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.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# Ebola worst case scenario article

page: 2
11
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: tinker9917

Done some calculations based on news items and the average seems to be about for 100 beds 100 get turned away

So that would give you 50% but then that 50% have much more chance of infecting others so you can say 50%+ underestimated.

Plus personally i would define vastly underestimated as +50%

edit on 20-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: joho99

But i would not call 20% vastly underestimated.

That could be because you don't seem to understand the implications of percentages. Up until recently, the estimate of underreported cases was that reported cases was 50%-25% of actual cases.

I have been seeing the 20% figure much more of late, and this is a very bad thing. As the percent of underreported cases drops, the numbet of actual cases increases.

A 50% underreporting would mean actual cases as 2x as many.

25% = 4x
20% = 5x

Current reported cases are 5762. A 20% underreported case count puts the actual number around 28810.

Does that seem to be a vast difference now?

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:39 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nope you lost me 25% would be 1/4 not 4X
28810 would be a 400% increase
We must have had different math teachers.
edit on 20-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:11 PM

originally posted by: joho99
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nope you lost me 25% would be 1/4 not 4X

Right, one quarter of actual cases.

As Im reading how under reporting works, is that if a disease is reported perfectly in terms of infected numbers, youve reported 100% of cases.

If you fail to report all the cases, you have under reported, thus reporting less than 100% of cases (over reporting would be the opposite, more than 100%). So if you under report, and you have only reported 50% of cases, the actual number is 2 times higher than the reported number.

If you only report a quarter of cases, the actual number x4 the under reported value. If you only report a tenth of cases, the actual number is x10 the under reported value. Etc.

edit on 9/20/2014 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: CaticusMaximus
wow when they say 25% then say 5000 they mean add another 1250 not multiply 5000 by 4

a simple maths question for people what is 100+25%

is it 125 or 400 lol

they are expecting 20% more not that they think it is 20% of the cases

edit on 20-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:35 PM
a reply to: armakirais

Based on the official numbers from WHO (which are based on the numbers officially reported by the affected governments), it's been doubling every 24 to 25 days over the last month or so.

But that's based on known cases and known deaths. As many have said, it's believed there are actually somewhere between twice and five times as many cases and deaths (or more) as are reported officially.

I just posted some very disturbing info over in this post in the Ebola: Facts, Opinions, and Speculations thread. It's from the Council on Foreign Relations' top Ebola expert, Laurie Garrett. She has been advising both the UN and the US government on the epidemic and telling everyone how serious this situation really is.

There's more info in that other post, including quotes and a link to an interview with her by NPR. But here's a summary of what she said:

A conservative guesstimate of the actual current situation is 15,000 cases, doubling every 15 to 21 days.

She met with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and they told her it would take 50 to 100 days to mobilize the military assistance just promised by the US to fight Ebola. And she doesn't know of anyone in the world who can do it faster.

She guesstimates conservatively there will be 120,000 (end of October 2014) to 400,000 (Christmas 2014) actual cases by the time this military assistance can be mobilized.

I really don't even know what to say. Other experts have said that if the cases reach into the hundreds of thousands there will be very little that can be done.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:36 PM

"This is a disease outbreak that is advancing in an exponential fashion," said David Nabarro, named special envoy to West Africa Thursday by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. "I estimate that to get ahead of outbreak, the level of response needs to be about 20 times greater than it is at the moment."

Link

I wonder if there's even a chance of this happening

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: joho99

Not sure how people worded it previously that was confusing, but maybe this will help:

The estimates are that the official number of cases and deaths reported are (at most) only 20% to 50% of the actual numbers of cases and deaths. That means there are 2 to 5 times as many actual cases and deaths as are officially reported (or more).

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:04 PM
a reply to: tinker9917

Not at the end of January now.

It is based on doing nothing .

Thats not to say it will not at a future date based on what they throw at it and its actual ROI.

Plus other factors like agendas.

edit on 20-9-2014 by joho99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: joho99

Yes, if the reported cases are 25% of actual cases, you would multiply the reported number by 4 to get what you really have.

Now if they had said that the actual cases are 25%-50% higher, then you'd be right in your thinking.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:49 PM
a reply to: joho99

I think it is anywhere in the 2x to 5 X more cases than they are reported . a 50 % under report means 2X more

for example ; say you made \$50 but only report \$ 25 to the IRS . Your taxes given a 10 % tax rate is \$ 2.50 tax now you under reported and in actuality you should of paid \$ 5 . This is an example of 50% underreporting .

Correct me if I am wrong . It is getting late here

armakirais

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:54 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

As far as i am aware they expected 20% more not that it was 20% of the cases

www.theguardian.com...

Government officials said they expected to discover as many as 20% more new patients,

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: armakirais

2X more would be 33% not 50%

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:20 AM

originally posted by: joho99
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

As far as i am aware they expected 20% more not that it was 20% of the cases

www.theguardian.com...

That is how that article reads. The Sierre Leone government is being quite optimistic then. I hope their estimate is more correct than what other experts are saying.

Here is what the Ebola expert for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) says on the CFR website. Whatever you may think of the CFR, it's worth remembering that they are key advisors to the US government, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the UN, and other national and world leaders on this.

The epidemic is currently doubling in size every ten to twenty days. You do the math: we currently have 5,000 recognized cases, and the assumption is what we see and count represents about a third of the reality, so we may have as many as 15,000 cases now, in two weeks that's 30,000. Two weeks after that it's 60,000. By the time the twenty-five-bed hospital is ready, it's 120,000. By the time the other seventeen hospitals are in place, it could be 200,000.

SOURCE: CFR

In other places she has pointed out that this is a very conservative estimate.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:21 AM
a reply to: ikonoklast

I think it will be a lot more than 20%

new topics

top topics

11