# Humor Me with some Ebola Math



## indie (Sep 7, 2013)

I'm doing some research on ebola (more on that later) and am trying to hazard a guess at how many people would be affected if ebola went airborne. Here are some facts from the 1918 influenza outbreak, which is the closest real world example we have:

Spanish flu of 1918 mortality rate 5-10%. Total deaths estimated between 50-100 million. Total population of world in 1918 1.8 billion. Total infected, 1/3rd of population = 500 million. 

Current mortality rate of ebola: 50% according to WHO. Current world population: 7.125 billion. 

Considering the fact that we are much more globalized now, but also much more hygienic, what do you think?


----------



## thepeartree (Aug 25, 2014)

I think there are a LOT of people living in places where the state of public health and cleanliness doesn't even dream of being half as good as ours. What do YOU think?? Better yet, ask Zed...


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

WHO urges sneeze protection while CDC retreats

It'a transmitted through sneezing = airborne


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...14.png/1024px-Deceased_per_day_Ebola_2014.png

Don't know if the graph posts, that's as of yesterday


----------



## indie (Sep 7, 2013)

TorontoGal said:


> WHO urges sneeze protection while CDC retreats
> 
> It'a transmitted through sneezing = airborne


There appears to be some contention as to whether or not the airborne sized particles are able to survive as they dehydrate, since people do not appear to be getting sick without direct contact. As in, an aerosolized particle is larger and does not travel as far. It has been understood for some time that ebola is aerosolized, the CDC just never owned up to it. But to be capable of _airborne_ transmission, the smaller particles, up to 5 micrometers, have to be able to survive long enough to infect someone. If particles were surviving and traveling and infecting like, say, the 1918 influenza outbreak, things would be much, much worse than they are now.

In terms of pure apples to apples numbers comparison, if ebola was as contagious and transmitted the same way as influenza (I believe it's H5N1 from 1918), we'd be looking at around 350 million dead from the current outbreak. But, it has a far higher mortality rate.

So, if 1/3 of 7.125 billion, 2.351 billion, were infected at a mortality rate of 50%, it could look more like 1.176 billion dead, or roughly the size of China.


----------



## indie (Sep 7, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...14.png/1024px-Deceased_per_day_Ebola_2014.png
> 
> Don't know if the graph posts, that's as of yesterday


So the # of cases (in Africa, yeah?) has more than doubled--almost tripled--this past month? That's a faster rate than they expected.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

indie said:


> So the # of cases in Africa, yeah?) has more than doubled--almost tripled--this past month? That's a faster rate than they expected.


The state the outbreak began (so only one lot of info)

Last i herd they are sitting around 12,000 cases total (but that was mid week)

Im trying to get the picture of the 1.5 million cases by mid jan (10 weeks away) and that is a good picture


----------



## texasisit (Sep 18, 2014)

*edited for spam*


----------

