Ebola Forecast: Scientists Release Updated Projections and Tracking Maps

An anonymous reader writes Scientists of the Northeastern University, in collaboration with European scientists, developed a modeling approach aimed at assessing the progression of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and its international spread under the assumption that the outbreak continues to evolve at the current pace. They also considered the impact of travel restrictions, and concluded that such restrictions may delay by only a few weeks the risk that the outbreak extends to new countries. Instead, travel bans could hamper the delivery of medical supplies and the deployment of specialized personnel to manage the epidemic. In the group's page, there's also an updated assessment of the probability of Ebola virus disease case importation in countries across the world, which was also invoked during the Congressional Ebola debate. The group also released a map with real-time tracking of conversations about Ebola on Twitter. Policy makers and first responders are the main target audience of the tool, which is able to show a series of potential warnings and events (mostly unconfirmed) related to Ebola spreading and case importation.

Comments

Works better for flu

[i kan reed]

Because panicky idiots with nothing to fear don't talk about the flu just because someone halfway across the country has it without symptoms yet.

Re:Works better for flu

[Eunuchswear]

Because the MSF nurse who probably doesn't have Ebola took a bike ride.

Seriously.

Watch Reporters Chase The Maine 'Ebola Nurse' On Her Bike

Re:Works better for flu

[riverat1]

The nurse has tested negative for the Ebola virus. She has no symptoms. She is under no legally obligated quarantine. Why shouldn't she live her life as she pleases rather than a bunch of panicked out of their minds people think she should.

Sheesh! You would think that after the people that Thomas Eric Duncan lived with in Dallas before he was admitted to the hospital didn't contract Ebola people would realize just how hard it is to transmit and calm down. So far the only people to contract Ebola in this country were two nurses who cared for Duncan when he was at his sickest and they both survived with the excellent care available in this country.

Don't make it harder for health care professionals to go to western Africa to help contain the disease. As long as it's rampant there the threat elsewhere doesn't go away.

Re:Works better for flu

[slapout]

I don't think having her give up three weeks of her life it too much to ask in order to err on the side of caution. After all, she was willing to risk her life to help treat people with it. Compared to the risk of dying, this should be nothing to her.

Re:Works better for flu

[riverat1]

She's a fucking medical professional who's worked first hand with people who had and have died from Ebola. She knows exactly what Ebola can do to a person. Do you really think she cares so little for her own life that she would avoid reporting symptoms if they developed and possibly die from Ebola?

screw scientists, heres the pundit forecast

[nimbius]

Scientists, as has been readily confirmed by all news outlets, arent a part of this discussion. Here are the latest forecasts from the newsdroids you trust(c) most:

November: cold front of phobia and ostracization provided through state quarantines and youtube videos of isolated ebola victims. Viewers should expect to vote based entirely on ebola, and ensure they include ebola in casual conversations at least 4 times per day. At no point should viewers stop consuming the product, or attempt to calmly rationalize this situation. Purchase precisely what television doctors prescribe, and adhere to name brands only.

December:Ebola will be entirely forgotten, do not include ebola in any conversations. Focus on black friday, cyber monday, spendy saturday, and subprime mortgage sunday. Holiday spirit, Bing Crosby, and santa trackers will be hauled out of cold storage and our graphics department will ensure concerns of this "disease" are re-applied solely to african and east asian nations far out of the grasp of American geographic knowledge. Drive directly into inexorably sprawling suburban traffic to your largest supermall or box store and purchase nose hair trimmers, cologne, candy, and oil drum sized tins of popped corn. Assume/insist ebola has been cured.

January sneak peek: after guzzling champagne and shitting your weight in cakes and pies, prepare for the next Avengers film, government shutdown, internet advocacy trend, exercise resolution, civil unrest, and iProduct. and hey, thanks for another great programming year!

Politically correct travel restrictions claptrap

[Squidlips]

Travel restrictions are epidemiology 101, but politics gets in the way...

Re:Will it be as bad as the H1N1 pandemic??????

[GLMDesigns]

I see the media panicking. I don't see the American public panicking.

If anything there is concern that the government is not taking proper choices do to politics (such as restricting / checking people who travel to ebola and requiring that doctors spend 21 days (or so) at home or in a nice isolation ward at the hospital with TV and all the take out menus they want.

This is related

[TheCastro1689]

One of the nurse's is supposed to be quaratined and instead is out for a bike ride http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

Re:This is related

[Anonymous Coward]

She is not "supposed to be quarantined" according to anyone except some idiot politicians trying to score political points and capitalize on fear. She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home. New Jersey governor said Monday that the CDC cleared nurse Kaci Hickox to go home during 21-day quarantine after she tested negative for Ebola

It's just idiot politicians who have to be seen to be "doing something", regardless of whether that thing makes any sense.

Also CDC says returning Ebola medical workers should not be quarantined.

Re:This is related

[aardvarkjoe]

She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home.

"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context. The virus may not be detectable in the blood, and the person may be asymptomatic, for a long time.

Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.

Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.

Re:This is related

[aardvarkjoe]

Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?

That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.

The position of actual scientists that oppose quarantines doesn't rely on whether somebody tested negative for ebola. It's based on whether somebody who is infected is likely to infect others when they become contagious.

Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?

If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?

Re:This is related

[MMC Monster]

The science, so far, suggests that people aren't shedding virus (infective) until they start developing symptoms. Or is there other research stating that people are infective while asymptomatic? The science of the situation changes as the researchers are getting a better understanding of this particular infection. It's an exciting time (so long as you're not infected, of course).

As an aside, why is science in quotes? Are we supposed to exchange that word for mysticism?

Re:This is related

[Jason Levine]

That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.

Even if the nurse has Ebola, until she starts showing symptoms she won't pose any risk of infecting anyone else.

Even the people infected with Ebola in the US have so far only passed on the infection to people caring for them in later stages of the disease (when even more virus is shed). The one nurse who rode on an airplane while allegedly running a fever (I've heard conflicting reports) infected a grand total of 0 people.

So why should someone who is showing no symptoms and thus has a 0 risk of transmitting Ebola right now be forced into a 21 day quarantine?

Re:This is related

[Rich0]

If you can't even quarantine a single person, how's that going to work when you get hundreds, thousands and millions of people infected?

We're better off staying inside our basements.

That is exactly what people are going to do if this gets out of hand. Right now it isn't widespread enough for people to worry about actually getting it. However, if you get to the point where you start having dozens or hundreds of infections in many cities, you'll see everybody go into all-out zombie apocalypse mode.

I just don't get why we're being so lackadaisical about this. We have very few people at risk for spreading Ebola right now. Just pull out all the stops to contain things, and then we don't have to deal with doomsday scenarios. Just quarantine anybody travelling from West Africa, and bill the costs to the airline to be passed along to the ticket-holders. Governments certify that food shipments are BSE-free all the time - they could just as easily certify that travellers are West-Africa free, and if they don't then their air travel will resemble their meat exports.

Re:This is related

[_anomaly_]

"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context.

Sorry, but no, it's not meaningless. Do the current test methods provide a definitive answer as to whether or not someone is infected with the virus? No, the current methods are difficult and prone to cross-contamination and human error. However, you're forgetting that the general consensus is that someone infected is not considered to be contagious until they're symptomatic. Therefore "no symptoms" carries a lot of meaning.

Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.

Wow. So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection? Or maybe you think that anyone who has traveled to Africa should be quarantined? That's a severe misuse of public health care resources and would be severely detrimental to our ability to keep the disease from spreading in the U.S.

And FYI, I'm not opposed to any form of quarantine, but doing so only with circumstantial evidence would be a Bad Thing.

Re:This is related

[Jason Levine]

So require anyone returning from Ebola afflicted countries or caring for Ebola infected patients to report their temperature two times a day (which they do anyway) for a 21 day period. Any temperature above normal levels will result in a 5 day quarantine until it can be determined whether they have Ebola (in which case, they go into quarantined treatment) or whether they have something else (in which case, they are still monitored until the 21 days are up).

If you are worried about the nurse transmitting Ebola to random people she meets on the street, look at the Thomas Duncan case. He went into the ER feeling sick (which we now know was due to Ebola), was sent home, interacted with friends and family, went back to the hospital, and interacted with many doctors and nurses. The total number of Ebola transmissions in this case? Two nurses who took care of him during the times when he was VERY infectious and a minor breach in protocol could mean infection.

One of those nurses, in turn, flew on a plane and engaged in some other "normal life" activities before showing symptoms. Total number of people she infected with Ebola? Zero.

We shouldn't be worried that this nurse will go to the supermarket and infect random people with Ebola. Especially not if she's not showing any symptoms. The politicians want you to panic so they can take some measures (regardless of whether those measures actually help), say they "did something" and "took action", and gather more votes for the next election campaign.

Re:This is related

[Jason Levine]

Interesting. I hadn't heard of the possibility of "getting Ebola" but not getting any symptoms. Considering that you apparently can't transmit the disease unless you get the symptoms, would these asymptomatic Ebola people be able to transmit it to other people?

In any event, the only people who came down with Ebola symptoms after contact with a person with Ebola were those two nurses. It indicates that non-asymptomatic transmission of the disease isn't an easy thing to do. You won't get Ebola because you sat next to someone on the bus and they had Ebola. (Not unless your bus trips involve WAY more bodily fluid contact that the normal person's bus trip.)

Hard to base decisions on this

[DumbSwede]

I'm finding it hard to gain anything useful from the websites provided. This appears to be just about useless for us lay types. Since I consider myself tech and science literate I shudder to think about politicians trying to make policy decisions based on using it.

One bit of advice/insight several paragraphs in, travel restrictions only delay the arrival of cases in other countries. Delayed is really the real question. Overall peak severity given various travel restrictions seems more germane, both here and elsewhere. The concern seems to be that travel restrictions will be bad for the badly hit countries – it is unclear to me the will be bad in the short run for developed countries. That said, it it Africa turns into a festering pool of Ebola, then yes, very bad for us all.

There are so many conflicting priorities here I fear we will do far from the ideal. We need to protect our own citizens, we want to help others, maybe some don't want to help too much and see this as the final solution for Africa, but will hide their agenda under concern for those here.

I really was hoping to see better to understand trends based on combinations of aid and travel restrictions.

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that experts at both the CDC and the World Health Organization are saying that is likely to make the outbreak worse, and they both recommend against travel restrictions?

So here we have every top medical organization, vs one random slashdot poster. Hmm. Dunning-Kruger much?

The future belongs to us!

[ArcadeMan]

The only way to reduce your own risk of being contaminated is to stay isolated.

Slashdot readers live in the basement and never go outside.

If ebola goes on a rampage world-wide, the only survivors will be people who stayed in isolation.

The future belongs to the nerds.

Look for the real stats

[tburt11]

First off Ebola is a tragedy and is worthy of all efforts at control and eradication, not because I may someday be at risk, but because real people are dying. However.... The posting links to an "updated assessment" which you can view. Looking there, one is led to believe that on Oct 24, the number of Ebola cases are 30,000 worldwide. But if you look really closely, this is just a projection based on data accumulated 30 days ago. Is this the most current data we can view on which to base our assessment? Look now at the bottom of the page and you will see updated assessments including one for Oct 29 (yesterday). Look for the WHO situation reports further down. Currently the stats are: approx 13,000 confirmed or suspected cases total approx 6,000 cases confirmed. approx 5,000 deaths approx 1,000 total cases of live people testing positive for infection And the big news..... Cases in the past 21 days approx 1,500 vs. 30,000 My question is why are we trying to inject this fear into our people? Why the over inflated assessment for the purpose of publication? Is the author guided by an alternative motive, or are they just too lazy to look? Again.. Ebola is a huge concern and a tragedy to humankind. We need to do everything we can to fight this outbreak. But we should be given accurate information not scare tactics.

Re:Look for the real stats

[khallow]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The computer projection is for number of cases, not number of confirmed or suspected cases. There's good reason to believe the actually number of cases is underreported.

Meh.... Here's the thing .....

[King_TJ]

If our President initially came out, armed with scientific facts and results of studies like this one as the rationale for not imposing a travel ban, it would have gone over much better with the American people.

Instead, we've witnessed nothing but a "FUD campaign" - with a strong sense that nobody in charge really knows what the h*ll they're doing with this stuff. First, the hospital in Texas got blamed for screwing up and not following procedures. Then it was revealed they never received any official procedure in the first place for dealing with ebola.

There's conflicting information about how contagious the ebola virus is ... with claims that you can't get it without direct contact with the infected person's bodily fluids, but medical workers wearing hazmat suits while going near the people. (If people are supposed to believe their chances of getting the virus while on an airplane with an infected person are "pretty unlikely" -- then how is it we have concerns about hospital workers catching it, even after wearing protective suits and everything else? I don't think people are convinced you can have this BOTH ways at the same time.)

And sure ... people also recall the H1N1 "swine flu" situation and how that panned out in reality.

IMO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?

Re:Meh.... Here's the thing .....

[mark-t]

MO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?

This... seriously. Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible, or why it would still impact the ability to get emergency medical aid to the area? Because I certainly can't see any such reason.

Calm the fuck down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? An "ebola forecast?" That's the degree of paranoia you've allowed the cable news outlets to work you up into?

Give me a fucking break. First of all, unless you're currently sitting next to somebody with an active infection or you've just cut yourself dissecting an infected animal, the chances of ebola spreading through North America are virtually zero. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be precautions taken, of course...in fact those precautions are exactly why you _don't_ need to be worried, because they've proven quite effective. These same media outlets seem to liken a number of the African countries affected to being about as clean as a prison toilet...yeah, that's not biased at all. Like Newsweek printing a cover with a chimpanzee on the front talking about how ebola could make its way from Africa to the continental U.S. via "infected bushmeat." Seriously, that's something that an American news outlet actually printed. They're basically _telling_ you that your best chances of catching the thing would be subsisting on a diet of infected monkeys and you're _still_ fucking terrified. They did the same thing with SARS, they did the same thing with H1N1, they're doing the same thing with ebola...yet all three of them haven't killed as many people as the common flu does, every single year.

People need to stop being afraid of their own shadows just because CNN and the government tell you to. I can sympathize, these people have been using your fear against you for decades. Communists, terrorists, "weapons of mass destruction" (incidentally, the US is sitting atop the largest pile of WMD's on the face of the earth, which they could willingly irradiate until the end of time if they actually pushed the button). The boogeyman of the day is ebola. They want you to be afraid because people who are afraid are easier to control, they're prone to making irrational decisions based on their gut feelings rather than, you know, actually thinking about it.

You want something to be worked up over, worry about heart disease...it's becoming so prevalent that odds are it's what _will_ kill you long before ebola ever does. We don't need an "ebola czar," we don't need an "ebola forecast." What we do need is for people to use their fucking heads for five seconds because if they did, they'd realize that there's a better chance of being struck by lightning than a plague of ebola decimating the entirely of North America. Stop playing into the hands of the media outlets. I gurantee you that if you stop "tuning in" so to speak, the ebola "issue" will disappear from the headlines so fast that you'd think it was a distant relative of Vanilla Ice. They don't give a fuck about ebola, or you for that matter, they give a fuck about the advertising space they're probably selling hand over fist these days.

Re:To stop the spread of communism...

[mark-t]

I was under the impression that travel bans would just impact ordinary civilian and commercial craft, not military air vehicles or airplanes which are designated specifically for transporting medical supplies to an area where they are so vitally needed. So why would such travel restrictions still cause delays in treating the outbreak, exactly?

Re:Will it be as bad as the H1N1 pandemic??????

[ColdWetDog]

'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know that.'

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[Yoda222]

So your point is that these people don't follow your advices (even if you are the top expert in epidemiology) and this as lead to a disastrous situation in the US

You mean the same experts who gave the OK for Amber Vinson to fly knowing she was exposed and had a fever?

How many people have been infected by contact with Amber Vinson?

Or the doctor who returned from Guinea who admitted he wasn't feeling good but decided to ride the subway multiple times, go bowling and eat out?

How many people have been infected by contact with this doctor?

travel restrictions != aid delivery restrictions

[therealkevinkretz]

What an oversimplified analogy. Limiting certain people's travel from Western African countries doesn't mean limiting aid to those places.

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[sumdumass]

Why is it that people in africa cannot follow science or these top expert's advice? Why is it that all 3 people mentioned above bt the GP have demonstrated that they cannot follow the science? Why is it that with everyone being an expert and the science already settled, is the outbreak still happening and people who know better are getting infected?

Here is the problem which is the same problem that happens in engineering, software development, sports, and quit a bit of other things in life as we know it. What works on paper, what works in theory, does not always work in practice. There are a number of reasons for this, a lot of them may not even be in your control. We just had a rocket explode on launch and i'm certain that everyone involved thought they did everything correctly, everything was right- until it was obvious it wasn't.

Almost- if not every state that requires a drivers license also requires the use of a seat belt for at least the driver when operating a car. Cars are completely safe and damage is rare when the rules are followed yet people mess it up all the time.

The experts can say anything they want. The mortality rate with Ebola is sky high compare to getting cancer and dieing from smoking yet we banchildren from doing it and restrict where people can smoke. Doing the bare minimum with Ebola is not rational considering the risks results in death more often than not. Statistically, you are less likely to die from a gunshot if a gun is shot around you than you are if you get Ebola. Quarentine is akin to wearing seatbelts, to laws against discharging firearms in certain areas, to smoking in certain areas, to wearing helmets while operating motorcycles.

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[Squidlips]

Idiotic, politically-correct statement from them. How would preventing Africans from coming to the US make the outbreak worse?

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[DigiShaman]

I don't get it. Why does a travel restrictions have to be an all-or-nothing proposition?

It's real bloody simple. Let medical staff, military, and those working directly to address the Ebola epidemic travel. Those that wish to travel for leisure or other business related reason, banned from doing so. Exceptions are if you wish to return home to Africa to be with your family, but knowing full well you can't leave until after the epidemic subsides.

Anything wrong with the proposed solution above?

Re: hazmat gear

[blackraven14250]

Do YOU want to be the guy sitting next to one of them on a plane, betting they won't START in with the vomiting and coughing and so forth, until after you're safely away from them at the end of the flight?

Doesn't really matter to me, as long as they were diligent in checking their temperature/being checked. Ebola patients don't go from beginning of fever to vomiting in the span of any but the longest plane flights.

I think one of the big things the CDC should do, though, is mention that the joint pain and lethargy that a lot of the patients are experiencing are frequently a precursor to the fever. If someone in contact with an ebola patient has unusual joint pain (i.e. not a preexisting condition like a bad knee) or lethargy, that should be the signal to get them into isolation, instead of waiting for the fever. We've heard about one of the two being their first symptom from almost everyone who has had it in the US, and they're well-known symptoms of ebola in general.

Caution: Political BS machine at work

[aggles]

The hype will die down after the US election on November 4th. Till then, the political BS machines are spinning anything that gets people's attention into points against the other side.

Re:To stop the spread of communism...

[Eunuchswear]

You do realise that the major part of the international effort has been civilian organisations like MSF? How do you think MSF get staff, supplies and equipment into and out of the affected zone? On regular scheduled airlines of course, they don't have their own fleet of planes.

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[Squidlips]

How about the passport? No matter how they try to get here, they still have to present that Liberian password at the border....sorry buddy... Sure the really, really determined could get in, but 99% would be stopped. If this was any other place except Africa then they politically correct crap would not be taking place. If, say, Ebola was rampant in Tonga, travel restriction would have be implemented long ago. The Administration is playing with out health for political reasons.....

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[ceoyoyo]

Your own links contradict you. The director of the CDC (who is an MD, not a scientist) said a travel ban could make things worse. The WHO supports travel restrictions and controls, such as closing all but major entry points and implementing screening for sick people, and continuing low-risk activities such as fuel and supply deliveries, but cautions that overly broad restrictions could be counterproductive.

Re:Politically correct travel restrictions claptra

[AK Marc]

What about all the doctors and others from other countries? Present a German passport, get in without a quarantine. Doesn't matter where you've been. The stamps can be removed, or not put there in the first place. Oh, and 1%-5% of Americans have dual passports, so there are millions of people that could travel to Liberia on one passport and back into the US on a "clean" US passport (clean from Liberian stamps, but ful of Ebola).

There hasn't been a travel ban that has been legal or made sense.

The quarantine people are asking for is prison without trial, abolishing the Constitution because they are afraid of a germ. Is that really what you want?