first hand on his experiences in West Africa. (In fact, one could argue that WHO is a secondary source since their role here is to synthesize data on deaths and infections from doctors and clinicians--the primaray sources--located in the individual countries, and Van Buskirk is therefore a tertiary source, but that's not really relevant.)
I'd support bringing back this projection section if several more sources (from different researchers) are supplied. For instance, look at this article in the news section of Science magazine: [9] talking about data from these PLoS papers, and others -->[10][11]. As long as the section is framed by the fact that these models can be very helpful for the WHO and other organizations in deciding how/when they should respond, there shouldn't be any complaints about the numbers being "scary" (and then removed for that reason). Snd0 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any objections to the first paragraph of the new section, which talks about the forcecast in the [Ebola Responses Roadmap] published by WHO, so I'm going to to restore the section with that bit of information. I"m going to strike the sentence that says "It also includes assumptions that some experts have called "extremely aggressive"[80]." since its not really accurate -- the statement about "extremely aggressive" assumptions is about an assumption that any outbreak in a Western Country could be contained within 8 week, which is not really relevant to a section on Projected Casualities. My mistake -- I should have read the NY Times article more carefully. But I'm going to add another paragraph qoting the Director of NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases saying the outbreak is "out of control" and growing exponentially.
Philip here. Today I added a few lines on how virus forcasting works. I confirmed Author Chowell is at Arizona State U. The
Has been already quoted in Canadian press. I specfically did not state what the model projects. We have a duty to not make the situation worse. Remember we teach. We are historians. Pbmaise (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
paoer
Graph vs. table
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Why doesn't per day Ebola 2014.png the graph match the big table? The graph caption is "Average new cases and deaths per day (between WHO reporting dates)", which should be verifiable from the table by subtracting cases in one reporting period from the next period, and dividing by days between (compare #Data definition). But that calculation shows a steady rate of about 100 new cases since August 20 (details next paragraph), and the graph peaks at about 127 cases, about August 31.
Details:
20-25 August, (3071-2615)/5 = 91.2 new cases per day
25-31 August, (3707-3071)/6 = 106 new cases per day
31 Aug - 3 Sep(4001-3707)/3 = 98 new cases per day
3-6 September,(4293-4001)/3 = 97.3 new cases per day
I don't have a cite immediately handy, but not more than 48hrs ago I read a news piece suggesting *2,000* new cases in Liberia in just the last week, and that said numbers are likely under-reported due to the breakdown of medical infrastructure. It is therefore unrealistic to hope for charts indicating a linear progression when exponentiation is already in play.--Froglich (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But my point isn't to argue which set of statistics we should use. My point is that whatever numbers we use, be they linear, exponential, WHO figures or rumors from the Ivory Coast, they should be the same in our graph as in our table. Art LaPella (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Art LaPella,Froglich it took a while to get the closest correct 25 August and 3 Sept Totals. I don't know who does the graphs but the new info was only placed yesterday for the two days. I hope they will pick it up and update. As for new data i expect a substantial (staggering) increase in case within in the next day or so which will whack out any linear line . Iris- where WHO store the data is unfortunately down for maintenance till Monday-- Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The graph would be much smoother if they did a 4-day moving average. For instance, the last 7 4-day periods starting with Sept 7th-10th were 127/day, 105, 104, 101, 101, 90, 51, etc... It smooths out probably due to the fact that districts/counties report at different intervals, but it appears most of them report at 4, or less, day intervals. Blehair (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
10 September Numbers
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have updated to the primary source as WHO is very belated in releasing figures. Primary source is OCHA but when there is a date difference i will update from respective government. "Stat" means numbers did not change as no report is available. Nigeria and Senegal is belated in releasing info . BrianGroen (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Note these numbers for OCHA is derived from various sources including WHO and CDC and governments. I currently think they are the better source with all due respect to WHO which i think is swamped with work as well as CDC. All numbers will be correlated with governments if available but OCHA has shown consistency in the past and is a public entity. BrianGroen (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good BrianGroen, for your convenience, lots of Liberia updates show up here, Sierra Leone generally shows up here every day, Guinea gets uploaded here pretty consistently, and hopefully this link will catch anything the previous links miss. Generally, the daily sit-reps for all the affected countries can be found on one of those pages within 2-3 days of the reported date. The OCHP updates are usually posted on the humanitarianresponse link as you're already aware of. I think the OCHP is actually getting their numbers separately from the WHO as often their updates come sooner and are more frequent, just make sure the footnotes are updated and numbers match the sit-rep since sometimes they are sloppy. Cheers Blehair (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
sierra leone death count
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sierra Leone ties in with government report. Cases will fluctuate between reports as new numbers are received from non ebola cases.BrianGroen (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This appears part of a blog with no particular focus on Ebola or epidemics. Doubt it is sufficiently significant to justify diluting the "External Links" section of the main article.
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Persons who are or have been infected can be divided into three classes: those who are currently sick (active infection), those who have died, and those who have recovered (virus was cleared from their bodies by their immune system). So why do we have no statistics for the recovered class? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The respective Ministries of Health regularly and publically release those numbers, in addition to the overall cases and deaths. The figures published by the WHO and CDC come from those. Donners (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Donners --> "The respective Ministries of Health regularly and publically release those numbers, in addition to the overall cases and deaths". Are you sure about that? I've been looking specifically at Guinea, in French, and I've not found any of the numbers you claim are publically released -- via the Web, anyway. KingMidasTheSecond (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Our lead presently states: As of 6 September 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a total of 4,293 suspected cases and 2,296 deaths (2,552 cases and 1,386 deaths being laboratory confirmed).[1] Knowing that at present the hospitals are so full that they need to turn away patients, I doubt that they have the time or resources to be laboratory confirming the diagnosis/cause of death of these people - thus the very wide discrepancy. I am wondering if it makes any sense to continue to report the number of confirmed cases as opposed to diagnosed (per the symptoms that they present with) cases and their deaths? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gandydancer The primary source is OHCA but they fortunately do not release lab confirmed death, but do release lab confirmed cases. As well as respective goverments.
i.e Liberia sit- rep is very accurate and timely.
Sorry my edit keeps whacking out .BrianGroen (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, I have not followed that section at all and so am not aware of what's going on. Say, a few days ago I added, "However, difficulties in collecting information and the methodology used in compiling it may be resulting in an artificially low number.[8] A more accurate method that observed patient outcomes in Sierra Leone found a CFR of 77%.[9]" to the lead. No one objected so I guess it must be accurate, however, once again, I'm a little unsure of myself since I did not take part in the discussion but only got the info from the article. Do you have any comments on that information? Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller's rant against WHO
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I deemed it necessary to add in the WHO paragraph the stinging rebuke by Miller because of who he is, where he works, andbfact Forbes printed it. It was toned down. Pbmaise (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like just one man's opinion to me. And as you say, it's a rant. Technically it's criticism of WHO and not relevant to this page, which is about the progress of the outbreak. There are plenty of other people criticising WHO, CDC, the Pentagon - you name it. Several spelling mistakes, by the way. Robertpedley (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Miller is not just anybody. Forbes, repeat Forbes. We are historians. His opinion is shared by millions. Deleting his input from the record is not right.
Yes we should record objections about US calls to send thousands of troops to Nigeria to stop a virus Nigeria managed to contain after a very ill Patrick Sawyer who was just with his sister that died. He knew she died from ebola, he violated orders to stay quarantined, he was so sick the cctv show him lying down before boarding. He worked hard to infect as many in Nigeria as possible. The reports of what he did are graphic. We report none of this here. We are also not talking about the 156 dogs that tested positive. That it is likely a 2yo boy would get licked and play with a dog and not handle raw bushmeat. Yes bats were in that cotton factory. However, dogs were in their home.
Certainly most kids in the US would not even go near a dead animal unless it showed up dead in their McDonnald's Happy Meal, but I'd assume that African kids may well not only touch a dead animal, they may even help their mother to butcher it. BTW, please give a ref for your info that "Patrick Sawyer who was just with his sister that died. He knew she died from ebola...". I'm not saying that you are not correct, but it is not information that I have seen anywhere. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
EVD outbreak timeline
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have problems with this sourced statement in the current version of this article:
The outbreak began in Guinea in December 2013, but was not detected until March 2014,[3] after which it spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal.
: Last week [that is around 27 February 2014] it was disclosed by the Acting Medical Director of Ganta Hospital that two suspected Ebola cases were transferred to JFK Hospital in Monrovia. After further observation of the patients it was announced that the cases were not Ebola.
As we know by now, in fact these alerts were right, while the false negative ebola tests were wrong, as they were detecting the previous strain of the virus.
On WHO graphics: See User:BrianGroen's comment above in 'New WHO Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report: 5 September 2014'. I believe he is now ascertaining their "fair usage" conditions. I would hesitate to add new WHO graphics until he completes this. The graphic you mention however is apparently copyrighted by the International Business Times and I suspect is a no-no. Juan Riley (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the one I added on treatment facilities? I thought that was fair use. I can understand if the IBT image isn't, though. --Monochrome_Monitor18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Your updated WHO treatment center graphic may have complicated things--I don't know. I think you should either consult with User:BrianGroen or wait for further clarification from him about "fair usage" of WHO graphics. I am hoping WHO stuff is usable...but waiting. Juan Riley (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Juan Juan Riley, Monochrome Monitor there is a problem with licensing on the file. I have sent a request to WHO for permission to use. Awaiting their response. It constitute fair use as Monochrome Monitor stated. My file is marked for deletion, but i have responded to the deletion request. Will keep you updated. WHO is copyright protected by Bern convention but as of July certain articles my be reproduced under the commons licence. waiting for that response from wikimedia as well. Greetings BrianGroen (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
In the meanwhile lets keep the map, we can always say "oops" afterwards. I have a image converter that sharpens up the "pixilation", so i will be using it on future maps from WHO, that's to say if we get the okay.BrianGroen (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Juan Juan Riley, Monochrome Monitor i see that wikimedia has deleted my file stating it is not fair use. Although they have still kept Monochrome Monitor file with a citation for licence. Still waiting WHO response so lets keep it on. I still think this file is of paramount importance. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Oddly enough one the few things the US gov does right...any officially published work by them is in the public domain..as long as correctly cited. Juan Riley (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cannolis sorry i don't want something edited but the article was considerably vandalized in the last two days (especially today). Can we re-instate a semi protect lock to contributing editors only. BrianGroen (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi - I've been watching the table closely and using it as the basis for a spreadsheet in which I model the growth as an exponential curve. I thank everyone who has been working on making sure that the table is accurate and reflect the official figures.
So now my question: In recent days a couple of times the recent numbers have changed - what happened there?
As a sad side note, and this is all original research so not appropriate for the article but may help inform us. The overall growth rate fits quite well to a 2.3% or so growth rate. But looking at individual countries reveals something very different. Liberia's growth rate is more like 4.7%. One of the thing that the media can't do is math so I think there hasn't been a real awareness of what this means. If you have 4 independent exponential growth processes with some at 1-2 percent and one at 4-5 percent... the 4-5 percent one absolutely dominates in short order. It is not at all difficult to see how November could finally wake up the world to how serious this is. I hope I'm wrong - I'm just some idiot on the Internet with a spreadsheet but there you go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Jimbo makes a valid point, also I believe in general the table should be kept in line with official WHO numbers I believe that is best,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. Any other numbers or estimates would use a different methodology and not be directly comparable. I wish we had more information (but I don't know if any is available) about the methodology and limitations of the WHO numbers. Lots of people in official positions have said that these numbers are underestimates, but I personally wonder if they are underestimates but roughly tracking growth (i.e. the "real" numbers are always 2x to 4x higher, say) or is the counting methodology going to break down at some point. At current growth rates we are in November going to be talking about tens of thousands of new cases, not like 243 or 117. I don't see how WHO can really count when that happens, if they are already having trouble. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the numbers arises from the lack of infrastructure in the affected countries. 1 doctor per 100k inhabitants in some places, I think (maybe less since Ebola hit them). There's no medical expertise in the villages which are hit, no equipment to confirm a diagnosis, no channel of communication to reliably communicate statistics via national health authroity to goverment & WHO. Hence both WHO and MSF assuming large scale under-counting. Robertpedley (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"Complications in containment efforts" section
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I set that section up, but as the epidemic grows I am growing increasingly critical of it. I think that I added most of everything there, so I do not mean to suggest that others have "messed it up". As I read the section it seems to me that info is sort of placed willy-nilly here and there. Perhaps the medical info should be put in its own section...? Anyway, I sure would appreciate feedback - for all I know, others may think that it's just fine... Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done a couple of (small) edits in this section!! I think it's good otherwise I would have done more. I also think it's important to keep this section intact - currently the outbreak is very poorly contained & (I hope) there's a public benefit to keeping a concise summary of the issues. Robertpedley (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Robert! I was in the process of adding the fact that there are NO beds left in Liberia when I read Jimbo's talk page and became a little depressed. :( So you helped me to cheer up a bit. I will wait for more input, but I was thinking that it might be a good idea to put the health workers in a separate section and possibly get rid of the headings such as "poverty" etc., and just stick with paragraphs to divide the info. We'll see what others suggest. Gandydancer (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Nigeria edit- reverted back to original state. Below is highly speculative in nature
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Nigeria
The first case in Nigeria was reported by the WHO on 25 July:"Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 25 July 2014". WHO: Outbreak news. 25 July 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014. Patrick Sawyer, flew from Liberia to Nigeria after exposure to the virus, and died at Lagos soon after arrival.Wesee, Ben P. (4 August 2014). "I'm ok - Nigerian Ambassador Assures Public". The New Dawn, Monrovia. Retrieved 7 August 2014. In response, the hospital where he was being treated was shut down and quarantined, and the health officials who were treating him were isolated in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.Cocks, Tim (28 July 2014). "Nigeria isolates Lagos hospital where Ebola victim died". Reuters. Retrieved 1 August 2014."Sierra Leone hunts Ebola patient kidnapped in Freetown". British Broadcasting Corporation. 25 July 2014."Ebola virus disease, West Africa – update 31 July 2014 - WHO | Regional Office for Africa". Afro.who.int. Retrieved 8 August 2014. However, a doctor and nurse who treated Sawyer both died from Ebola.Reuters (4 August 2014). "Lagos records second Ebola case in doctor who treated victim: Nigerian health minister". {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)Mark, Monica (6 August 2014). "Ebola Outbreak: Nurse who Treated First Victim in Nigeria Dies". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August 2014.[16/patrick-sawyer-emails-ebola-struck-close-to-home/ E-mail of Patrick Sawyer, Worldpress, August 2014]
Sawyer's primary job was with a mining concern. In early July, he arrived with bloodied clothing and his pregnant sister, at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in Monrovia. Sawyer's sister's name was Miss Princess Christina Nyennetue, and she died from the virus. While at the hospital, Sawyer failed to heed staff directions. Six physicians and nurses that Sawyer came in contact with died. Sawyer also left that hospital knowing his sister had Ebola. The next day he reported for work at the offices of ArcelorMittal. He was directed to go home and remain in confinement for 21 days.
Sawyer booked an E-ticket and claimed to be going to an important conference. He did not book via the local offices of ECOWAS nor inform the ambassador from ECOWAS, who was already set to go. He also did not inform the Ambassador of his sister's death. The Liberian official that approved Sawyer's departure is quoted as saying the request by ECOWAS to allow Sawyer to leave Liberia was unprecedented.
Sawyer managed to make contact with at least 59 people. Of these, he successfully infected 44, and 17 of them later died.Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014
At First Consultants Hospital in Nigeria, Sawyer denied being near an Ebola case and told officials to test for malaria and HIV. Physicians tested him and found he was suffering from Ebola. He became unruly.
Hospital Physician Ameyo Adadevoh has been credited for denial of requests that Sawyer be released after they knew it was Ebola, so he could attend the conference. Ameyo Adadevoh was one that Sawyer infected that died.
Sawyer died on July 25, 2014. He was cremated at the hospital. His mother, Georgia Nah, demanded to see his ashes.
Sawyer's wife was in Minnesota.AllAfrica
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
In August and September 2014 the press in Nigeria was openly asking questions.
Liberian Deputy Finance Minister, Mr. Sebastian Omar, was accused of knowing Sawyer had Ebola and his sister had died from it, yet still authorized travel to attend the conference.
http://dailypost.ng/2014/08/24/femi-fani-kayode-ameyo-adadevoh-ebola-conspiracy/ Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014]
The conference, Sawyer so desparately needed to go, was 750 km away in Calabar. He was too ill to get there.
Hi Robertpedley Fully agree on that . The above is a bit to much of negativity (more a personal attack on Sawyer) to add on. I moved it out and added it here to see other comments on it as well.BrianGroen (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There is 0 speculation when the Liberia government itself admits they knew his sister died and that he was supposed to be in isolation. Of course this sounds like an attack on Sawyer. He was an Ebola bomb headed to a 15 member nation conferencr. He left a trail of death from Monrovia to Lagos. He was intentionally trying to infect. Meanwhile who here still tthinks ABC's statement that the US should send thousands of troops to halt the Ebola sweeping over Nigeria has anything to do with ebola? (unsigned)
I've read most of the sources that Pbmaise has been offering (including several on my talk page) First of all, I think that we all would agree that this disease is having very sever economic effects on all the countries involved, including Nigeria - and that Nigerians are furious with Sawyer who spread it to their country. And, I think we'd all agree that just like every country, the African press has it's share of scandal sheets, thus there are reports that Sawyer was infecting people on purpose, was "covered in blood" from his sister who died of Ebola, and such. But the source All Africa[12], which AFAICT seems WP:RS, most likely is giving an accurate report of the circumstances of Sawyer's flight from Liberia to Nigeria: He visited his sister shortly before she died of Ebola (on the 8th) and he was under surveillance. On the 20th he either slipped through or, IMO more likely was allowed to leave, perhaps due to his high position, to attend a conference in Nigeria. My impression is that he was already getting sick as he boarded the plane. If that is the case, there is plenty of room for criticism. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Notable because (a) First case in Nigeria (b) first case to travel by aeroplane, (c) presumed abuse of VIP status (which I understand is fairly common practice and an ongoing risk) Robertpedley (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Creating a Seperate Nigerian Article
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I want to create a 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria but I dont want anyone to do delete it after creation that is why I want to know if creating it is allowed. I do not want to use epidemic because I don't think it was really an epidemic. The Nigeria case is unique for some of the following reasons.
About 10 patients were reportedly cured without using Zmapp or any US drug which is the highest recovery rate in west africa
People who were cured from Ebola are being stigmitized to the extent that a Liberian woman committed suicide in Lagos even though she does never had Ebola. 1, 2
I don't support this notion.
1. It is still to early to say if Nigeria have for one cleared all their cases.
2. The index case was from Liberia therefore the spread is from this area.
3. This outbreak is far from over and gathering from the staggering increase we will (i'm afraid to say it but) see other countries also involved. 15 other African countries have been identified as at very high risk.
4. This page is now in other languages following our lead an it will have an effect on them.
BrianGroen (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seanord I agree with BrianGroen. Nigeria is clearly an instance of the same viral outbreak. It would not be helpful to fragment the information we are collating about this outbreak across several pages (Nigeria first - then Senegal maybe? How many more?). In a way it's important to keep Nigeria in this page because the method of spread, via a man who apparently disguised his symptoms until he got out of Liberia, was unprecedented. Robertpedley (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
As soon as Nigeria is declared "free of Ebola" by the WHO, I am going to create the article because I am not convinced with your defence. You people are free to nominate the article for deletion if you like. As long as the article passes Wikipedia guidelines for notablity and disease outbreak it will be kept. My problem with the present state of this article is that it gives a false impression of Ebola Status in Nigeria. It says "22 infected and 7 dead" making the reader to think that 15 people are still infected with the virus in Nigeria, when in reality, no one is infected. This impressions are what is causing the discrimination of Nigerian athlethes at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics. I know people that travelled to China and I know what they went through just because they were tagged as being part of "Ebola Striken Countries" Many People are still thinking that the case in Nigeria is as deadly as that of Liberia, Sieera Leone, Congo and Guinea. Consensus is NOT greater than Wikipedia guideline, so if you all vote delete, it will not be enough to delete the article. It is a shame that there are not many Nigerian Wikipedia users on Wikipedia if not we will trigger the consensus in our favour, but even if the people that want the article deleted are more, I believe Wikipedia guideline supercedes any kind of votes.Seanord (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Still 19 individuals under quarantine, due for release on 18 September. It will be a great relief to many people if Nigeria can be declared free of Ebola and of course it will be recognised by reclassification of the Nigeria section in this page. Robertpedley (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
ECOWAS diplomat in Harcourt
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
ECOWAS diplomat Olubukun Doye met Sawyer in Lagos. He was placed in isolation but escaped to Harcourt. This makes him the second person from the same group infected with Ebola to escape isolation and head towards the same conference.
Harcourt is within 150 km of Calabar and site of the conference. A doctor treated this person secretely in a hotel. When? Before, or after conference?
The doctor, died August 22, 2014. According to news website, Sahara Reporters, he secretly treated a diplomat who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American, who brought the virus to Nigeria.
[13]
Compare local press and WHO. WHO fails to mention key facts.
[14]
At first I was joking. But no, call the page Thoughts by people wearing tin hats
Some theories advanced might well make it to the peer review page. By having a page a community can build a case. There are bits of evidence many wikipedia editors can accumulate.
Instead we, speaking as a tin hat society member, feel our theories are more real because a denial to vette amongst the public us seen as being manipulated. Pbmaise (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Reversion of edits containing analysis of data in timeline section.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is not just a textual explanation of what's on the graphs. It contains data analysis which is not supported by a citation. It is original research. It is disallowed by wiki guidelines. See comments by Jimbo Wales above. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It is also controversial. You are doing a regression using full data from the start of the outbreak. If you look at the log plots, this is not supported. The exponential growth phase really started around the end of May. Also as Jimbo pointed out above, the growth is actually faster than exponential. This is because the rates are different in the different areas, and Liberia's rate is higher than SIerra Leone, or Guinea. But because it started later in Liberia, the growth rate had less effect initially. It's now starting to dominate. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The effect of the way you did your analysis is to underestimate, rather substantially, the current growth rate of the outbreak. It is currently spreading closer to 3% per day. --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
<eyebrow lift> Are you having a conversation with yourself? Who's this other "you" you keep referring to? ...anyway, the better way to have dealt with this innocuous (rather than "controversial") paragraph was either with a citation-needed tag, or, just removing the "hard numbers" from the description. The average layman reader doesn't have the slightest clue what a straight, upsloping line on a logarithm chart means, and the text was helpful in that regard.--Froglich (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was a textual explanation of what was on the log-scale graphic, and the "Total" column of the accompanying statistics table. The regression fit was not colored in any way, either: the over 2% exponential growth, at over 0.95 correlation was correct. That Liberia has a higher growth rate is important, and could have been added to the numeric regression explanation. The fitting of numbers, already published on this article's tables, is hardly original research. You might as well say that "1 + 1 = 2" would be original research, and against wikipedia rules, without a citation of some bloke that predates history. I say that as hyperbole, but also to point out that there are no definable limits on what mathematical derivations may be original research, and what are just digests of the obvious. We'll leave it out for now, but perhaps I will introduce it again. GoatGuy 14:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGuy (talk • contribs)
Order of list
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I suggest that we keep an alphabetical order for the section describing the response by organisations. I had fixed the order, but my changes were reverted without justification other than "restore to previous arrangement which is more appropriate for this section". There is no clear logical ordering at the moment. Why does the U.S. CDC come before Médecins sans Frontières, whose presence on the ground has been a lot more crucial to containment? Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations? Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before? I fail to see how the current arrangement is more "appropriate" for the section, given that the current ordering seems rather arbitrary: it is neither organised chronologically, nor by importance of resource commitment. Unless there is a source showing that the current ordering reflects the relative media attention each organisation currently named has received, I suggest that we stick to an alphabetic order - as we have done for the list of countries. Thanks for your input! F Camp (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is my rationale:
The WHO, the largest and most well known medical informational organization in the world, should be listed first.
The CDC, while based in the US, is (again) the most well known medical informational organization in the world when it comes to direct patient care guidelines.
Doctors Without Borders is (again) the most well known organization in the world when it comes to assisting with medical disasters.
I next list the NGO Samaritan's Purse because, IMO, anyone willing to put medical workers into such dangerous working conditions ranks above organizations that have pledged cash or pledged food.
Incidentally, you said, "Why does the World Bank come last, when it has pledged far more than other organisations?" How much, money wise, has the World Food Program pledged? Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gandydancer for explaining your rationale for the ordering. I think that it is arbitrary and not intuitive, and, as such that it exposes us to criticism under WP:Neutral point of view. However, I will leave the list as per your liking unless the community's consensus evolves towards preference for a different order. As for your question about the total pledged by the WFP, I am not aware of total sums having been advertised, but adding up their projects listed in their operations database does not seem to get us passed about US$15 million. Thanks again for contributing to this discussion! F Camp (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't imagine why you suggest that my answer is intuitive. Or why you would suggest that it is problematic because it may expose the article to criticism for using NPOV. Your statement as to why the WHO should not be listed first, "Why is the WHO named first, when other aid organisations recognised the epidemic before?", suggests to me a lack of understanding of the chain of command, so as to speak, when it comes to world-wide medical matters. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to throw a curve into this debate...but one might suggest that the first division would be between Governmental organizations (WHO, CDC, World Bank, Country Ministeries of Health, etc...) and NGO's (Doctors without Borders, Samraitans Purse, etc...) Juan Riley (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Just tried to do something along those lines, Gandydancer, but you reverted my changes back by referring me to this Talk page. As far as I can tell, none of the changes I made contradicted what had been discussed here or in the discussion started below by BrianGroen. F Camp (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding NPOV: you stated that "IMO, anyone willing to put medical workers into such dangerous working conditions ranks above organizations that have pledged cash or pledged food." That doesn't sound very neutral to me, it is a value-based judgment. I'll ignore the point about my so-called "apparent lack of understanding of the chain of command" to reiterate the point I am trying to make, namely that the order should not seem arbitrary. The section is not called "Response by levels of chain of command in world-wide medical matters" but "Response by organisations". F Camp (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sawyer was supposed to remain in isolation for at least 21 days. However, after only 12 days, he was at the Monrovia airport and already ill. Liberia's Finance Minister had granted approval for Sawyer to go with the 6 other Liberians to a conference in Calabar, Nigeria. The minister was not aware Sawyer was ill or in isolation. Physician Ameyo Adadevoh: Ebola, Nigerian Daily Post, date August 24, 2014
The 7 Liberians were going to a conference of a 15-member nation group called ECOWAS . It was being held in Calabar. That city is 750 km away from Lagos. One more flight was necessary to get there.
Sawyer was a "burly" man. When Sawyer arrived he was weak after bouts of vomiting and diarrhea. Five airport handlers and the other Liberians helped Sawyer into a car and he was taken to First Consultants Hospital. Sawyer denied being around anyone that suffered from the disease. No special precautions were taken on his initial examination. The doctor that admitted him into the hospital listed him as a potential malaria case. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
On July 23, 2014 Liberia attempted to recall the 7. Many calls came into the hospital.
On July 25, Patrick Sawyer died in the hospital and was found by Dr. Igonon. Her personal account was delayed owing to the fact she was fighting an infection from Sawyer.
On the afternoon of August 19, 2014 Physician Ameyo Adadevoh, who realized Sawyer was not truthful, died from the Ebola virus disease and left behind her little sister who contracted the same disease from her.
Gandydancer your input? Others? Should we document how a country of 140 million got infected? Ignore African papers and doctorvaccounts....or just reprint WHO press releases?Pbmaise (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
My revision and rewrite is based on Dr. Ada Igonon who was infected and lost coworkers. I dare not call her gossip. I believve every word she wrote. It is on my user page. Pbmaise (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Pbmaise were do we start and stop, reporting all individual cases..Whritebol, Kent Bradley, Sacrra, Pooley etc. and all the dozen of others who survived this disease and how they contracted it. It is all over the world on personal blogs etc. We have around 301 health care workers with this disease some survived while other passed away. If we start by one where do we stop. As for the initial spread do we report how each individual contracted it in each country. ??? It just add clutter to the page. If you feel strongly about getting the Nigerian stories out there is nothing stopping you from creating your own page. BrianGroen (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Pbmaise, IMO the fact that you went right ahead and added material that has gained no group consensus was highly disruptive, and if you do it again I would strongly support that you be banned from this article. I am totally in agreement with Brian for removing your edit from the article on sight, and I would have done the same thing.
That said, I've done a fair amount of reading on this incident and it is my impression that All Africa is a reliable source per our guidelines, and they report that Sawyer was well aware that he had been exposed and went right ahead and exposed others. On the other hand, from my further reading (today) it sounds like the incident has become a political battleground and as any of you that have worked on our political articles knows, our Wikipedia reporting becomes a nightmarish ordeal when it comes to politics. But at any rate, this is an Ebola article and to go into detail about Sawyer is not appropriate for this article. On the other hand, I would not oppose a sentence or two, such as "According to an article in All Africa...". Even so, argument against any mention could change my mind if I thought that it was well-thoughtout. Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know that the article is currently locked, but could someone with authority to go in and edit the story, please add in a section on the military intervention of the USA, it's a pretty big deal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.49.27 (talk • contribs) 0:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC+2)
|Semilog Plot of Ebola outbreak from data on Wikipedia page as of 28-Aug-2014.
Not done the 28 August report clearly states "As of 26 August 2014, the cumulative number of cases attributed to EVD in the four countries stands at 3 069" - Arjayay (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)