>>The CDC estimate is 100k-1.4m by the end of the year.

No no, you see, the world has seven billion people, so 100k-1.4m is still a tiny portion and therefore it's all sensationalism!

/s

The fact of the matter is that the current ebola outbreak is a disaster of epic proportions. Whether it becomes a pandemic is irrelevant: it's already devastating several countries in Africa and is likely to move to other underdeveloped nations if not kept in check. Can you imagine what would happen if it started spreading in India?

It's easy to imagine scenarios that would have it spread in the US.

1) Scenario : some guy/girl lands in Florida, later that day goes for a swim in a big swimming pool with some 100+ people in it because it's a very hot day. Half of those people are on holiday and return to various places in the US before exhibiting symptoms.

2) Ebola is known for spreading fast in hospitals

3) Definitely diagnosing ebola takes several days

The problem with ebola (and all the MRSA variants, a number of which do spread through the air, and a few others) is that it can go from a few patients infected to turning hospitals into death traps in 2 weeks flat.

I don't think it's possible for the virus to survive in a pool because of the Fluoride.

Chloride. The pool water is chlorinated.

I haven't yet seen a paper claiming either way. It spreads through fluids, so likely it can remain stable in chlorinated water for at least a few seconds.

I agree there could be a wide initial spread, but I really feel that it would be contained much more efficiently in, for example, the US or UK than is possible in the outbreak areas of Africa, so the outcome would be a lot less catastrophic.

Define "epic proportions", because it seems that your threshold for "epic" is way too low. 10x more people are killed on US roads each year.

The original claim would be hyperbolic, except that someone killed in a car crash doesn't increase the risk to other people on the road, but an Ebola infection certainly does. In the mathematics of exponential increase, a small initial amplification factor can produce very impressive results in a short time. Consider the hypothesis that just 1% of Ebola sufferers infect other people. Using this well-established mathematical method:

y' = y (1+p/100)^t

y = infected population % at time zero.

y' = infected population % at time t.

t = time in consistent units

p = percentage increase for one unit of time

So, if it takes a week for the infected population to increase by 1%, then:

http://i.imgur.com/TDPd7ug.png

IOW if after a week the infected population has increased by 1%, after a year (52 weeks) the infected population has increased by 67%. After 2 years (104 weeks) the infected population has increased to 281% of the original. And so forth.

This isn't true for car crashes, and the above is what is meant by an "exponential increase".

If the ghosts of people who died in the road began to spook drivers and cause more accidents, you would see a rapid spike of mortality in the short term, followed maybe by change of behavior where ~90% of traffic is composed of professional bus/truck drivers that are hardened and not easily affected by ghosts.

> "The U.S. government and international organizations recently announced commitments to support these measures. As these measures are rapidly implemented and sustained, the higher projections presented in this report become very unlikely."

From the abstract of the report[0] you're citing. Essentially, it's rising exponentially (at smaller numbers) right now so of course if you extrapolate over long enough you're going to get a big scary number. The situation is bad, but we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet (a valid indictment on policy makers, not the situation). There's a difference between spreading caution and FUD, let's try and avoid the second.

[0] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=... (cool read)

This is true, but it is still reasonable to discuss current infection rates.

As you note, we still haven't even engaged the outbreak with anything close to full force yet. Until we see the effects of that engagement it makes complete sense to look at what is happening right now, not what countermeasures might or might not achieve.

I roll D20 to cast Nuke From Orbit.

This is quite an insensitive thing to say ... or maybe just an insensitive thing to say what everyone is wondering anyway.

We don't have a cure ... and won't have one in time to help (almost) anyone who's contaminated in this outbreak. There's really not much we can do except to contain the virus (if we can do that). I don't necessary want to be nuked from orbit, but if I were to contract this illness I'd also rather not linger towards an almost certain death.

I know it sounds a bit fatalistic, but why be an organ donor, draft a living will (etc) if you don't consider that one day you may perhaps die? And the truth is that most of us are unable to help the current situation in even the simplest way. Those of us who have a suitable belief system can only pray.

The chance of death with proper treatment is roughly 40%: so while certainly terrifying, it is far from a certain death.

It was only meant as a joke, not an actual suggestion. There are far more effective ways to contain Ebola than to introduce nuclear warfare.

The US recently announced a commitment to building 1,700 beds over an undefined time period. (They got on the ground and started fairly quickly. They're totally moving fast, but it's still hard and it takes time.)

The WHO report as of Sept 24th estimates that Liberia alone is 1,550 short of what is needed for treating patients.

That was last week. What do you think it's going to look like in a month?

I think if you look at the numbers you'll see this massive scaling up the CDC is referencing isn't getting ahead of things, it's barely keeping up. The numbers are really quite bad and the CDC estimates shouldn't be taken lightly.

Basically the problem is with an epidemic that is growing exponentially, you have to scale your response exponentially just to keep your current rate of growth. To actually make it go down? You have to scale even faster.

Those policy makers are people too. And just like you they think "it's not that bad".

And on top of that when the CDC (the experts in this shit) is trying to make projections, they are discounted as spreading FUD!

Don't epidemics generally spread exponentially? Is it normal for that growth rate to slow as the size of the epidemic increases? (Honest question, not being sarcastic.)