It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ebola: Facts, Opinions, and Speculations.

page: 23
44
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: CatLady3912

Glad people appreciate the charts, thanks. I've updated
Ebola charts 7-14 now too.

fwkitziger is correct, to get an idea of what the charts look like for whatever you think the actual numbers might be, just multiply the numbers on the y-axis of any chart by the appropriate factor. For example, if you think the WHO numbers are 50% of actual numbers, then multiply the numbers on the y-axis by 2. If you think the WHO numbers are 25% of actual numbers, then multiply the numbers on the y-axis by 4.

I doubt anyone knows what the actual numbers are. Everyone knows that many cases and deaths are not reported, but they don't know how many. I've also seen estimates that WHO numbers are likely at most 25% - 50% of actual numbers.




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast

I would point out that these estimates are from WHO, CDC, MSF, and other educated medical professionals not some wing nuts on the webz.


That being the case, actual inflections:

7414 - 14828

Actual deaths:

3696 - 7492

Based on:


Cases / Deaths (as of 31 August 2014)[3] Total: 3,707 / 1,848


Wikipedia

And the frightening thing is that even these could be lowball.




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Mathematical Model from 2006 Shows How Ebola Could Wipe Us Out


Yaneer Bar-Yam, the complex systems analyst whose model accurately predicted the global unrest that led to the Arab Spring, is also worried about the patterns he sees in the disease's advance. Models he designed for the New England Complex Systems Institute back in 2006 show that Ebola could rapidly spread, and, in a worse case scenario, even cause an extinction event, if enough infected people make it through an international airport.




Bar-Yam says he has informed the WHO and the CDC of his findings, but they haven’t listened, he said. “I just gave a lecture to the World Health Organization in January and I told them. I said, there’s this transition to extinction and we don’t know when it’s going to happen,” Bar-Yam explained. “But I don’t think that there has been a sufficient response.”




I am having less and less faith in how WHO are handling this and what they say.
edit on 5-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I find it implausible that it spreads mainly by blood, urine, and semen. Doctor's and Healthcare workers don't just go touching other patients blood and urine, especially in these "ebola isolation hospitals" where they are taking precautions and still getting infected. I doubt all the nurses are having sex with Ebola patients in their off time.

I think its being spread into the air more easily then they are admitting.

OR it is being spread through sweat and it's absorbed through the skin just by touching something someone else touched, but even that likely wouldn't explain why so many healthcare workers are getting it, especially trained doctors.

Which makes CDC being deceptive on it's transmission route. IMO.


edit on 5-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
A counter argument to WHO saying airlines are overeating.
From The New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI)
Ebola outbreak brings our concerns into reality



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: joho99
A counter argument to WHO saying airlines are overeating.
From The New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI)
Ebola outbreak brings our concerns into reality



The link you posted was probably the scariest thing I have ever seen



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lostsock

What scares me is they gave a lecture to WHO in January and WHO seems to be advising the complete opposite.
Not sure if it is incompetence,external pressure because of economy,or intentional yet



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
For those interested, I've refined the projection charts in the Ebola charts thread. Here are the refined longer term projections (through May 2, 2015):

Refined projection charts 1

And for those who want more detail or who don't think you can project out more than a couple months, I also created a chart that is zoomed in to show the curves for July 1, 2014 through November 1, 2014.

Click to view full-size...

From Refined projections charts 2

Here's what I see in these latest curves: Data generated using all data from the presumed first case projects the worst case scenario. Although projection curves using data starting from May 27, 2014 or later are not as severe. But the later I start the data sampling, the worse the curves get again. It's spreading a bit faster, not slower, with every passing day at the moment.

That's bad. Unless something drastic changes, the models suggest the following over the next 2 months:

By October 1, 2014 there will be between 6700-12,100 cases but most likely approximately 7500-8500 cases (7830 is what the data from July 7, 2014 through August 31, 2014 projects - the time period recommended by some epidemiologists in a recent paper).

By November 1, 2014, there will be between 13,800-29,000 cases but most likely approximately 16,700-20,100 cases (17,748 is what the data from July 7, 2014 through August 31, 2014 projects).

Data used is from The New England Journal of Medicine (for the earliest cases) and WHO (from the time WHO started issuing updates through August 31, 2014).

The CDC, WHO, and various organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan's Purse have estimated that the reported numbers may only be 25-50% of the actual numbers - or less. If they are 50%, multiply the numbers above by 2. If they are 25%, multiply the numbers above by 4, etc.
edit on 5-9-2014 by ikonoklast because: Corrected a typo



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast

Not a pretty picture is it? Even the most conservative projections are scary - and it looks like multiplying by 3 or 4 will be more accurate.

Thanks so much for all your hard work. It is much appreciated.




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast

i appreciate it to would like to see your projections on a probable timeline for the uk when it could hit 1 in 100


i understand it would just be a probable not a actual fact.

Presuming it hit in October and presuming they could not control it





edit on 5-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1mpl3m3nt
I find it implausible that it spreads mainly by blood, urine, and semen. Doctor's and Healthcare workers don't just go touching other patients blood and urine, especially in these "ebola isolation hospitals" where they are taking precautions and still getting infected. I doubt all the nurses are having sex with Ebola patients in their off time.

I think its being spread into the air more easily then they are admitting.

OR it is being spread through sweat and it's absorbed through the skin just by touching something someone else touched, but even that likely wouldn't explain why so many healthcare workers are getting it, especially trained doctors.

Which makes CDC being deceptive on it's transmission route. IMO.

Somebody in a different forum was speculating that the reason that the medical personnel all got infected is because of flies. They noted that Africa has a major fly problem. So much so that waving them off is so second-nature that it's not even a conscious act.

A fly lands on something or somebody contaminated or a corpse. The fly eats whatever, then lands on a healthy person. In an instant, that formerly healthy person now has Ebola.

Sounds probable.
edit on 5/9/2014 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast

I hope you realize how much we appreciate all the effort you put into your graphs. I've been reading them regularly, awaiting updates, and note how accurately you deal with the released data.

Keep up the good work, and keep the links coming to the updated charts. Thank you VERY much!



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Druid42
a reply to: soficrow
a reply to: joho99

Thanks! You're very welcome, and I really appreciate you and others letting me know this. I will do my best to keep the charts coming while looking forward to the day no one feels a need for them.

WHO just released some new numbers through September 5th, so I am working on updates. Might not have them done until tomorrow, though, as it's late here.

No, it's not a pretty picture, soficrow.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: joho99
a reply to: ikonoklast

i appreciate it to would like to see your projections on a probable timeline for the uk when it could hit 1 in 100


i understand it would just be a probable not a actual fact.

Presuming it hit in October and presuming they could not control it


Do you mean when could it hit 1 out of every 100 people? It would only be a guess, because there has never been an outbreak of this size before, let alone the size you are asking about. And there has never been an outbreak outside of Africa as far as I know except for a small outbreak of the Reston strain.

But since you said if it could not be controlled...

I think in any country, the projections for an uncontrolled outbreak would look much like they do for Africa. There are about 64,000,000 people in the UK, so 1 in 100 would be 640,000. A single case would only have to double between 18-19 times. It's doubled 12 times in 9 months in Africa. That's an average of every 22.5 days. I think you would be looking at 13-18 months if it spread uncontrolled.

But there are a lot of unknowns in that, not the least of which is the assumption that it could not be controlled. Of course, so far there is also not much evidence or indication that it could be controlled in any country.

Also, I think if you got anywhere near that saturation (1 in 100) in an urban area, I suspect the spread would accelerate rapidly. And long before then there would be major impacts on food, water, gas, employment, civil unrest, etc. I think it's hard to imagine the result.

Which reminds me of a quote I saw today from Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):


“The level of outbreak is beyond anything we’ve seen—or even imagined,” Frieden said.

SOURCE

He said that 3 days ago. That's right, he said the CDC has never imagined an outbreak this bad. I think that's the scariest statement I have heard yet regarding this Ebola outbreak.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast


I think that's the scariest statement I have heard yet regarding this Ebola outbreak.


I'll see you and raise with:


Prof Jonathan Ball, a virologist at the University of Nottingham, describes the situation as "desperate".

His concern is that the virus is being given its first major opportunity to adapt to thrive in people, due to the large number of human to human transmission of the virus during this outbreak of unprecedented scale.

Ebola is thought to come from fruit bats, humans are not its preferred host.

But like HIV and influenza, Ebola's genetic code is a strand of RNA. Think of RNA as the less stable cousin of DNA, which is where we keep out genetic information.

It means Ebola virus has a high rate of mutation and with mutation comes the possibility of adapting.

Prof Ball argues: "It is increasing exponentially and the fatality rate seems to be decreasing, but why?

"Is it better medical care, earlier intervention or is the virus adapting to humans and becoming less pathogenic? As a virologist that's what I think is happening."

There is a relationship between how deadly a virus is and how easily it spreads. Generally speaking if a virus is less likely to kill you, then you are more likely to spread it – although smallpox was a notable exemption.

Prof Ball said "it really wouldn't surprise me" if Ebola adapted, the death rate fell to around 5% and the outbreak never really ended.


Ebola: How bad can it get?

The rate at which it mutates is directly proportional to the complexity of the DNA with which it reacts.

I'm concerned that his 5% estimate is a bit of cuddle mongering.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

And I'll see you and raise with: I figured out the probably reason WHO said it would take 6-9 months to get this outbreak under control. And it's bad for the countries hit hard right now. Really, really bad.

Liberia is the key, the spread is much faster there than if you look at the whole thing. The current population of Liberia is estimated at just under 4.5 million. So just looking at this chart for Liberia alone, if nothing changes then the number of cases will exceed the population of Liberia sometime between about January 24, 2015 and April 16, 2015.



Of course, it will not all be kept within the borders of Liberia, nor is it limited to there now, so that won't stop it. Once it doubles twice more, the number of cases approximately equals the total population of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone combined (about 20 million). Those are the three countries with the most cases currently. It will take about 1.5 to 2 months at the current rate to double twice like this, which means about March 11 to June 16, 2015, which is 6 to 9 months from now.

Of course this is if it continues to spread at the current rate in Liberia, but it explains where the WHO came up with 6-9 months to control the outbreak. That's about when you would expect pretty much the entire population (or at least the susceptible percentage) of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to already have Ebola.


edit on 6-9-2014 by ikonoklast because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MarkJS

The CDC says the virus is transmitted through mucous membranes. Like the nostrils, lips, eyelids, ears, genital area, and the anus. Or by things like cuts through your skin into your bloodstream. From body fluids of those infected.

Flies would be a longshot. Even mosquito's don't spread disease that fast.

If Ebola causes respiratory infection and one of the symptoms is coughing (which it does), it makes much more sense that this is the way the virus is spreading. Ebola does have a protein encapsulation thingy just like the flu does so it's just as capable of living in the air for awhile I would assume. Its also a tiny virus in comparison which probably means it can hitch rides with all those little atomic droplets you send out when you cough, although maybe it doesnt live as long because UV light would penetrate it easier. So maybe it spreads at night like a vampire? Maybe they know this that's why they say it comes from bat's. Hey this is a conspiracy forum right? Ebola gets into all the cells in your body, including the lining of your lungs, your glands, your organs, even your skin and causes horrific rashes. The flu spreads in the air because it gets into your lungs, so does Ebola so it just makes sense that is how it mainly spreads?

The CDC seems to have very little research into Ebola despite studying it for over 30 years. The US Military Bio Researchers have been investigating this disease as one of it's top priority's, and they don't know conclusively if it can go airborne in humans? They don't know where it comes from? If bats were carriers Ebola outbreaks would happen much more frequently since they are a food source in Africa for a long time. It must be some other much more rare encounter.

I find it hard to believe they seem to have such an elementary knowledge of its ecology and how it spreads. Especially in 30 years and with the kind of budgets Bio Defense has.

It just seems like they are holding back on giving out all of the information. I would bet they know exactly where it comes from and it's probably not bat's. This is one of the worlds most dangerous biological weapons, I'm sure there is a metric ton of classified data and I'm sure they censor the science on Ebola so that people just couldn't go out and find a nice culture of Ebola to spread around for whatever evil agenda they may have.

This disease is spreading almost as fast as a disease can. I don't believe its from blood, urine, and semen. It's either airborne or somehow absorbed through the skin.

Again, just my opinion. Ebola scares me because disease's like this are the serial killer's to fear. Just look at history, these things kill more people then World Wars.











edit on 6-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2014 by 1mpl3m3nt because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1mpl3m3nt
a reply to: MarkJS

The CDC says the virus is transmitted through mucous membranes. Like the nostrils, lips, eyelids, ears, genital area, and the anus. Or by things like cuts through your skin into your bloodstream. From body fluids of those infected.

Flies would be a longshot. Even mosquito's don't spread disease that fast.

If Ebola causes respiratory infection and one of the symptoms is coughing (which it does), it makes much more sense that this is the way the virus is spreading. Ebola does have a protein encapsulation thingy just like the flu does so it's just as capable of living in the air for awhile I would assume. Its also a tiny virus in comparison which probably means it can hitch rides with all those little atomic droplets you send out when you cough, although maybe it doesnt live as long because UV light would penetrate it easier. So maybe it spreads at night like a vampire? Maybe they know this that's why they say it comes from bat's. Hey this is a conspiracy forum right? Ebola gets into all the cells in your body, including the lining of your lungs, your glands, your organs, even your skin and causes horrific rashes. The flu spreads in the air because it gets into your lungs, so does Ebola so it just makes sense that is how it mainly spreads?

The CDC seems to have very little research into Ebola despite studying it for over 30 years. The US Military Bio Researchers have been investigating this disease as one of it's top priority's, and they don't know conclusively if it can go airborne in humans? They don't know where it comes from? If bats were carriers Ebola outbreaks would happen much more frequently since they are a food source in Africa for a long time. It must be some other much more rare encounter.

I find it hard to believe they seem to have such an elementary knowledge of its ecology and how it spreads. Especially in 30 years and with the kind of budgets Bio Defense has.

It just seems like they are holding back on giving out all of the information. I would bet they know exactly where it comes from and it's probably not bat's. This is one of the worlds most dangerous biological weapons, I'm sure there is a metric ton of classified data and I'm sure they censor the science on Ebola so that people just couldn't go out and find a nice culture of Ebola to spread around for whatever evil agenda they may have.

This disease is spreading almost as fast as a disease can. I don't believe its from blood, urine, and semen. It's either airborne or somehow absorbed through the skin.

Again, just my opinion. Ebola scares me because disease's like this are the serial killer's to fear. Just look at history, these things kill more people then World Wars.



The CDC says the virus is transmitted through mucous membranes. Like the nostrils, lips, eyelids, ears, genital area, and the anus. Or by things like cuts through your skin into your bloodstream. From body fluids of those infected.

Thank you for your reply.

Per the above small quote, your interpretation is that for example- a person does not have any cuts on their hands.. they can then just go around and touch Ebola patients, their sweat, blood, or vomit and not get infected? Is my understanding correct?

----

Yes, there seems to be a critical missing piece to the puzzle. It continually baffles me how top medically trained personnel catch this, even though they supposedly have 'all the necessary PPE' and they are all using it correctly? I'm sure that the same infected medical personnel are even more perplexed than I am as to how they picked up this deadly virus.

As stated, I believe that there is a 'missing piece'. Logically thinking, there -has- to be. Why else would this be happening?

Flies are known to be dirty and disease carrying vectors (to use a fancy word). If a fly lands on an infected victim's sweat, or is (gross alert) eating a corpse, or landed on infected vomit or blood, then lands on a healthy person... he/she should be getting their house in order IMO. Granted, the visit to the healthy person would have to be done quickly, so that the virus does not die with the fly on the way over. You don't see this as a realistic scenario? If not, why not?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


The rate at which it mutates is directly proportional to the complexity of the DNA with which it reacts.

I'm concerned that his 5% estimate is a bit of cuddle mongering.


If the infection rate rises and the fatality rate falls to 5%, we're still looking at horrific impacts if it goes pandemic. We'd lose most or all essential services from electricity to police and medical (people would be too sick to come to work). And we'd still have bodies piling up in the streets. So not cuddle mongering. [Sorry.]


S&
Great link.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ikonoklast

...6-9 months (is) about when you would expect pretty much the entire population (or at least the susceptible percentage) of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to already have Ebola.


I think you're right. S&


....But. Fact is, there is NO WAY to seal off Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. And is there any reason to believe Ebola respects political borders? ....What are the chances it's already raging through Mali and Cote d'Ivoire - but not being reported?


PS. An earlier report said infections were doubling every 34.8 days. My calculations say it's now increasing by 2.3 every month. What's your infection rate number? Do you see an increased rate of infection?


Thnx, sofi



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join