The problem is that you’re using the same fatality rates for the U.S. and the same spread rate for the U.S. as you use for Africa. Ebola is spreading in countries which basically have no health care infrastructure, no hospitals, no disease control of any kind. The situation in Europe and the U.S. is a bit different. Also I noticed you have 3 infections for September and 2 fatalities. I believe that totals should be zero fatalities shouldn’t it?
Perhaps Ebola does not kill off that fast?
The death rate is any where between 70% to 85% is what I have heard. Thus, why it’s 2 out of 3.
> Ebola is spreading in countries which
> basically have no health care infrastructure,
> no hospitals, no disease control of any kind.
And the US will have the same lack of infrastructure a few minutes after the first healthcare worker is reported positive, and the rest go on strike over the utter lack of planning, prep and protection.
Everyone needs to be prepared to shelter in place for some time. And time is about to run out for obtaining supplies.
You are correct about,
“Also I noticed you have 3 infections for September and 2 fatalities. I believe that totals should be zero fatalities shouldn’t it?”
It should start in October and not September.
It should read 3 and 0. Oh well close enough...
Good catch.
After the first nurse or doctor gets sick, we will not have any health care infrastructure. After you get a certain number of sick people in the hospital, you will no longer have any capacity to contain it.
Our healthcare system is not set up to deal with a pandemic.
As opposed to what we've just witnessed in Dallas?
I'm not too certain that's wrong.
Also, travel in Africa is far lower than in the United States. That's why prior outbreaks were pretty much self-contained. They couldn't get anywhere else before the virus killed them. In the U.S., someone could get in a car and potentially infect 1,000s along any major freeway corridor within a week from one coast to the other, or within a day or two from Canada to Mexico.