
How Nigeria Stopped Ebola - davesque
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nigeria-stopped-ebola-2014-10
======
NearAP
2 important factors which helped were

1) The health workers who treated the index patient were a major factor in
preventing the spread of Ebola to the rest of the city. This is because the
index patient initially lied he had been in contact with an Ebola patient, the
Liberian Ambassador tried to pressurize the hospital into releasing the
patient to attend a conference in another state. The doctors treating him
refused and 2 of them died after contacting the virus.

2) A group of volunteers set up a website [1] to pass across information to
the public. Their aim was to stop the spread of false information, reduce
panic and help socialize government message about Ebola. Stars of the Nigerian
film industry (AKA Nollywood) also helped in the media campaign.

[http://www.ebolaalert.org/](http://www.ebolaalert.org/)

~~~
segmondy
You will be right if the disease never left the hospital. The disease did
leave the hospital, some people that got it, ran off to other cities and they
had to be found and brought back.
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-health-ebola-
ni...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-health-ebola-nigeria-
enugu-idUSKBN0GD1F220140813)

The group/government working on this really did their part.

~~~
tadeoyerinde
NearAP is right- information is and was key, and Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra
Leone would do well to follow suit. An alarming amount of people think that
bathing with saltwater prevents infection.
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/12/339638348/p...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/08/12/339638348/pray-
over-hot-salt-water-then-bathe-in-it-an-anti-ebola-ritual)

------
DanielBMarkham
I hate to play Negative Ned, but some observations are in order.

Contact Tracing works when you have one guy that you know has it -- and you
fan out like wildfire to catch all the people exposed. It'll probably work for
the one U.S. case.

It does not work when you have tens of thousands of people infected, like we
do in other African countries. People who are dying at home. People who have
been in contact with who-knows-whom.

So we're entering a new phase of Ebola: places where the disease is everywhere
and we have no contact tracing, and places that can catch one or two cases as
they appear. Nigera is currently in the latter camp. I hope they stay there.

This is why scientists think the U.S. and other more advanced countries will
do better: we'll be able to stomp on new cases, track the contacts down, and
catch the secondaries.

This will continue to work -- until it doesn't. That is, if the disease can be
contained elsewhere, a low volume of cross-border transmission should be
manageable. If, however, it continues to spread to unknown places, and grows
in immeasurable ways? Then at some point the trickle of cases overloads any
healthcare system.

~~~
coldcode
Imagine someone gets infected by a borderline patient before they are
quarantined, like the nurse. Imagine this person is an undocumented worker or
poor individual who eventually gets sick and is afraid or unable to afford
healthcare and infects those around them. At this point you have a real
problem as people are walking around unknowingly infecting others who also
eventually either find a doctor who is unprepared for patients walking in with
Ebola, or hopefully a hospital that is ready. I don't find this scenario
unlikely at all. In the US there is limited legal means to force quarantines
on large masses of people much less any place to put them. Imagine one going
to an NFL football game. How do you trace 60,000 people and all their
contacts?

Hopefully none of the exposed people will fit this scenario but you only need
one free infectious person you don't know about.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Thomas Duncan didn't have health insurance:
[http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-
columns/20141014-jo...](http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-
columns/20141014-josephus-weeks-ebola-didnt-have-to-kill-my-uncle.ece)

~~~
k-mcgrady
How does the US health care system adapt if this does become widespread? Do
people without health insurance receive 100% free treatment? Seems like the
smart thing to do for everyone but the US health care system isn't exactly
smart.

~~~
hga
For acute treatment of things like this the US health care system is "smart".
If you present with stuff like this to an ER they take care of you, otherwise
you, not to mention the whole world, would hear of people being dumped in
alleys or hospices. That's been the law since after WWII BTW.

Now, how many US hospitals will be bankrupted by the measures needed to get
ready for, and deal with such patients, is another question altogether:
[http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/14/ebola-preparation-
will-...](http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/14/ebola-preparation-will-
bankrupt-my-hospital-director-reacts-to-cdc-prep-call/)

~~~
k-mcgrady
Good to know. I thought it would be like this but didn't want to assume.

~~~
hga
Kudos to you, this outbreak is showing that very few assumptions should be
made.

Heck, I keep reading such crazy, Onion level stuff in the "right wing"
alternative media sources I follow that I've been going to the primary sources
to confirm that "yes, the CDC director really said that". Not that I really
distrust those sources, aside from Drudge, which gets a little too
enthusiastic with their summary headlines. It's just the "extraordinary claims
demand extraordinary proof". Which is seldom lacking.

On the "right wing" side I've caught only one case where my reading of the NIH
historical budget charts didn't match the text claims
([http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/a-word-on-
the-...](http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/a-word-on-the-nih-
budget.php)): After a steady, overall near doubling in constant dollars from
FY94 to FY03, extra steep after 9/11, it's been in a slow and moderate
constant dollar decline except for some big dollops from the stimulus bill,
but it's not gone much below its FY01 level as of now, and its 70% above the
FY94 level (again, in constant dollars). See
[http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43341.pdf](http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43341.pdf)

Which make that NIH guy;s "we would have an Ebola vaccine today if not for the
eeeeevil Republicans" a clear lie. The NIH's remit is genuinely and
legitimately very very broad, whereas the CDC's shouldn't be, it's all a
matter of priorities, and even to this day, real work on Ebola is not a
priority. Or perhaps I should put it this way, per robomartin's long essay
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8463558](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8463558)
a number of people have some explaining to do.

------
OoTheNigerian
Irrespective of some cynical comments below, I am happy to see rare good news
from my country make it to the front page.

The nation worked together in conjunction with some foreign health workers to
aggressively tackle the spread. We were quite lucky that the first known case
occurred in Lagos and the doctors at the hospital (on of whom died) were very
proactive.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
I think credit is due to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. They are putting out great public education materials:
[http://i.imgur.com/PY9cZy2.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PY9cZy2.jpg)

~~~
peteretep
Save someone else the trouble of Googling it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Pidgin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Pidgin)

~~~
smtddr
Thank you. I'm pretty sure a8da6b0c91d was counting on people not googling
it.... I've seen his posts before.... He knows what people will assume.

------
davesque
This article set my mind at ease a bit. Hopefully it can do the same for
others.

~~~
cracell
The risk I'm concerned about is it evolving to be contagious prior to showing
symptoms. Which becomes more likely the more it spreads.

And of course seeing two US nurses get it from one patient illustrates that
our healthcare system is not prepared to contain it. Hopefully that will be
fixed within a couple of months.

~~~
throwaway5752
That's an odd thing to say. We have one of the top healthcare systems in the
world, and it's not perfect. If Nigeria can contain Ebola, the US certainly
can.

There is no indication that it's changed to be more transmissible. Have you
read the report that the Dallas nurses gave to the nurses union? Here it is,
if you haven't:

[http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-
dallas-20141014-st...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-
dallas-20141014-story.html#page=1)

It's a private hospital and is self-policing when it comes to preparing for
and implementing CDC protocols. Based on the allegations, they clearly had not
made the necessary preparations, so the nurses were very poorly protected and
almost certainly came into contact with excretions from the patient. The fact
that the nurses had to release this information via a union that didn't
represent them because of fear of whistleblowing probably has a lot to do with
how this situation came about.

~~~
verroq
>top healthcare systems in the world

Americans actually believe this.

~~~
elpachuco
Purely anecdotal. It is not bad. It could be better sure. The times that a
family member has been sick and taken to an emergency room everybody has done
their part to nurse them back to health.

Unfortunately there are always incompetent nurses, staff, and probably even
doctors that hide among the competent. You always find a couple of them in the
hospital. Thankfully I've only ever encountered incompetent nurses, or nurse
aids. Especially nurse aids. Doctors have been OK.

They are really hard to get rid off because they do just enough to not get
fired. They also work really hard to mask their mediocrity.

Of course, I have not been able to experience the health care of other
countries so there is a chance that USA's health care is worse than I think.
I'll be extremely happy once we are able to automate health care.

------
robomartin
As it pertains to what's going on in the US, there is a question nobody in the
media is asking and frankly, I don't understand why. It's very simple:

What have you been doing since 9/11?

Context:

It was fair to assume, after 9/11 that some kind of a bio or chemical attack
could have been in the cards for the future. Such weapons had been used in the
Middle East.

As various agencies were realigned in order to deal with the new threats and
Homeland Security was created it only stands to reason that some of the
objectives had to be to engineer, plan, drill and prepare for quick and
effective response to a wide range of potential attacks.

I am not a biologist or chemist nor do I have any real experience or knowledge
dealing with these kinds of attack scenarios.

This is going to sound really weird, but, well, I have three large German
Shepherd Dogs and I've had cases of all three coming down with diarrhea.
Having to clean up such a mess teaches you a thing or two about the spread and
handling of bodily fluids.

After experiencing that just once I put into place a system and a kit to be
able to deal with the situation more effectively. It's nasty and I really
didn't want to suffer like I did the first time. I am happy to say that my
planning worked well.

Now, using that example, had I been involved with DHS and CDC back in 9/11 I
would have devoted serious time and resources to creating and equipping rapid
response teams to deal with chemical and bio attacks in all major cities.

I would have designed and tested container-based (as in converted cargo
containers) emergency response systems. I would have developed a set of
isolation environments within containers. I would have staged these in every
major city in the country at appropriate locations. And, of course, I would
have conducted quarterly drills in order to ensure that everyone who might
potentially have to be involved in dealing with a chemical or bio attack was
trained to the best of our abilities.

I probably would have included both civilian and military personnel in this
system.

All that would be missing would be that music that plays in the Transformers
movies when the trucks, planes and ships deploy to do battle. In other words,
I would require a system that was that ready to go into action. Just like the
movies.

So far, I've watched every CDC conference surrounding this Ebola business.
It's embarrassing. It's scary. It is absolutely astounding to me that no
reporter is asking this simple question: What have you been doing since 9/11?
And I say so because the story coming out of the CDC sure sounds like, well,
amateur hour is too harsh, but let's just say it is obvious they were not
ready for this.

When you have the director of the CDC on camera saying things like "We now
have two teams supervising operations at the hospital so we can make
improvements". In other words, one team wasn't enough, you guys didn't have
your act together, you have left the response to these kinds of incidents to
the random training, equipment and judgement of any random hospital in the US
(because there was no way to know where the index patient might land, right?).
Why weren't these drills, supervised by not one, but five teams of observers
and experts conducted five or ten years ago. Why now? Why do you have to
figure it out now?

To say that it is obvious that these people have squandered 13 years is a
grotesque understatement. What would happen if we had twenty patients arrive
into twenty different cities? Was there a plan? Is there a plan? No. Of course
not.

I am trying like hell to not get political here. But, you know, every corner
we turn we see example after example of just how bad big government can be.
They can't manage building a website that a team of five college dropouts
could have aced in six months. And we trust them to protect us from bio
hazards? What have they been doing during the last thirteen years? If they are
not incompetent, what are they?

Here's reality, going back to my dog example. I take a nice large building and
spray the interior with liquefied dog shit. I then take a group of engineers
and task them with cleaning said building. They have all the tools they need
to develop protective gear, tools, equipment and procedures to do it quickly,
safely and thoroughly. And they are also tasked with developing these systems
and procedures such that we could easily containerize them and scale them to
be able to instantly deal with liquefied dog-shit attacks anywhere in the US.

How long do you think it would take to have an absolutely amazing system in
place if we took that away from government and held a contest open to any and
all private entrepreneurs? Each of 100 teams gets a ten million dollar grant
from the US government. The winning team walks away with a contract and a $100
million dollar prize. A year? At the most? I would think so. The CDC and DHS
have had 13 years to accomplish exactly this and prepare for the potential of
a massive chemical or biological attack in the US and the best they can do is
what we are seeing now? With sick nurses getting on planes? And television
anchors breaking quarantine? And "breaches of protocol"? What protocol?

Unbelievable. In my world this isn't about firing someone it goes way beyond
that. This is criminal. This isn't even political as it spans administrations
controlled by both major political parties.

Now, don't get me wrong, I happen to think that this is reasonably unlikely to
fully derail here in the US. Not because the CDC and DHS have it together.
Nope. Simply because Ebola doesn't is hard to transmit and we don't have a
ten, twenty or a hundred cases spread all over the place. We had ONE guy that
got through. And that was enough to expose just how fucked the response system
happens to be. I really hope nobody else dies.

It might get a little scarier before it gets better, but I think we will be
OK. What's got me rattled is that we are watching our response system engage
in real time experiments with people's lives in front of the entire world when
the fundamental procedural aspects having to do with responding to something
like this should have been fully worked out, tested, verified, re-tested and
forward deployed years ago. Not now. Years ago. Dealing with fighting a
specific virus is a different story, that's biology, that's not procedure and
readiness in terms of forward deployment of resources to deal with
containment, etc.

Again, simple question:

What have they been doing since 9/11?

Are we ever going to hold any of these people accountable?

Why doesn't anyone ask the right questions?

~~~
pcrh
Your characterization of the response as inept overlooks what actually _was_
done.

The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has so
far been limited to 1 single person as far as I can tell. Prevention of spread
from that single person looks likely to be 100% effective, due principally to
the preparedness of all those involved, from the CDC to the hospital to the
airline.

Keep calm and carry on. Don't panic everyone into instituting a whole raft of
expensive and ineffective TSA-like measures.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-
epidemic-o...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/an-epidemic-of-
fear-and-anxiety-hits-americans-amid-ebola-
outbreak/2014/10/15/0760fb96-54a8-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html?hpid=z1)

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "The very existence of the CDC is step 1, and the "outbreak" in the US has
so far been limited to 1 single person as far as I can tell. Prevention of
spread from that single person looks likely to be 100% effective, due
principally to the preparedness of all those involved, from the CDC to the
hospital to the airline."

Maybe I'm wrong but I read that two nurses that worked on that patient have
now contracted the virus.

~~~
pcrh
After searching the news a bit, there appear to be four cases of Ebola in the
US. Thomas Eric Duncan arrived from Liberia with Ebola, and before dying
passed it to two nurses, Vinson and Pham, who are recovering. A third patient
is a doctor who contracted it in Liberia and is also recovering [1,2,3]. So,
one death and three recovering patients.

I'm unable to edit my previous comment.

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-
nurses-a...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-
accuse-hospital-sloppy-safety-ebola)

]2][http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-
tr...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-transferred-
emory-26217549)

[3] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-
canada-29632433](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433)

~~~
hga
2 more: a 2nd doctor I think, also treated at Emory, where the 2nd Dallas
nurse is headed per an early report I read yesterday, and the NBC cameraman
who's at the Omaha hospital.

(There are 4 US hospitals truly set up for this, with a total of 23 beds.)

~~~
hga
CORRECTION #2: It turns out the nation has only 11 "Ebola beds": the Omaha and
NIH wards can only treat 1-2 and 2 patients with something this bad out of the
10 and 7 total beds they have. Which leaves 7 free at the moment.

------
mmcclellan
But this article is already out of date. Only hours after this article was
published we learn that the second nurse to test positive was allowed to fly
commercial a day before her diagnosis and after the first nurses diagnosis. We
definitely can't compare our response to Nigeria's.

~~~
anigbrowl
With the CDC's OK because her fever was only 99.5 degrees F instead of 100.4.
What idiot at the CDC made that decision? Did nobody, including the nurse,
consider the idea that the fever might progress and that it would be better to
be safe than sorry? When did so many people become so deficient in common
sense?!

[http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/ebola-patient-traveled-
da...](http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/10/15/ebola-patient-traveled-day-before-
diagnosis/)

~~~
ceejayoz
According to Wikipedia, 99.5 _isn 't a fever_.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever)

> characterized by an elevation of body temperature above the normal range of
> 36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F)

~~~
anigbrowl
I understand that. I have a slightly elevated body temperature myself. But the
nurse, who had been treating a patient known to have Ebola, called the CDC to
advise them that she had a temperature (presumably relative to her usual
temperature).

It seems to me that if we're dealing with an unusually high-risk situation,
it's better to err on the side of caution, no?

~~~
mercer
Agreed. it's not like it would cause significant harm/cost at this point to
isolate someone who is _close_ to having a fever, and was in direct contact
with Ebola.

------
ballstothewalls
Does anyone know the details behind the 21 day time period for declaring
someone to be infection free? Is that some kind of biological max for how long
the virus can live or is it a statistics thing where the virus is not there
95% of the time?

~~~
tjohns
Statistics. There have been rare cases of the incubation period being longer
than 21 days, but most people will get sick much sooner. (95th percentile)

That said, there was a recent PLOS article that suggested that a longer
waiting period might be called for:
[http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/on-the-
quarantine...](http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/on-the-quarantine-
period-for-ebola-virus/)

There's also a cost-benefit analysis involved here. More transmissible/serious
diseases call for a larger margin of safety, while at the same time enforcing
a longer quarantine takes a toll on total available infrastructure.

~~~
ballstothewalls
Thank you for the link!

------
NathanCH
Have they really stopped it if there are still 20 active cases?

~~~
nostrademons
There aren't 20 active cases - there were 20 active cases at the beginning of
September. There have been no active cases of Ebola in Nigeria since 22
September, but the incubation period for the disease is 21 days, and so they
wait until 42 days after the last person gets sick (in case they infect an
unknown person who then infects someone else) before declaring the country
Ebola-free.

~~~
ncallaway
My understanding of the 42 day waiting period was slightly different. I didn't
think it was 21*2 to allow for an intermediate unknown person. I thought it
was that the 21 day incubation period is something like the 95th percentile,
and the 42 day period is the 98-99th percentile.

From the article: "The 42-day period is twice the generally accepted maximum
incubation period of the virus. However, some incubation periods are longer -
that WHO said that in 95 percent of cases the incubation period was between
one and 21 days. In 98 percent it was no longer than 42 days."

~~~
nostrademons
Wikipedia has the incubation period listed as 2-21 days:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease)

That's backed up by two citations, from the CDC and WHO. I think I'd also read
something, before this epidemic started, that said the longest known
incubation period was 21 days.

I've since found a bunch of articles, and one WHO press release, that say the
95th percentile was 21 days and 98th was 42 days. I'm a little skeptical of
them, though: they all trace back to that one WHO press release, which is
based on the West Africa epidemic, where (because transmission is endemic)
it's quite possible that a patient was re-infected at a later date and that's
why the incubation period seems longer. Unless I see evidence from a country
where the cases are all contact-traced, I'd be inclined to believe the earlier
studies about the virus and not the latest articles.

------
NearAP
Just watched Ambassador Robin Sanders (former US Ambassador to Nigeria) on
MSNBC. She says in addition to screening people at the airports, Nigeria was
screening folks at the Harbor/Ports. She says the US is not doing any
screening at the Harbor/Ports and she wants the US to start doing that.

------
mathattack
I'm still very concerned by problems like this which have exponential growth
rates. Eventually they get out of hand. It's not like we can write off an
entire quarter of a continent.

~~~
dredmorbius
The passengers of the Titanic on the morning of April 14, 1912, would likely
have considered writing off two thirds of their number in the event of a
maritime mishap equally unacceptable. However that's precisely what happened
within 24 hours.

Ebola is spreading and doubling rapidly -- every 20 days with the most recent
data I've seen, and the case count in both Liberia and Sierra Leone exceeds
that of the early-September projection made in the _New England Journal of
Medicine_. It's not only well above the _median_ prediction, but it exceeds
the 95% confidence bound.

UN WHO have stated flatly that we've got to achieve a 70% effective
containment to stop spread of the disease or we're entering a stage for which
_they have no plan_.

Not only is the prospect of failed containment concerning, but so is the fact
that there's currently no contingency plan should that occur. It strikes me as
an epic failure of imagination.

Given growth rates and prospects for loss of containment, it could be far more
than a quarter of a continent at stake.

------
steven2012
I don't think the US has a problem with an ebola pandemic. I do believe that
the governments around the world are understating how contagious this disease
is.

I wonder how many of those 19 infected people died? Did they attempt to save
them, or did they essentially wait for them to die? Depending on the answer,
it could make the reaction of health workers and patients in Nigeria behave
very differently.

~~~
maxerickson
The linked WHO pdf (at the point in the article mentioning the 19 confirmed
cases) states that there were 8 deaths in Nigeria (the other 12 have
recovered). One of those is a death that is only listed as a probable Ebola
case.

Normally, we have to complain that news articles don't link to their sources!

------
bvrlt
Nigeria didn't actually do an awesome job:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/10/15/nigeria_and...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/10/15/nigeria_and_senegal_on_the_verge_of_being_declared_ebola_free_can_we_learn.html)
(published 3 hours after BI)

~~~
NearAP
1) Interesting.., that is the only article so far that I've seen that is
actually playing down what was achieved by the Nigerian Government and its
citizens.

2) The article says ' _....A single Liberian man, who traveled to Nigeria in
July, infected 11 hospital staff in the time between his admission to a
hospital and when his test results were received..._ '

What that statement failed to point out was that a) Nobody initially knew the
guy had been in contact with an Ebola patient because the guy lied serially
about it - [1]. Because of this, the man had initially been treated for
Malaria and so the hospital staff did not wear protective gear. When they
finally discovered he was from Liberia and suspected Ebola, his diagnosis came
fairly quickly. b) The article also failed to say that the man once yanked out
his 'drip tubes' spilling his blood, and peed in the room forcing the health
workers to flee [2].

3) WHO says on their website [3] - '...In a piece of _world-class
epidemiological detective work_ , all confirmed cases in Nigeria were
eventually linked back to the Liberian air traveller who introduced the virus
into the country on 20 July.

[1]
[http://allafrica.com/stories/201408261017.html](http://allafrica.com/stories/201408261017.html)

[2]
[http://www.frontpageafricaonline.com/index.php/news/2506-saw...](http://www.frontpageafricaonline.com/index.php/news/2506-sawyer-
s-final-hours-in-lagos-indiscipline-rage-strange)

[3]
[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en...](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/14-october-2014/en/)

------
mikhailfranco
... for now, and only until the next time.

~~~
crpatino
The way you presented your message is not even trying to be polite, and I
understand some people might be offended.

However, it does not deserves the down-votes. Specially because it is probably
correct. People tend to claim victory a bit too early.

------
durandal1
This process sounds way too effective to be executed by a US agency.

------
tiatia
Did they scam ebola? ;-)

------
OpenSourceRocks
I wonder, did they really... One of the most corrupt government could easily
control media.

~~~
nwj
Your comment is baseless speculation and only serves to spread fear.

There hasn't been a new reported case in Nigeria in 30 days. That data is
coming from the WHO, which is not under the control of the Nigerian
government.

~~~
trhway
>That data is coming from the WHO, which is not under the control of the
Nigerian government.

not really.

[http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-
africa/case...](http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/case-
counts.html)

"*Case counts updated in conjunction with the World Health Organization
updates and are based on information reported by the Ministries of Health"

------
jgale
This is the country that still can't find over 200 abducted school children.
I'm surprised to hear good news.

------
vonnik
Can we please not use a Business Insider reporter strapped to a desk in New
York as our source of truth on Ebola in Nigeria? Nigeria can't even recover
the school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. I hardly think it's up to the
challenge of Ebola, and this story isn't over yet...

