Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Response to Ebola as article's scope and/or definition

This talk section is specifically about changing the hatnote from "This article is about Ebola virus disease diagnosed in humans in the United States" to "This article is about the response in the United States to the West African Ebola virus" and adding "There have been various responses to this, ranging from patient recovery to public fear." to the first paragraph.

More generally, this is about coming up with an overall concept of what this article is about; things that should be included and things that should not. How will we separate ourselves from Ebola virus disease, Ebola virus and Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa in order to differentiate us from a content fork?

I think the current thrust of this article is things that Americans do to combat the West African strain of Ebola that was identified in 2014 and to protect themselves. You can already see that we have a possible problem: are we talking about the US combatting Ebola or protecting the homeland? If both, do we have one term that describes both? The only thing that I can come up with is Response (of the US to the current strain of Ebola). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the hatnote should be changed as soon as possible, since it's misleading at present. The response of the USA overseas doesn't fit under the current title, not being "in the United States", so it should either be detailed in the responses article or the title should be changed. Siuenti (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I see only 1.5% of the current text, 100 words, that specifically covers U.S. efforts in Africa. Rephrasing the hatnote to focus on that aspect would be inaccurate and probably confuse anyone who read it when they next saw the TOC. In any case, why not offer your thoughts about this at the Page move section above? --Light show (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a medical article about cases of a non-endemic virus brought into the country by travelers as well as cases of American health care workers brought in for treatment. It has multiple scopes. Wrt the efforts of the U.S. government to contain the virus overseas, as President Obama has explained on numerous occasions, in order to stop the virus from becoming an epidemic here, we must stop it in Africa. The U.S. article is about the cases of the virus that have been imported into the U.S. and the efforts of the U.S. health infrastructures on the federal and state level to contain and treat those cases. Ebola virus is not endemic to the United States and it never will be because the natural reservoir of Ebola virus is the fruit bat. There are no megabats in the United States, only microbats with rabies virus and a rare hantavirus. Anything that relates to the efforts to treat and contain the Ebola virus brought into the U.S. such as mandatory quarantines, airport screenings, school closings, concerns of the public, all belong in this article. These are all the common efforts with the outbreak of any contagious pathogen. The best title as most editors with backgrounds in virology recognize, is Ebola virus cases in the United States. That covers the travelers and the returning the health care workers and all the attendant efforts that go along with treating them and preventing the spread of the virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Would most of you support changing the hatnote from "This article is about Ebola virus disease diagnosed in humans in the United States" to "This article is about Ebola virus cases in humans in the United States"? Obviously we are dealing with more than just cases diagnosed in the US, for example, the section on Cases of U.S. health care workers evacuated from West Africa. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Would also support as more accurate. It was also be nice if the 2nd sentence in the hatnote was shortened. And if we keep the 2nd sentence about primates, it's probably not necessary to state "humans" in the first one, since it's implied. --Light show (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Light show, Maybe you could go ahead and rewrite that. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Threat in Oregon

"Oregon Woman Hospitalized For Possible Ebola Infection" from the Huffington Post. Please add this information to the article. Please add new Information to World Map and United States Map. Sherwood, Courtney (31 October 2014). "Oregon Woman Hospitalized For Possible Ebola Infection". Huffington Post. Portland, Oregon. Retrieved 31 October 2014. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Not confirmed, yet. Need to wait until test comes up positive. -- Veggies (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Veggies. If we put merely possible cases (not confirmed) into the article, it would sink under the weight of people's imagined maladies. Too many people jump to the false conclusion that they have somehow been infected. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on this matter Veggies and JRSpriggs! I appreciate it!

@CookieMonster755: You could set up a list-type article; e.g., List of all Ebola cases in the United States. That might be valuable to someone. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? That's what this article is. If more cases continue to come along, the individuals will no longer be notable. A list article would also not include potential cases, only confirmed. per WP:CRYSTALBALL - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Nurse in Maine

The paragraph mentioning the nurse in Maine, Kaci Hickox, seems to have grown quite large. I'm wondering if it might be best, since she's past the quarantine period anyway, to reduce this per due weight to a simple paragraph that mentions: 1) she was the first person to come under the new quarantine, she tested negative, returned to Maine, subsequently was not required to be under a mandatory quarantine because she wasn't symptomatic. Any opinions? If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and reduce it, but I would like input from others on what is most important to keep. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely, ethical issues are involved with the quanrantine, public safety, rights of the individual over the right to safety of the remaining population, etc. These (presumed, widely-held public) rights are often contravened, even by the use of private motor vehicles, airplanes, the decisions on the nature of industry and the infrastructure, etc., but the rights of privilege usually override the more basic rights to safety and noninjury of the majority (as the majorities in less industrialized nations who are impacted by first world decisions on coal and other fossil fuel use), the a social result of all this may be the insistence upon private privilege at all costs. Perhaps some link to a top-quality discussion of that ethical topic would be suitable. MaynardClark (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there was court action necessitates a longer entry. How long that is, once the legal action was completed is up to the editors here, but it most certainly should be mentioned. It fills the gap for future readers, who may be unacquainted with the knee jerk and political maneuvering that occurred during the panic phase of the "outbreak".76.98.54.238 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO, this was clearly as much (if not more) a case of political maneuvering than about safety concerns. But as it turned out, the result has had a huge impact on the concerns of the WHO, the CDC and MSF that health care workers from the US (and other countries) will be discouraged from volunteering their efforts to assist in the humanitarian efforts. It also speaks to the issues surrounding quarantines and travel restrictions that the WHO and MSF have both strongly spoken out against saying that in the long run, the best way to stop the epidemic from turning into a pandemic is to fight the disease in Africa rather than attempt to wall off the countries experiencing current uncontrolled spread. I'd suggest that we keep a fairly detailed account of this episode because it well-represents a larger issue. Gandydancer (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Or restated from the perspective of those of us presumably misled by political maneuvering: the biggest cause of panic is people deciding for themselves whether to be quarantined. If Ebola doesn't get us, some future epidemic will. Art LaPella (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any political maneuvering by either of the Governors. Governor Cuomo is a Democrat and Chris Christy is a Republican. I think both men were genuinely acting in the best interests of the people of their states. That's their job. And especially as Craig Spencer didn't see fit to quarantine himself, as Governor Cuomo pointed out. Btw, MSF asks it's volunteers to self-quarantine. Some agencies tell their volunteers they can go straight back to their lives, but MSF doesn't. And to make such a loud fuss over this as the nurse in Maine did. I don't know how the press and the people of Maine stood listening to that incessant whinging day after day. That said, since it's now a closed issue, I think it can be easily summed up, with as the IP says, reference to the court order. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you say what you did about MSF's view of self-quarantine (e.g. recent coverage of this topic). Spencer did not need to self-quarantine (supported by the result: it's been almost 21 days since he was hospitalized, with no secondary cases). -- Scray (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The clear evidence from US cases is that people do not become infectious until days after they begin to have symptoms. The only two secondary cases in the US were in nurses treating Duncan after he had developed very severe symptoms: explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting. So waiting to quarantine people until they have clear symptoms is quite reasonable.

Also, testing people before they show symptoms is unreasonable because the risk of both false positive and false negative results in that situation is excessive. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, testing prematurely is unreasonable. As for symptoms, anyone infected with Ebola virus does not have control over when those symptoms might appear. As for Dr. Spencer, he reported feeling 'sluggish' the day before he was admitted to hospital. He didn't report whether or not he'd taken his temperature that day, but he did go out and about. He then lied about being out and it wasn't until the police investigators examined his Metro card and his credit card receipts that the truth about his movements was revealed. Governor Cuomo made the comment that self-quarantine doesn't work and mentioned that Spencer was a physician and even he didn't self-quarantine. It's not unreasonable to ask health care workers to self-quarantine when they return from taking care of Ebola patients in West Africa. Recently, a nurse with Doctors without Borders returned to Texas and voluntarily self-quarantined. It seems a reasonable thing to do given the fears this disease causes. I've been wondering how very different the Maine nurse, given her statements, might have behaved had she landed at JFK in Long Island, New York, and not Liberty Airport in Newark, New Jersey. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sluggish" is not one of the alarm symptoms for Ebola. Guessing isn't what we need to do here on this Talk page - we're talking about what is available in reliable sources, what the accepted criteria are. -- Scray (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions for SW3 5DL: "He didn't report whether or not he'd taken his temperature that day" - where did you find that info? And, "He then lied about being out and it wasn't until the police investigators examined his Metro card and his credit card receipts" - I'd like to see that source as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/ebola-doctor-lied-about-his-nyc-travels-police/. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that it was wrong for Spencer to lie about his activities, I think he may simply have been trying to avoid causing unnecessary inconvenience to those places he visited rather than covering up misbehavior by himself. After all, the closures, cleaning, and monitoring of the places and people he met were actually unnecessary and wasteful. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It was his duty to tell the truth in order to protect the public health. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@ 5DL - Right, and President "Osama" is a secret Muslim but lied about it. Do you have a credible source, in other words something other than the New York Post? Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says the New York Post is not a credible source for this news story? Specifically, do you have a source that disputes this story? Did Spencer deny this story? Did the NYPD and the NY Health Department deny this story? Did Spencer demand a retraction? I should think if this story is not credible, that Spencer would demand that this be retracted and an apology issued. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Specifically, do you have a source that disputes this story?" Sure, the NYC Health Dept. did: "NYC health dept disputes report Ebola doc lied [1] Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source merely talks about what Spencer said to the the health department, not what he said to the police. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears the New York Post is quoting a police source who relayed Health Department questions to Spencer. His initial statements were that he self-quarantined. But his Metro card and his credit cards said something very different. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The CNBC source does not actually dispute that he lied. The spokesperson was asked a direct question about that and she declined to give a direct answer. Instead she referred the reporter back to her statement which does not contradict the New York Post. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not aware that the CDC has different levels of self quarantine and a person does not necessarily need to go indoors and avoid all contacts for 21 days. At any rate, it does not appear that he was was being secretive about his jogging, bowling, etc., hardly what you'd call sneaking around, and not doing anything he had to lie about in the first place. There is good reason that WP does not accept any of this "an undisclosed source said..." tabloid journalism and note that not a single source (other than Fox News, which is pretty iffy) that WP would consider RS carried this report. I very much doubt that you would be willing to bring your claims to the RS questions department because you know quite well what they would say. Gandydancer (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh shut up. Go take your tiresome pot and stir it someplace else. You've no interest at all in discussing the topic of this thread. You're only here to create a problem where none existed before you showed up. Why don't you go find something to do like actually WRITE an article? You've written ZERO articles so far. ZERO article creation after how many years on WP? And do stop making edits that show you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

noise

OK, if we're going into personal attack mode, maybe I should publish a score sheet for who made the best points. Naw, maybe I shouldn't. Art LaPella (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Really, and what do you think you've just done? What was your score here? Gandydancer, and then You. And then Gandydancer and then You, again. Another idiotic waste of space on WP. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

US Military response team

FYI - This article has information and pictures on the US military response team [2] BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

BlueAg09, Well done you finding it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Confirmed Case List

I propose to change the current confirmed case list for more continuity and future-proofing. Currently the list is grouped as 1st, 2nd + 3rd, and 4th. I propose section headings for each case, as well as the moving of the "Monitoring of other health care workers" section into the end of the section on Thomas Duncan. This gives room to elaborate on the second and third cases, as well as direct access to either through the contents. Does this sound reasonable? Cbowman7289 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It would make sense if we know there won't ever be more cases in the U.S. Otherwise, such section prominence seems undue. As it is, even Duncan's section is undue weight since he's got his own article and hatnote pointing to it. --Light show (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Light show: I just followed the connection to the Duncan article, and much of the information is almost verbatim. I definitely agree that it is a little weighted - perhaps some trimming is in order to maintain continuity in the list. In regards to the sectioning, I guess I may have not articulated my idea clearly in my original post, but what I had meant is that we separate the 2nd and third cases into individual points, and merge them all under a single section heading of "Cases diagnosed in the United States" or the like to match the formatting of section 4, as suggested by @Aparuthi: below, and then use subsections to differentiate the cases. This also would help to declutter the contents in the event of more cases, although as mentioned in earlier discussions in this article a separate list article may become necessary if more cases arise. Cbowman7289 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense to have separate section headings for each case. This would make it easier for the reader to navigate. I also propose to change the section headings to Nth case: Patient Name, which would give the reader much more information about the section. Aparuthi (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, is it feasible to have just "Cases" as the first section heading? And 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th as subsections? This way, the section headings would read: 1) Cases, 2) Containment efforts, 3) Treatment, and so on and so forth. Aparuthi (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aparuthi: I agree with having the sections grouped into cases rather than "First case diagnosed in U.S." then grouping the 2nd and 3rd cases and starting a new section for the 4th case. As this articles grows it will become more and more difficult to document the cases and keep them in an order that is easy to navigate for the reader. I suggest having a section for "Diagnosed Cases in the U.S." as suggested above, then the following sections as they're listed currently, except for "Treatment" and "Vaccine development". Those two sections should be grouped into one section called "Treatment and Vaccines. As the article grows with additional cases, the Treatment and Vaccine development will as well. The sections should be combined not only because it will eliminate doing so in the future, but also because of the similarities the two sections already have. Crogand3 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Crogand3: How about combining vaccines and containment into a single section on Prevention? Please see below! Aparuthi (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aparuthi: This grouping definitely makes more sense based on the nature of vaccines as a preventative tool and not a treatment. @Crogand3: Our ideas are very similar in regards to the case list, see my reply above.

Updating Craig Spencer and Public reactions sections

I propose to update the section on Craig Spencer with photos, and add more relevant information to the section. I also propose to add more public reactions from the month of November. Aparuthi (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aparuthi: Based on some news outlets he is to be released soon after being downgraded to stable condition. I think that adding more regarding the timeline of his disease as it becomes available (E.G. changes in condition, treatments, etc.) would be very informative, as currently this section is weighted towards his movement throughout the city before admission and diagnosis Cbowman7289 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding a Section for Unidentified Cases in the U.S.

The article below states that there has been a total of 8 people cared for in the United States that have had the Ebola virus. It's understandable that the people in these cases have not be yet to be identified, but I would still propose to create a section where the remaining cases are noted or held as a place holder until more information comes about. If the wiki articles' main focus is confirmed Ebola cases in the U.S. then the remaining cases should also be published, even if it's with limited detail. Crogand3 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest to reword section headings as:

1) Identified cases (with sub-sections for each of the four identified cases)

2) Unidentified cases (with sub-sections for Cases of U.S. health care workers evacuated from West Africa and 8 people cared for in the US)

3) Treatment

4) Prevention (with sub-sections for Containment efforts and Vaccine development)

5) Reactions

Aparuthi (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Aparuthi: I agree with your sections. The groupings makes gives the article proper structure and opens up opportunity for growth. More importantly it keeps the focus of the article on confirmed Ebola cases in the U.S. and impact it's had shown displayed in each section. Crogand3 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking who the eight cases (treated in US hospitals) are. They are the five medically evacuated cases plus the three cases diagnosed here before Craig Spencer (the article is dated Oct 20 before his case became known).

Thus there is only one unidentified case, namely that of the man who was medically evacuated and chose to keep his identity secret. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree here - none of the known cases are missing are missing from this article. I don't think any changes are warranted to accommodate unidentified cases. In regards to the headings proposed by @Aparuthi:, I think the wording for 1 and 2 is confusing. Keeping the current theme of cases domestically diagnosed or imported is clearer to the reader. One thing I do like here is your grouping of vaccination with containment efforts under a prevention header, as vaccines are preventative by nature. Cbowman7289 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest to merge 1) and 2) into a single section on Cases. The sub-section headings can then take care of whether the case is identified or unidentified, if the list grows longer. The subsection headings I propose would read something like: 1.1) Case 1 (Identified): Patient Name, 1.2) Case 2 (Unidentified): Title. Aparuthi (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for separating cases by 'identified' versus 'unidentified.' Out of the nine total cases, one health care worker has chosen to remain anonymous. I've not seen any reliable source that is drawing attention to that anonymous worker. And I don't agree that all the cases should be merged. Medical evacuations are very different from travelers arriving with the virus and becoming symptomatic. The distinction is an important one. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. Domesticly incubated and diagnosed cases/imported cases is a much more meaningful place to draw a line than unidentified/identified. Just the use of unidentified/identified makes it sound too speculative. 150.212.83.167 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with separating domestically incubated and diagnosed/imported cases rather than unidentified/identified. My original thought was to acknowledge the Ebola cases in the United States, whether they originated in the US or were imported, because my understanding of the scope of this article was to identify just that. Crogand3 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hospital settlement

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831740/Ebola-victims-family-agreement-hospital.html

SW3 5DL (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Section name change

Should the section "Cases of U.S. health care workers evacuated from West Africa" be changed to be simply as "Medical evacuations from West Africa"? Clearly the NBC crew should not be considered as a healthcare worker. Z22 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll change it out. I'm editing in that section at the moment. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New case coming from Sierra Leone - non-U.S. citizen

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-doctor-infected-in-sierra-leone-to-be-treated-in-omaha-nebraska/

He's a surgeon married to a U.S. citizen and he is a permanent resident of the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/health/nebraska-ebola-patient/

Gremlinsa, you might be interested in this case. You've done so much work on the Sierra Leone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SW3 5DL.. I'll keep an eye on it.. For want of a slow Friday I'm madly busy today...Gremlinsa (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola-free date?

Given that local transmission seems to have stopped, as everyone who had contracted Ebola there is now either dead or recovered, and therefore not infective, and that medevac cases don't count in the assessment, does anyone know the date on which the U.S. will be due to be declared Ebola-free by the WHO, if no further cases are discovered? -- Impsswoon (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that November 7 is the date that the WHO is using for the last recovery, it would be December 19. If they are using the discharge date of November 11, it would not be until December 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)

I do not see why medically evacuated cases would not count since (in Spain at least) they can produce secondary cases. And your assumption that "no further cases are discovered" is way too optimistic. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

With proper MSF-style precautions, secondary infection can usually be avoided, and has been in almost all medevac cases worldwide. These precautions were not used in the early treatment of Thomas Duncan. Also, note the word "if" in my sentence above. -- Impsswoon (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Duncan section

Someone has tagged this section as needing to be summarized. I agree the section could be reduced. I'd like to hear from others on what they think should be cut and what should be kept. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the minutia can easily be cut since there's already a separate article for him. It's simple to remove details such as: "In Brussels, Duncan boarded United Airlines Flight 951 to Washington Dulles Airport. From Washington, he boarded United Airlines Flight 822 to Dallas/Fort Worth. He arrived in Dallas at 7:01 p.m. CDT on September 20, 2014, and stayed with his partner and her five children, who lived in the Fair Oaks neighborhood of Dallas," or details like, "Lab results returned showing slightly low white blood cells, low platelets, increased creatinine, and elevated levels of the liver enzyme AST. His temperature was noted at 103.0 °F (39.4 °C) at 3:02 a.m. and 101.2 °F (38.4 °C) at 3:32 a.m." His section could be trimmed by around 90%.--Light show (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

group=note

Reference number 4 says "group=note", which is meaningless computerese. Perhaps a new Wikidata link was intended, but I don't recognize it. Art LaPella (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

   The string

group=note

is an extremely routine argument within a <ref> directive (not plausibly part of Wikidata IMO), and its orthodox meaning is "This footnote is not a citation identifying (near the end of the current article) a reliable source for the adjacent assertion, but rather an explanatory or clarifying note (also for near the end of the article)"; accompanied by (IIRC) a corresponding {{Reflist|group=note}} directive in an appropriate section, it serves to separate one of the clarifications from among the verifying footnotes.
   I'm checking near in time to your contribs to the accompanying article to see if you misconstrued another contributor's typo. (Yes, it's true that you shouldn't see

group=note

on an article page -- except in cases too technical to discuss -- if you aren't editing or viewing its wiki-markup. So thanks for mentioning, here on the talk page, your attempt to fix it.)
--Jerzy•t 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I found group= at Template:Reflist/doc. (By the way, my edit count is about 90% of yours.) I'm deleting the reference as meaningless. That leaves one of the infobox fields unreferenced. Art LaPella (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

After looking again, there's a malfunctioning note and also a reference. I couldn't fix the note (and nobody else wants to for now), so I deleted the note and left the reference. Art LaPella (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Time selects Brantly as 2014 Person of the Year

In view of Time 's selection of Kent Brantly as Person of the Year, perhaps he should be profiled in a selfstanding article. Rammer (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Time's 2014 Person of the Year is "Ebola Fighters" in general, not just one specific doctor. Check WP:BLP1E for policy. Thundermaker (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Thundermaker. Brantly was the ebola fighter put on the magazine's front cover. Maybe each should be profiled, perhaps in a sub-article. Whatever, and in the meantime, the redirect is useful. Rammer (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

stale infobox numbers

These numbers in the infobox are stale. Some of the referenced values were for New York City on certain dates related to active cases there, and those people have all been cleared. But since there is still a steady flow of people entering the US from ebola-infected countries, hundreds are still being monitored. See this CBS article.

Quarantined people	12
People under observation	100+
People under active monitoring	357
Cleared after 21 days	177 as of November 7

I'm going to remove them, leaving this here just in case. Thundermaker (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible new case at UC Davis

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/healthy-choices/article8567759.html

It's just a possible, not confirmed. 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

42 Days Have Passed

Dr. Spencer was declared Ebola-free 42 days ago, so the US should be officially Ebola-free.

File:USA-Ebola-outbreak-2014.svg

Map is out of date. It should show Omaha with a red dot in a black circle. The original mapmaker has not edited in a month. Rmhermen (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the map-maker. The blue dot doesn't mean there were no casualties fatalities. It just means someone was evacuated there. Both Sacra and Salia were evacuated there--not native Omaha-ans who contracted the virus there. -- Veggies (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

To Veggies: I think the point is that Salia died in Omaha from Ebola. Your map does not indicate his death. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ebola virus cases in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006184937/http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/globenewswire/10101305.htm to http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/globenewswire/10101305.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ebola virus cases in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821123100/http://news.yahoo.com/hospital-discuss-discharge-ebola-patients-100148319.html to https://news.yahoo.com/hospital-discuss-discharge-ebola-patients-100148319.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ebola virus cases in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026195828/http://abc7news.com/health/quarantined-nurse-being-isolated-is-inhumane/366391/ to http://abc7news.com/health/quarantined-nurse-being-isolated-is-inhumane/366391
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stltoday.com/news/science/ebola-how-it-spreads/article_b5ae56ee-866f-5780-99c6-c7e748002909.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Ian Crozier, another one doctor, but Wikipedia did not know him

The story was reported also in the Breaktrough TV series. This is him when they discovered the damned virus inside one of his eyes (from which he finally recovered). Strange that Wikipedia, so really full of stuff about Ebola in USA, missed this noticeable story (reported both in TV and journals like NYT). I would hope that soon this would be implemented, also to avoid confusion with the (similar looking) dr. Brantly, also cured at Emory Hospital: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/health/weeks-after-his-recovery-ebola-lurked-in-a-doctors-eye.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the full history of Doctor Crozier, fallen ill in september 2014 and sent to the Emory Hospital that month. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/health/ebola-doctor-ian-crozier-return-from-the-edge-of-death-.html?_r=0&module=inline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia didn't miss Ian Crozier. This article describes him in the third paragraph here, and links to his article which mentions his eye problem. Art LaPella (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Art LaPella: You're right, my rewording wasn't that good either. But the lead sentence still needs to be reworded. It reads almost exactly like the example "wrong" sentence under MOS:AVOIDBOLD.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Four laboratory-confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as "Ebola) occurred in the United States in 2014." Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To me, the way "occurred" is used in the sentence is weird. What if we did a sentence closer along the lines of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound weird to me, and I don't know how I would fit some analog of that first sentence into the rest of the paragraph. The proposed first sentence starts with the first case, while the rest of the existing paragraph is a summary, not a timeline. I could be more specific if you suggested an actual wording. Art LaPella (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It probably just sounds weird to me. You can go ahead and use the sentence you suggested.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Done Art LaPella (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Second citation mentions only one death

The second citation needed to be updated, because the external article had changed its URL, as tends to happen on the web. However, the article only mentions one death. A better reference might be https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/10/15/356098903/ebola-in-the-united-states-what-happened-when/, which gives a timeline in paragraphs of all the events of the 2014 outbreak, including the two deaths. I am loathe to change it, since I don't know the original Wikipedia author's intent. Skaizun (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)