We very well know (based on solid inductive reasoning) that there are more cases — and fatalities, out there — because the world learned of this outbreak after many were already dying. And many of the original index cases were traveling the remote country-side, and unknowingly leaving death in their wake.

Now a new Scientific American article attempts to estimate how many there really are — and what will be the “upslope curve”, on the progression of the disease — since cases in new places continue to appear without any documented connection to the originally-afflicted.

I won’t call this article definitive, yet — but it certainly is a more useful model. . . for assessing how much support, and where that support should be first delivered. . . than only looking at lab tested, confirmed illnesses and deaths. Here’s the latest, on all that:

…[T]he researchers calculated case numbers for moderate, fast and slow growth scenarios based on cases imported from Ituri alone versus Ituri and Nord Kivu.

Both methods produced fairly consistent estimates for the size of the outbreak as of May 27. The first model yielded an estimate of between 306 and 2,521 cases, whereas the geographic spread model estimated between 282 and 1,345 cases. The researchers stress that these estimates have a lot of uncertainty and that many cases could be missed. “The broad convergence of our estimates from two independent methods supports the conclusion of potentially substantial underdetection of cases and the potential for wider transmission,” the authors wrote in the study….

Tracking the number of cases and deaths in Ebola outbreaks is notoriously difficult, complicated by weak public health systems, armed conflict and other factors. That makes comparisons between the current situation and past Ebola outbreaks almost impossible, McCabe says….

Please be excellent to one another — it is baby grrls’ day here at my place… with sunny bike rides, park-play and grilling in store after noon. Smile….

नमस्ते