Ebola - my visual charts & projections based on WHO data

Thanks for the feedback, and you're welcome. I'll try to keep updating them regularly as new data comes in.

They scare the heck out of me. I hope the curves start going down. But my daughter (who is generally skeptical of anything remotely like doom porn) thinks I've drastically underestimated on Chart 3. She thinks once it spreads to America the growth will accelerate because more people are likely to travel further and more frequently. That may be true of many areas outside of Africa.

Gotta agree, awesome work. The graphs speak for themselves.

However, you are only using data supplied by the WHO, and not using unreported data. Reports of dead bodies being dumped on the street aren't being factored in yet, right? Of course, the WHO should update accordingly, and then I think we'll see some exponential growth.

10 million by this time next year? Yikes. But I honestly don't think that number is even close. Maybe by the end of the year.....

a reply to: Druid42

Thanks. The data for March 23, 2014 to today is from publicly available WHO data. The latest charts also add data from December 2, 2013 through March 22, 2014 from The New England Journal of Medicine from a report on the early transmission from the presumed first patient onward for a few months.

I've also heard reports that the actual numbers are far worse than what is being reported by WHO or the CDC. I've heard stories of entire villages where everyone is dead and of bodies lying in the streets for days in larger cities. And most reports I've seen from doctors indicate they also believe the numbers are much larger.

As I understand it, WHO is relying on the numbers being given to them by the various countries impacted. Those countries have already stated that they are overwhelmed with the outbreak and cannot keep up, which pretty much tells you the count is much bigger. And if you factor in that they might want to understate the numbers for political and economic reasons, that would just amplify the problem.

I used the WHO numbers because it's hard for anyone to argue that they are an exaggeration. But I agree, it's likely much worse.

a reply to: ikonoklast

The death toll continues to climb and today stood at 932 reported deaths. There is also at least one doctor saying the numbers are much higher because of many unreported cases. I shudder to think what the actual numbers would look like on your charts. World-wide emergency declaration pending.

The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) is preparing to declare a world-wide health emergency as the Ebola virus shows no signs of ebbing on the African continent. The situation is so dire that the W.H.O. is even preparing to OK the use of experimental treatments on humans.

The virus is spreading throughout Africa with country after country reporting cases. Patients are turning up in nearby countries, as well. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has just reported a possible case...

Officially, it is being reported that 1,711 cases of Ebola have appeared in Africa of which 932 have died. This number does not take into account any of the cases that may have occurred outside the hospitals among peoples fearful of governments and heath officials.

Recently a top doctor in Liberia warned that there are likely many more cases that have gone unreported.

But even official numbers keep climbing

source

Great work on this thread OP.

ETA CDC issues Level 1 Activation (Highest)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday ramped up its response to the expanding Ebola outbreak, a move that frees up hundreds of employees and signals the agency sees the health emergency as a potentially long and serious one.

The CDC’s “level 1 activation” is reserved for the most serious public health emergencies, and the agency said the move was appropriate considering the outbreak’s “potential to affect many lives.” The CDC took a similar move in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and again in 2009 during the bird-flu threat.

source

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

I'm glad to hear the WHO and the CDC are raising the alerts, I hope that it leads to action that will prevent anything remotely like what Chart 3 projects. I really, really hope that.

a reply to: ikonoklast

Chart #3

If you are extrapolating data washed through WHO, then the unwashed data (not meant for public consumption) might just be staggering.

If it is freaking me out, I wonder what the folks at CDC and WHO are doing.

Wonderful data. Thank you.

Good job OP!

Yikes, just yikes. That third graph creeped the bejeebus out of me.

a reply to: beezzer
I hear it is actually far worse than the WHO numbers. I think this is why they brought the two American Ebola patients to Atlanta - not for humanitarian reasons so much as to study the results of the new experimental serum and/or to extract more antibodies to make more experimental serums.

The CDC knows how bad this is. They know it is unlikely to be contained in the areas where it is now. And they know what will happen if it can't be contained and there is no treatment. It's a race against time now I think. I tend to be an optimist, though I have no reason to be looking at those charts. It's amazing what can be accomplished when there is no choice. I hope that proves true in this case.

Liberia declares a state of emergency in the wake of Ebola

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf declared a state of emergency Wednesday evening, saying the scale of the epidemic represented a threat to state security.

"The government and people of Liberia require extraordinary measures for the very survival of our state and for the protection of the lives of our people," she said in an official statement. "I ... hereby declare a State of Emergency throughout the Republic of Liberia effective as of Aug. 6, 2014 for a period of 90 days."

It sounds like Doctors Without Borders, who raised the initial crisis alarm weeks ago, wants more help and less meetings....

"This outbreak is unprecedented and out of control," said Walter Lorenzi, head of medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) in Sierra Leone. "We have a desperate need for other actors on the ground - not in offices or in meetings - but with their rubber gloves on, in the field."

source

originally posted by: JohnnyAnonymous
Very nicely pieced together data.. and now I think I need an aspirin as I feel uncomfortable with the possibilities.

Johnny,

Forget the aspirin and go right for a 200 year old bottle of the finest single malt Scotch, that's if it does spread.

I know I won't panic at all, but most likely enjoy my life, or what may be left of it.

Peace,

RT

Ummm...you can't just calculate a slope and make a projection like that...that isn't how these things work.

Horrible math, horrible "projections", just all around horrible.

a reply to: kruphix

originally posted by: kruphix
Ummm...you can't just calculate a slope and make a projection like that...that isn't how these things work.

Horrible math, horrible "projections", just all around horrible.

Well I did say these were 'seat-of-the-pants' projections and that "I was kind of hoping the thread would get shot down and some of ATS's patron saints (or resident naysayers) would have really logical reasons why the projections in Chart 3 won't happen." Anyone in their right mind hopes these projections are off (in a good way).

It would be more helpful though if you could be specific about the details of exactly what you think is horrible about the math and the projections. It would be even more helpful if you have useful suggestions on how the math or the projections could be improved to be more accurate. Within the limits of available data, time, tools, and skill, I will be happy to try to improve the projections if I can.

I do think that the 9 months of data currently publicly available from the WHO and the New England Journal of Medicine tends to support the simple hyphothesis that the spread of this outbreak is currently proceeding pretty much in a fairly straight line on a logarithmic scale. Of course that does not mean that it will definitely continue in this way. Let's hope it doesn't.

originally posted by: kruphix
Ummm...you can't just calculate a slope and make a projection like that...that isn't how these things work.

Horrible math, horrible "projections", just all around horrible.

That wasn't even worth reading. If you were an actuary or demographer and offered a hypothesis and stated your reasoning, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on but you offer absolutely nothing. How would you calculate infection and death rate projections? Put your money where your mouth is.

If 1 infected person infects 2 people (easy to do in this day and age) the SHTF pretty darn quick. So far, nothing is slowing this disease down. Wait until after the Universities start in the fall and all those foreign students and professors from Africa start pouring in. With a 3 week period after someone is unknowingly infected, to spread the disease to all their friends and family before they begin to suffer symptoms leaves a lot of chaos to ensue since quarantine is a joke at this point.

a reply to: StoutBroux

How would you calculate infection and death rate projections? Put your money where your mouth is.

I wouldn't, there are to many factors to take into consideration to make projections. But to just take a slope from the beginning of the outbreak and project out from there is just a very bad method.

Why don't you think you see any organization try to make projections like this? That is for the movies, it isn't done in real life.

a reply to: kruphix

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: StoutBroux

How would you calculate infection and death rate projections? Put your money where your mouth is.

I wouldn't, there are to many factors to take into consideration to make projections. But to just take a slope from the beginning of the outbreak and project out from there is just a very bad method.

Why don't you think you see any organization try to make projections like this? That is for the movies, it isn't done in real life.

Maybe you are expecting too much from a simple graph on ATS that isn't produced by a large organization with expensive statistical analysis tools and unfettered access to Ebola outbreak data.

The value of a simplistic projection is seeing general trends that may not be obvious viewing facts and figures. You might not do this, but other people do this in real life all the time. I first saw examples in engineering school. And I've seen many investors argue pro and con on the utility of such analysis.

With 9 months of "official" data in the chart, I think most people see the progression is essentially headed along those general lines toward a horrific outcome if something can't be done. The lines just help visualize it. I'm pretty sure the CDC has far better statistical analysis tools and more complete data. But I doubt their general conclusions are very different.

Click graphic to view a larger image

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: StoutBroux

How would you calculate infection and death rate projections? Put your money where your mouth is.

I wouldn't, there are to many factors to take into consideration to make projections.

No, actually there are not so many factors at all. There is a significant amount of real data available (~9 months). Rumour has it the _real_ data may be even worse than what is presented in charts #1 and #2.

These data are plotted on a chart and the exponential growth can be shown by the linearity of the logarithmic scale. So, if nothing changes and the virus can keep spreading at its current rate and killing people, the extrapolations in chart #3 are closer to reality than any of us would like to admit. You may not like that, or even blissfully deny it, but the facts speak for themselves.

Something has to be done!

Interesting scuttlebutt (and an article I can't access right now) about Ebola looking like a fast, massive Scurvy (vit C deficiency) and massive doses of C possibly being even more helpful with this monster... hopefully this won;t go "airborn" but heck, it's gonna happen sometime with some bug.

The problem is, that Ebola spread is easy to handle, if you can get the people to follow simple rules, but in West Africa, the people are not used to it and have their culture and little knowledge about the virus.
Ebola cases occur every year, but Congo, Uganda etc. know how to handle it.
So as soon as the people establish a consiousness for the virus, it will die out by its own fatality.

It will never spread in developed countries, unless we suddenly get a huge number of infected people from Africa onto our ground.

Normally Ebola regulates itself, because of its fatality, but this time the mortality rate is way lower than normal (I think I heard something about ~60% instead of >80%)

Currently, WHO reports 1,711 Ebola diagnoses and 932 deaths in West Africa. We believe the reported numbers only show 25-50% of the cases.

-- Ken Isaacs (Vice President of Program and Government Relations Samaritan’s Purse)

Full transcript here: docs.house.gov...

a reply to: Manawydan

Thanks for this. Btw, it's not an actual transcript of his testimony. This was his prepared statement.