Chains of transmission and control of Ebola virus disease in Conakry, Guinea, in 2014: an observational study  Ousmane Faye, PhD, Pierre-Yves Boëlle, PhD, Emmanuel Heleze, MD, Oumar Faye, PhD, Cheikh Loucoubar, PhD, N'Faly Magassouba, PhD, Barré Soropogui, MD, Sakoba Keita, MD, Tata Gakou, MD, El Hadji Ibrahima Bah, MD, Lamine Koivogui, PhD, Dr Amadou Alpha Sall, PhD, Dr Simon Cauchemez, PhD  The Lancet Infectious Diseases  Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 320-326 (March 2015) DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)71075-8 Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Epidemiological context (A) Shows a map of Guinea with Conakry, Télimélé, and Boffa, highlighted. Numbers show the show the total number of probable and confirmed cases reported from Feb 10 to Aug 25, 2014. The first case of Conakry was imported from Dabola, which is shown with an asterix. (B) Epidemic curve of probable and confirmed incidence of Ebola virus disease in Guinea (blue) and for the prefectures of Conakry, Télimélé, and Boffa (pink). The number of cases positioned in the chains of transmission in Conakry, Télimélé, and Boffa appear in red. From the end of March, 2014, control measures were implemented, including the opening of a treatment centre, social mobilisation among health-care workers, and secured burial by professional staff. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2015 15, 320-326DOI: (10.1016/S1473-3099(14)71075-8) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Transmission tree (A) Proportion of cases infected in communities, at hospital, and at funerals. Number of individuals infected in each context (B) and context-specific and overall reproduction numbers (C) by month of symptom onset. The reproduction number is the mean number of persons infected by a case. Bars show 95% CIs. (D) An example of one fully resolved transmission tree; each point represents a case of Ebola virus disease and the size of the point is proportional to overall reproduction number R. Dates of symptom onset (shown as day/month) are shown for cases with R≥3. Cases were stratified by date of symptom onset. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2015 15, 320-326DOI: (10.1016/S1473-3099(14)71075-8) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Effect of interventions (A) Context-specific and overall reproduction numbers for health-care workers and non-health-care workers with Ebola virus disease in March, 2014, before implementation of infection control. (B) Context-specific and overall reproduction numbers for health-care workers and for non-health-care workers with Ebola who were and were not admitted to hospital from April to August, 2014—ie, after infection control was implemented. Error bars show 95% CIs. (C) Estimated reduction in the size of the chain as a function of the proportion of patients admitted to hospital. Dashed lines show 95% CIs. (D) Estimated reduction in the number of patients admitted to hospital as a function of the proportion of patients admitted to hospital. Dashed lines show 95% CIs. Cases were stratified by date of symptom onset. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2015 15, 320-326DOI: (10.1016/S1473-3099(14)71075-8) Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions