Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

Mexico

Mexican Minister of Health Confirms 173 Cases of Swine Influenza. Is this true? http://twitter.com/Veratect/status/1631695822

Veratect according to their website is very very reliable and constantly searches for updates via local media. But I do not know if this is really that reliable... http://www.veratect.com/

Veratect themselves are reliable, and the same people here. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

there has just been 4 tests made for people in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.250 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Source - http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0427/swineflu.htmlGreg Moroney (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The government has stated it has vacine for over half the country so far.Airports are scanning everyperon entering checking of infections through termal imaging and the minister of Health Mary Harnie is joining the meeting in luxemburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.170.156 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland

Switzerland now has 1 confirmed case of swine flu as noted by Vertect's twitter. Please update! http://twitter.com/Veratect/statuses/1630966215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.228.245.222 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, according to this authorities only confirmed that there's a person who is suspected of having A/H1N1. They didn't say that there's someone who has the virus definitely. --FGö 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

pork end

Thailand, Ukraine, Kazaksthan, Philipenses, UAE have banned all pork coming from us states after the swine flu hits the us.

The UAE was a major pork consumer before all this, eh? [[1]] Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint Francis Prep

No mention of the school? This is in New York where the biggest outbreak of the flu occured.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb0mb93 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

More detailed information on US cases is in the US sub-article. 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States. Wine Guy Talk 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate section for Taiwan and China

As much as China government likes refer to Taiwan as part of itself in all its announcements, Taiwan and China are generally recognized as separate state and governmental entities and would need separate sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.58.54 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Putting Taiwan with Hong Kong together is unhelpful in reviewing what measures they have taken separately. As they are autonomous in decision making, their reaction to this out break is unlikely to be exactly identical. Therefore it would be equally unhelpful to bundle together Canada with the US, or Ireland with the UK, Austria with Germany, Belgium with France, Portugal with Spain, etc. etc. - Of course we all know that the WHO nevertheless treats them the same, which is potentially a fatally destructive policy that prioritises political bargaining over human health and common sense. Additionally by combining them in this wiki article, we are setting he precedent that a future sub for Taiwan can not be created (see section on article merger) --Lexxus2010 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Table ordering and placement guidelines for this article

I suggest we enforce this way:

1. The table should be at the top right of the page. It's the clearest summary of 'everything' and sums it up in one fell swoop.
2. First sort by deaths. Next, by possible cases, then confirmed.
3. Secondly sort by confirmed cases, if no deaths in that nation.
4. Third, sort by possible cases.

It's basically trended that way, but we should all drive for that goal. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should sort by possible cases then confirmed cases, at least for the time being. Because it would seem Spain has a more prevelent problem than the UK with 35 possible and a prior confirmed case, and yet comes below the UK as that has just confirmed 2 cases. Just food for thought though. (Dreaming11 (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

It's not really a prevalent problem until the cases are confirmed. There can be lots of people feeling unwell who get tested, and results come back negative. No problem. As soon as one more case is confirmed in Spain, it will jump ahead of the UK. I think we should continue sorting the we have been. Wine Guy Talk 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases section

This section is going to get outdated every hour practically. Since H1N1 is showing up in multiple nations so fast in the past 24 hours, it's going to spread even faster for this by the nature of how these things work, and we're going to have this section on prose eternally lagging behind. I'd be strongly against moving the table down there--the table should be front and center on the article in the lead. What to do with this section, though? rootology (C)(T) 16:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short summary for each country in which cases are confirmed. Malinaccier (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually nevermind. I propose we take out the section entirely in favor of keeping the table. Malinaccier (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would use this section to make a clear distinction between local outbreaks (eg, California, Texas, New York) and sporadic cases linked to recent travel to outbreak areas. Eg, the couple in Kansas: he returned from a trip to Mexico, got sick, his wife got sick, both recovered; so far, the virus has not spread to any of their contacts so there is no local outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Kansas does not seem to fit the usual idea of an outbreak, I don't think we can come up with our own characterisations, that would be both POV and OR. Also, very soon making those sort of judgment calls on the fly, as a group, may become completely impractical. How will we decide that sort of thing when there are thirty or forty small clusters? Do we as wikipedia editors have the skill set to decide what is an outbreak and what is just a fluke little cluster? I think we would do better agreeing as a group on one, single outside authority (WHO, CDC, whatever) that updates numbers regularly and then just plug those numbers into the table. If we really want multiple authorities, then it calls for seperate collumns or tables for both sources. Nosimplehiway (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

(moved from Talk:2009 H1N1 flu outbreak in the United States) Really, why is this not part of the main article? Nja²⁴⁷ 18:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's already too big to merge back into it. It's only a matter of time until there is enough content to fork Mexico off as well. I'm surprised no editors with Spanish skills haven't done so already. rootology (C)(T) 18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a worldwide issue, not specific to the US at all. What they do on Spanish Wikipedia is up to them, but this is English Wikipedia and there seems to be very little convincing reasoning that the US needs its own special article separate from the main one at this point in time. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes its a global matter, but we still do our articles the way we do. The existence of this article has zero impact on the existence of the main one linked off the main page. Our way of doing things is always to constantly fork and split content to sub articles when the content gets too big for the parent article. That's what happened here. It makes no sense to put this back in. The main page has a general overview/up to date info, and the sub-articles go here. Should there be no Mexico page either, you are saying now? rootology (C)(T) 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing is fine, but saying things like 'our way of doing things' and making assertions of statement which I did not say is quite poor behaviour, and I hope you take a breath and calm down a little bit please before addressing others in such a manner. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up/expanded the sub-article quite a bit, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the articles should be merged, as it would impossible to do so without violating WP:UNDUE. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Athough the pandenic is international, different countries respond in their ways and means. I believe that an article on the flue outbreak in the USA is granted given its length and amount of sources. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I find some of the arguments here that say it's 'to big to merge' to be lacking. The US article is hardly that large, and the info could easily be fit into this article. Creating a specific article about one country on a global crisis, one that has only about 20 confirmed cases, is clearly pandering to a certain point of view, that being that a lot of editors here are American. I don't think 'it's to big' is a clear reason for keeping a POV article up. The only way you could remedy this with keeping the US article up is be making individual article fore Mexico and maybe Canada, seeing as they have confirmed cases. Mexico, in fact, as way more confirmed cases then the either two and the only country to have deaths caused by the illness. Lemniwinks (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. has greater media coverage of natural disasters than any other country in the world, so it's only natural for that article to be longer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's just it though, the US article of this crisis isn't even that long. It's nothing we can't fit into this article. Lemniwinks (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we did so, the U.S. section would be substantially longer than the Mexico section, which has more confirmed cases than the U.S. As a result, we'd have a violation of WP:UNDUE, which is why the articles should remain separate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, merging it would violate WP:UNDUE. - Epson291 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact still remains there is a large US section and a small Mexico section, which is where this all started. So instead of not doing anything we should start working on the Mexico and Canada sections so we could justify a merger. Lemniwinks (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I quite honestly feel you're missing the point. Mexico and Canada will likely never have as much info as the United States, and thus no matter how much we worked on the main article, a merger would still lead to unbalanced coverage. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So your claim is that because they aren't the US, they wont have the same amount of info because they don't report on this stuff as much? I have found tons of info for Canada that isn't included, that I have been looking for a place to add. I think you are sadly misguided to assume such a thing, and I think you should be mindful that other countries have media outlets as well. Just because the US media outlets don't report heavily on international affairs, which translates here as well seeing as they are more concerned domestically, doesn't mean there is lack of info for other countries with confirmed cases. I don't find it constructive to say 'leave it as it is' when it could be better. Lemniwinks (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

By your own logic it makes sense to expand the Mexico section then fork it to it's own page, which is what I've been arguing. If I spoke/read spanish above a barely elementary level, I'd do it myself. That's the ultimate solution. If we merge in the US section today, can you honestly say there won't be more US coverage as the work week begins here in 18 hours and the news media goes nuts the rest of this week, or longer? We'd just have to fork right back out... rootology (C)(T) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. I've worked with tropical cyclones for years, and in my experience no other country has nearly the media coverage that the U.S. does. The same applies to all other natural disasters, including diseases. And indeed, I've done research, and there is far more info on this particular influenza outbreak in the U.S. than there is in Mexico, or any other region for that matter. On another note, what benefit would merging the content have? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this article is already quite long, and we're only two days into the media hype. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Juliancolton, you don't live in these other countries, so I doubt you would know really their level of reporting. I'm sure we could expand the Mexican article greatly if any of us understood Spanish, and I'm sure there's a lot more info about it out there to add already. I find your assumptions that there isn't any info disturbing though, because all you have to do is look. I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be any individual country article. I just don't think there is enough to constitute a US article...yet. But I guess since it's already made it would be a bother to go around and to make it again when the time came. Lemniwinks (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have lived in some of the affected countries, albeit for short periods of time. Even so, that's irrelevant; as I've said, a merger would violate WP:UNDUE unless the Mexico section can be expanded far beyond its current state, which is impossible at this time due to the lack of info. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor that created the US fork, I did this because the US editors are prolific in posting and the US portion of the article was growing to large to keep in the main article. Eventually, there will be forks for Mexico and Canada. Green Squares (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy the WP:UNDUE argument at all. It is incorrect to apply UNDUE to say, for example, that a country with 5x the cases of the disease should have 5x the coverage. UNDUE weights facts based on their prominence in reliable sources. If it is the case that more sources cover the US side of this, covering the US side more (even if there are fewer cases) is not UNDUE at all, and is in fact arguably correct. If the real problem here is sources that aren't in English, that is a problem we can solve but it doesn't mandate an article split. Oren0 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point. Still, I feel the region with the most severe effects should have more significant coverage within the article, thus justifying the existence of sub-articles for regions with less-significant, yet better-documented, effects. IMO, at least. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the articles should be merged. In fact, eventually each country should have its own article... if the disease gets that far. Alphabet55 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this article, is so it can be treated as an additional page to the main swine flu wiki page, providing more detailed information per region. In this case, the US, and the additional information is a break down of statistics by State! ;-)

I suggest the merge. The argument that the US entry exists so that English-speaking editors can contribute is invalid. English-speaking editors can just as well edit and contribute to the world entry because it is written in English. In addition, the argument that US-based media coverage is more substantial is also invalid, because US-based media is covering the ongoing event around the world and not only in the U.S. These sources can be used in the world entry. There is no need for a US-only entry.

Well, now Mexico and Canada have sub-articles, so the point is more-or-less moot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

School Closures

It's not the most critical issue but I thought It should be added at the beginning. Hope I helped.

TheCoolOne99 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of pissed off about school closures. The city in Texas already shut down the entire school district from 3 confirmed cases. In NY there are 8 confirmed, and possibly over 20-50 suspected. Schools remain open. GTNz (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the school in NYC was private not a whole district so only one school closed there. But I have a feeling over the next few weeks thousands will be canceling. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it was private, but they use the same public transportation as what are probably the most overcrowded and tightly packed public schools in the city, so we're gonna have problems soon GTNz (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the paragraph and I don't understand why. It's a very big part of this issue. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

189.169.216.245 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Today, Mexico closed ALL schools until at least May 6 (see e.g., http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27/swine.flu.international/index.html )

victim box

The victim infobox should have separate sections for suspected and confirmed deaths from this outbreak. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Grochim (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the 20 mexican deaths, are still laboratory confirmed cases. So they should be in both columns in the infobox.--SaitoK (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, done. I'm going to bed now. Here it's 1:28 am. -- Grochim (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I knew what the columns of the victim box meant, but now I think I don't, because I can't figure out how Mexico can have no confirmed cases, but twenty confirmed deaths and 86 unconfirmed deaths. If twenty people died and it was confirmed that they had pig flu, how can there be zero confirmed cases? Or does it mean that we know twenty people died, but we do not know of what cause? And what would then 86 unconfirmed deaths mean - that they might be still alive? Do you want to say that there are 86 people who may be dead or alive and at the same time may or may not have had pig flu? Please some one explain what those columns are supposed to mean. CuriousOliver (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can explain you because the mexican government doesn't publish the exact figures. According to the WHO, only 20 person died because of this virus. Mexico only published the figure of deaths and possible cases. There is no publication of confirmed cases (except the dead cases) in Mexico up to now, and that is weird. -- Grochim (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: State Government says"no sign of swine flu"

São Paulo State Government refuted the suspicions of swine flu. They believe in dengue and sinusitis as cause for the symptoms on the pacients under observation - none of them the have fever, one of flu symptoms.

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556560.shtml 189.121.177.112 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

a couple more news reaffirming that the two cases are not of swine flu - From São Paulo's Secretary of Health and the Brazil's Ministry of Health.

http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/26042009/25/manchetes-governo-diz-nao-ha-casos.html

http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/26042009/25/manchetes-ministerio-diz-casos-sp-nao.html 189.121.177.112 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above article which states-

"The Health Ministry reported today... the two people coming from Mexico, who are hospitalized at the Hospital Emilio Ribas, Sao Paulo, do not fit the "definition of suspected cases of swine influenza." According to the ministry, the patients did not show signs and symptoms compatible with disease, such as fever over 39 degrees Celsius accompanied by cough and headache, muscle and joints. "So far, no evidence of movement of swine influenza virus in humans in Brazil," says the note.

I am removing Brazil from the table. Wine Guy Talk 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The section involving Brazil (which, somehow, has been included in the article after this debate), is using an old news as source. Here's the link to the official statement of the Ministry of Health:

http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/aplicacoes/noticias/default.cfm?pg=dspDetalheNoticia&id_area=124&CO_NOTICIA=10121

Unfortunately, there's no english version of the statement or any international news agency publishing this, AFAIK. But it's the latest local and official news - the dismiss of the cases as possible swine flu. 189.121.177.112 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link to that press release. The Brazil section has been updated with that information. While the two initially suspected cases are no longer suspect, this information should remain since there are plenty of outdated sources floating around. The information on airport precautions is good to have as well. Wine Guy Talk 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it makes sense to keep the old informatition. But someone should remove Brazil form the map as a possible case country, as this is not the situation anymore. For instance, Australia was removed as the suspicions there were cleared. 189.121.179.143 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC World News 27/04 17:00 UTC news reports that Brazil have suspect case(s) on map. Marcosrom (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And the Brazilian Ministry Of Health is saying that there is NO suspected cases as of this moment - there were ealier reports, but the pacientes showed no symptoms of swine flu. At this moment all local news agencies are saying the same. The info is in that link above Wine Guy's comment. 189.121.179.143 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

G1 Portal now reports http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1099897-5598,00.html (in portuguese). Marcosrom (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Folha Online reports: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556873.shtml
Estadao reports: http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,casal-e-internado-em-mg-com-suspeita-de-gripe-suina,361238,0.htm It's two new suspects in Belo Horizonte city. Marcosrom (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Significant figures

I'll leave it the way it is for now, but so long as we have the "+" in the "Other possible cases" column, my opinion is that we ought to round the total down to the hundreds digit. --π! 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be any less accurate as it is, especially if you were going to make the rounded digits "0" instead.-cyclosarin (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Before, when Mexico's cases were "1400+", the fact that that is a wild estimate made all of the other tens and ones digits meaningless. It's less of an issue now that we have an exact number for Mexico. --π! 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases and death

What's the difference between the laboratory confirmed and just confirmed? Are the confirmed deaths not laboratory confirmed? (is there any other way to confirm them). If they are both laboratory confirmed, how can there be more confirmed deaths than confirmed cases? -Solid Reign (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a mess --Vessol (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it was confirmed to have died but not necessarily of swine flu. cyclosarin (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Mexico doesn't publish reliable numbers. Both Canada and USA had published 26 confirmed cases (no one dead), and Mexico published 103 deaths, but beside this no confirmed cases alive. It is a mess, yes. And the numbers are not really reliable. -- Grochim (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a difference between confirmed as swineflu-strain-mexico or cases confirmed as influenza-a and not similar as local strains. But I can't make this difference in the presented cases (AJvH (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

New Zealand suspected Cases

NEW ZEALAND CASES NOW CONFIRMED ACCORDING TO MEDIA REPORTS AND MINISTRY OF HEALTH http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/results-of-h1n1-swine-flu-testing-280409

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2368393/Swine-flu-in-New-Zealand-cases-confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peecee65 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Doezens suspected to have the Swine flu.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5229874/Swine-flu-dozens-of-suspected-cases-in-New-Zealand.html

131.111.186.68 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The UK article seems to report 3 "new" people as sick, with others having been to Mexico. Perhaps there is an NZ reference with more info?. --Zigger «º» 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10568935 . --Zigger «º» 14:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has an Influenza Pandemic Action Plan which it is now following. As a small island nation with only one main entry point at Auckland airport, it may actually be possible for New Zealand to keep a pandemic strain from becoming established here for at least a little while. While such efforts are ultimately doomed to fail, the hope is to delay the start of the pandemic in New Zealand to give time for the disease to be better understood, and perhaps even enough time for a vaccine to be developed. The early stages of our pandemic action plan therefore call for a quite aggressive effort to try to prevent the disease from becoming established in the country. Most other countries are not seriously attempting to do this since they know they have very little chance of keeping an influenza pandemic out. In most places border control efforts are little more than political exercises in reassuring the population that the politicians are doing something, and are highly unlikely to be successful. But New Zealand is doing this in a serious way. As a consequence New Zealand is currently generating more than its fair share of pandemic related news. The News media are looking for things that are happening to report, and there is a lot happening here. Despite all this activity the mexican swine flu is not yet established in New Zealand. As of 28th of April we have 10 cases testing as atypical influenza type A (likely the mexican swine flu but not yet fully confirmed) and 56 others who have been identified as recently entering the country from North America with flulike symptoms who are currently being tested, and who are in the meanwhile undergoing voluntary isolation and treatment at home as a precautionary measure. It is highly likely that most of these 56 others will turn out to have ordinary seasonal flu (as occurred with the 3 students from Northcote college mentioned above). So far there is no evidence of the disease spreading within New Zealand. Once the disease becomes established here these strenuous efforts to keep it out will cease, and attention will switch to dealing with the resulting pandemic. Hawthorn (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ cases now confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.238.60 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

11 confirmed cases http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnKz6JKf1o0Bic6UrduEAAlxyQ1wD97RCNS00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dccdz (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Spread Map

Hi people, i earlier created a new map to reflect the suspected cases around the world, i tried my best but am not entirely sure how to create these maps properly, feel free to edit it, or put it on the article if you like: File:800px-H1N1 map.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lummo (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ cases now confirmed

Swine Flu A Wrong Name

The following report specifies why the name "Swine Flu" is inappropriate. It is important to indicate since the name's already have aroused fear of people consuming pork, and contacting pigs.

Reported by Reuters:

World animal health body says swine flu wrong name Font size: A | A | A 8:47 AM ET 4/27/09 | Reuters

PARIS, April 27 (Reuters) - The flu virus spreading around the world should not be called "swine flu" as it also contains avian and human components and no pig was found ill with the disease so far, the World Animal Health body said on Monday.

A more logical name for it would be "North-American influenza", a name based on its geographic origin just like the Spanish influenza, another human flu pandemic with animal origin that killed more than 50 million people in 1918-1919.

"The virus has not been isolated in animals to date. Therefore it is not justified to name this disease swine influenza," the Paris-based organisation said in a statement.

Fears of a global flu pandemic are growing around the world after 103 people were killed in Mexico and new infections were found in the United States and Canada and possible cases as far afield as Europe, Israel and New Zealand. [ID:nN26482522]

The OIE warned that if the virus was shown to cause disease in animals virus circulation could worsen the regional and global situation for public health.

Fears there could be a global flu pandemic which would hurt fragile world economices has led to a broad-based decline in stocks, oil and other commodity markets on Monday.

Grain and oilseed markets fells harply on concern that the outbreak could reduce feed demand for grain-hungry pigs. [ID:nLR350048]

For a Take a Look on the latest flu outbreak double-click on [ID:nFLU]

For a factbox of past flu pandemics double-click on [ID:nN24440477] (Reporting by Sybille de La Hamaide, Editing by Peter Blackburn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.61.220 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's already been numerous discussions about this. Even though it's not technically and scientifically accurate, we go here by the most commonly "known" name, the one the public knows something by, the one the media reports something by. Take for example Bill Clinton vs. William Jefferson Clinton. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor moving it to 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak or 2009 Mexican flu outbreak. It started in Mexico, so it wouldn't be accurate to call it the 2009 North-American influenza outbreak. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to start this up again, but here's what you should do first. Go read what every news source in the world is calling it. Then read what every public health organization is calling it (at least to date). Then go read WP:COMMONNAME. We can't call this something different than what all of the sources do, even if our name would technically be more correct. Additionally, calling this "Mexican flu" or "North American flu" would be textbook original research. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Health authorities in New Zealand are now calling it "Mexican Swine Flu".Hawthorn (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

European section

It looks really bad and is impossible to read since the section headers dividing the countries have been removed. If section headers are not the best option then something needs to be done to show some form of delineation between countries. It's a big mess of words as of now. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Subsections for each nation should be created.Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Made a minor change from "Minister" to "commissioner" and a slight rearranging of the wording, theres no such thing as an EU health minister, only an EU health commissioner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.104.131 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmed cases" and "National responses" sections should be merged

These two sections both discuss the situation one nation at a time. This causes overlap. Little is gained by such a division. Also, why then not also have a section for "Possible cases" for each nation so we have three sections listing nations? Instead, I suggest that these two sections should be merged into one called "Cases and responses by nation".Ht686rg90 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we keep track of "possible" cases here on the talk page and make no mention of them in the article. Too many do not even qualify as probable cases, and turn out to be false alarms. See Influenza-like illness for why. On the lead table, it may be more sensible to list only confirmed cases, deaths among confirmed cases, and deaths associated with ILI (most of which are not due to influenza). --Una Smith (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The possible cases are hot news all around the world so they are notable also for Wikipedia. I was not discussing the table but the later article sections mentioned above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree some thought should be given in the current format and consideration of merging where possible, especially since some countries have their own dedicated articles. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good now. 78.105.53.147 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspected cases in Italy and the Netherlands

According to Veratect. [2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of 5 suspected cases all were negative see http://www.ansa.it/opencms/export/site/visualizza_fdg.html_936972236.html (in Italian) --PaoVac (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead now states ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2009_swine_flu_outbreak&oldid=286441097 version) "Localized outbreaks of influenza-like illness were detected in three areas initially in Mexico and soon after in the United States and Canada." That is incorrect. Local outbreaks of ILI were detected in Mexico, but in the US and Canada cases were detected, not outbreaks. I will fix this once again. --Una Smith (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Swine influenza

I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

dengue

1600 mexicans infected with swine flu and the world talks about it, there's a dedicated wikipedia page for the outbreak, and dozens of opportunistic people try to make money out of it. 9000 argentinians infected with dengue and nobody cares. 190.188.180.148 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From Dengue fever : "In 2009, in Argentina, a dengue outbreak was declared the northern provinces of Chaco, Catamarca, Salta, Jujuy, and Corrientes, with over 9673 cases reported as of April 11, 2009 by the Health Ministry [1]. Some travelers from the affected zones have spread the fever as far south as Buenos Aires [2]. Major efforts to control the epidemic in Argentina are focused on preventing its vector (the Aedes mosquitoes) from reproducing. This is addressed by asking people to dry out all possible water reservoirs from where mosquitoes could proliferate (which is, in other countries, known as "descacharrado"). There have also been information campaigns concerning prevention of the dengue fever; and the government is fumigating with insecticide in order to control the mosquito population.

you can always improve this or create an article. I don't think that dengue has the potential to turn into a pandemic however Smartse (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This post counts as use of the discussion page [[3]] as a platform for personal views. If there is a second, let's delete this. As a personal aside, I agree that Dengue Fever is an interesting and alarming subject which has not received 1/100th of the attention it deserves, and it's wikipedia page could use attention. May I suggest you work on that page? Nosimplehiway (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases and responses by nation

Do we really need level-four headers for one sentence of info? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not uncommon in important current event articles. For example when various nations issue official response to an important event such as a disaster.Ht686rg90 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was way too hard to read previously as there was no obvious break between the country. Though I agree as above that the repeat of certain countries in both the cases and responses, eg the US, Mexico, Spain, and Canada should somehow be merged or whittled down being that they have their own articles anyhow. 78.105.53.147 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on the latter bit as the merging looks good to me and is less repetitive now. 78.105.53.147 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also what's with the images next to mexico, canada, us and spain? I understand the point, but are they really needed since the information is found in the text and the images are on the individual article for the country? Just wasting space and bandwith by overdoing it. 78.105.53.147 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, these maps can be removed. Take a lot of bandwith on a very popular article.Ht686rg90 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed deaths column?

Could you add a "confirmed deaths due to swine flue" column in the box in the upper right? Right now there is only a "possible deaths" column. the "confirmed deaths" would be incomplete, of course, but I have seen some of those #s reported in the media. Matthias5 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

6 dead in the United States of swine flu?

Says New Zealand news. I can't find anything on this elsewhere... rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering I see updates on WP seconds after hearing it on the TV news: (two British cases confirmed), If there was any credability to this at all we would have confirmation by now... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

More UK suspected cases

Alan Johnson the UK Health Secretary said there are "25 possible swine flue cases reported in the UK" http://news.bbc.co.uk

regarding the maps of outbreaks

I think the maps, showing outbreaks doesn't relly give a good picture; for example on the spanish map, there is a big red marked, though it is only one confirmed case.

I don't think they're needed in this article next to each individual country. They belong on the main article for the country in question, but generally are misplaced on this article (taking up space, too small to really do anything, and just repeat what the text says anyhow). 78.105.53.147 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A Chart Suggestion- Infections Over Time

I hate to suggest this, but given the daily changes to the table on the article page, what I would think would be more useful than the geographic maps would be a cartesian graph with X being the date (days since "case zero") and Y being the number of reported infection per region/country/city/etc. Thus a line showing number of infections over time could help visualize the rate of infection. Different lines could be used for different countries or to show total infections vs. terminal infections. I picture something like dshort's economic Four Bad Bears graphic. Such a graph may also be useful to visualize "waves" of reported infection as well as illustrating how the rate of infection may differ between countries, or, if the data exists, between other epidemics/pandemics. Eventually (but hopefully not) such a graph may need to be adjusted to account for population rather than raw numbers. Or maybe a logarithmic version would be useful as well. Such a graph may be generated with Calc or maybe the Bar Box Template (or another Wikimedia template). If such a copylefted chart doesn't exist already (I'm guessing it does somewhere), this might be a good place to get it started. Any thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I made a crappy version of what I mean. I'm terrible with Calc, but this is the general idea. The source for these numbers are early reports on the forum at Flutrackers, a Huffington Post article about patient zero (suspected to be at least two weeks before April 13, or about April 1) I found, and the NYTimes timeline. Probably should have connected the dots better, and scaling the Mexican suspected cases crushes the US cases, but hopefully someone can do a better job of this with a sophisticated database/spreadsheet.

Template:Image

--Replysixty (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC News reporting more US cases and Mexican deaths

BBC News reporting this

There are now 40 confirmed US Cases, not 20 and 7 more people have died in Mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.237.39 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reu: 149 people have died in Mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonr9999 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Should there also be a colum for confirmed flu deaths?

20 are so far confirmed to have been caused by the new virus. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8020676.stm --78.146.237.39 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagnostics section

I removed this section because it was entirely obsolete. Tests can now be done in many national labs. It might be useful to have a diagnostics section if someone want to write one. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Could someone who understands German please have a look at the Germany section? It is in very poor English right now and the sole reference in in German. magnius (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This says that a guy and his sister may have been infected after he got back from a trip to Mexico. The two had normal flu symptoms—however, rapid tests showed that neither him nor his sister have A/H1N1. A spokesperson of the hospital said that she didn't know about a third person. By the way, Bielefeld isn't at the Dutch-German border. --Fabian Göttgens (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the section, if you edit it here I'll copy it back into the article Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Germany is a suspect case, just at the border with The Netherlands.

The flu is in two men and a woman, who are in isolation in a hospital.

They came back from a trip to Mexico and felt a bit feverish.

Please update the numbers on Germany. The 3 cases mentioned in the initial source are confirmed negative influenza A - so it's not swine flu. Source: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,621426,00.html. (Headline says All-clear for suspicious swine flu cases). Btw, local hospitals have not seen any "third" person - there have been only two persons quarantained and tested. And the mentioned city, Bielefeld, is not on the German-Netherlands border, it's pretty much central. If you want to specify the localisation, I suggest "in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia". --hilmarwoy 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As of April 27, there are three more suspected cases: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,621618,00.html -- 77.176.79.59 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Man-made? Bioterrorism? Bioweapon? Conspiracy theory?

No reliable sources discuss this idea, not appropriate for article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look for sources. The WHO says it's not, but there are those that speculate in reliable sources that it could be man-made due to the unusual combination of strains.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Adding speculation like that to the article would require very, very good sources indeed (per WP:REDFLAG). This isn't an unusual event, influenza has crossed over from other animals into people many times before, and will continue to do so in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Zoonosis, reassortment, and superinfection involving influenza all have been reported before. There is even a reliable source warning that poultry and swine handlers should be included in formal surveillance programs, precisely in order to catch similar events in the future. See swine influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Do we have any DNA or RNA data conferming or even supporting this therory? Don't jump straght to the worst conclusion.Ken Durham (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I generally avoid even discussing douchebagery like WP:REDFLAG, I encourage others to do the same. (Oh and if this turns out to be the 1 in 40 billion times that the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right and come up with REAL evidence to prove it, I'll buy you a Coke) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) But we should try NOT to guess at thing during a panedemic like this. It could case panic and misjuged rumers.Ken Durham (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Alex Jones and Hal Turner have claimed it is man-made and done on purpose to kill millions. Yes, they are regarded as lunatic fringe theorists by the mainstream, but it's important to note that people are saying it.--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) lunatics should not be listend to. Show me some DNA or RNA proof of man made.--Ken Durham (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) agreeing with Ken here. I tend not to listen to white supremacists(Hal Turner) and Alex Jones seems like the type of man that gives conservative radio hosts a bad name. I'll bet you a dose of Tamiflu, its not really that important (or encyclopedic) to know what these people say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED Simpler Tracking Table

We, as Wikipedia editors, don't have the skill set or inside information to evaluate every media report that is out there for veracity and timeliness. As this thing progresses (if it progresses) it will become more and more difficult to keep up with every information outlet from the Madagascar Ministry of Health (ahem) to broadcast news out of New Zealand. Simply put the more cases there are, the wider the variation in estimates will be.

Therefore I propose that we re-do the numbers box, listing case numbers, total dead, etc to list the numbers from just one source, the World Health Organisation.[[4]] WHO is generally regarded as being the coordinating body for this outbreak, and if the time comes to call it a pandemic, they will be the ones making that call. Their numbers may be slightly older, but they will, on the whole be more carefully evaluated and more accurate.

I am not opposed to having a caption for the table with links to a few (but just a few) other major sources. The CDC, Health Canada and the Mexican Ministry of Health spring immediately to mind. If the flu becomes especially bad in another particular country we can provide a link to that nation's health ministry site as well (especially if it is an Anglophone nation, since this is the English language version of this page), but linking to 200 different Ministries of Health and thousands of news outlets will just complicate the flow of information.

We, as a group of editors, could very easily end up in waaaay over our heads with gathering, analysing, evaluating, and posting constantly updated statistics! Nosimplehiway (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, a very good idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. WHO are currently reporting a grand total of 20 cases [5]. It seems there are enough editors willing and able to produce a more up-to-date table, and I see no reason to discourage them. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One major problem is that the articles would be ahead of the table - do we include the confirmed case in Spain? It has been in the articles for 12 hours now but our table would not list it. |→ Spaully^₪† 17:20, 27 April 2009 (GMT)

Just update both as you go. Best we can do. I'd say always table first, for convenience. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree as well. We're not an official medical body, we're, well, us, whatever we are on this article, and that's changing every hour. I'd say let it ride. By reporting the numbers that approximately 'everyone' reliable is reporting, it's impossible for us to do harm. I mean, literally, on this one, it's actually impossible. The virus is out there, and for all we know it could be burned out in all the areas listed or in 2x or 10x the areas now. Lets just report what we have as long as people are willing to do so. Having all this info in one semi-static area is a value to readers, and us, so lets just go with it for now. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see reason to streamline references once the outbreak has run its course, however, I must disagree with doing so now. There is no indication that WHO (who has no direct authority to operate in any nation affected in this incident) or any other agency will release numbers in a timely fashion and when they do the numbers won't come to us from the agency directly but will be fed though some media source. Finally, while I generally trust the CDC and the Canadians, will we have the same level of trust of the other national sources (China, Cuba, Zimbabwae)? The current 'Freedom of the Press' system may be cumbersome, but it is the standard in line with Wikipedia Cite policy and it is working. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. WHO's numbers are very late. Can you find a link to any current ones? Wikipedia should attempt a neutral point of view. Not an anglophone point of view. Many people regardless of their primary language will read the English version since it is usually the best. Those wanting to concentrate on U.S. material have a separate article just for that: 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is one of the strengths of Wikipedia that we can present reliable information from a lot of different sources. The table is just great for following the outspread of the disease. -- Grochim (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like most folks agree the current system is working now, we can revisit my suggestion if it becomes an issue later on. If no objections, someone go ahead and delete this section to save space on the discussion page... which is getting rather long. Nosimplehiway (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. As a random user, I've come to see this article as the current summary of data coming from all over the internet, and there's an information I would love to see on the tracking table when coming to check the news. It's the date and time the tracking table was last edited. Could it be possible to add a "last edited at hh:mm, dd:mm:yy" field at the top? Or even add such a field for each country entry, written small in a side column? With the speed at which updates can come from all over the world it will probably help editors, as well as the general public. Thanks for your work anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.195.210 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed in the United Kingdom

source [6]. 82.23.106.229 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Was the outbreak first detected in Mexico?

The source citated in this section about the origin being in Mexico doesn't mention anything about that. The information I've found metions that the first cases were detected in California. Can anybody give a correct citation of this? Concerning the first deadly case, is it feasible that the virus mutated in that person? I read the source, and it says so, but it's not very reliable. We should just put in wikipedia that it was the first deadly case. Thank's--Ricardo.m.r. (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO documents state that the increase in influenza-like illness associated with this new strain was first detected in Mexico, in 3 so-called local outbreaks. The new strain was first detected in California, in a county bordering on Mexico. News of the new strain triggered Mexico to send samples from their local outbreaks to Canada for testing and some of the samples had the same new strain. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request for the tracking table, see here

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 swine flu outbreak/Table

Closed per WP:SNOW --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New case in Ohio

There has been a new case detected (and confermed) in ohio. May want to update. Ken Durham (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8020222.stm

Someone needs to update the map and the UK section!--Simonr9999 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Cordovao (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

World Organization for Animal Health

The OiE put out this "A/H1N1 influenza like human illness in Mexico and the USA: OIE statement" released today in Paris clarifying that "There is no evidence that this virus is transmitted by food." I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. LeadSongDog come howl 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This has also been cofrimed by other sources. It is mentioned in one country where they banned North American Pork (Really how much pork does Romania import from North America?). It could be mentioned there or in a trade section if the bans become a widespread or sustained response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Let the proper Authorities figure out.

Let the proper Authorities figure out what EXACTLY is going on. When people start guessing or making things up, people are going to start panicing about things that may not be true.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said, but where do you think in the article people are "guessing or making things up"? Cordovao (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Man-made? Bioterrorism? Bioweapon? Conspiracy theory? There is no evidence backing that yet. People will panic if they see that people think that is the case. Cheers--Ken Durham (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I must confess I cannot find a mention of any of these things in the article. Cordovao (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly--Ken Durham (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So did you mean to post this section as a warning to people not to post unverified claims, as opposed to a notice that such claims exist in the article right now? Cordovao (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about a section on the talk page. (BTW the conversation in this section reads like Abbot and Costello) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. If it is the case, Ken Durham, that you were talking about a section on this talk page, to avoid confusion please post your warning in that section instead of starting a new one. Cordovao (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that talk pages are for discussing about the article, not the topic :-) - ReyBrujo (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

the purpus of this post was to keep Future posters from posting false info.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A good cause, Ken Durham. If you issue another such warning in the future, please could you phrase in a way to easily show it is a warning, as opposed to a notice that something is wrong with the article in its current state, to avoid confusion. Cordovao (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOLZ. Sure can. I will try to keep this forum in line. LOL. --Ken Durham (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not being sarcastic. ;) Cordovao (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Funny. I WILL do my best to keep the forum in line. Whos with me? LOL.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First case

According to La Nación (one of the two most important newspapers in Argentina), Adela María Gutiérrez is the name of the first case, the one where the virus mutated from animal to human. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Google translated link....[7]

On April 9th, a Mexican woman, age 39, arrived at a hospital in Oaxaca, Mexico with symptoms of severe pneumonia. She worked for the Tax Administration Service (SAT) as an intervier.. No additional occupational details or how she contracted the disease are mentioned --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Google link please.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No English news piece related still, the same article is found in one of the most important Mexican newspapers, El Universal. News piece has apparently been confirmed by proper authorities. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles are identical, likely a syndicated piece --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the original was written in the Mexican newspaper, wanted to credit them since the Argentine one picked the news directly from there. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote.. Considering the timing.. That would place the first outbreak at around the same time President Obama was in the region, the press corps is currently grilling the WH press secretary on weather or not Mexico concealed the severity of the case so as not to distract or cause embarsement during the visit. Since you seem more familiar with the Mexican press is there anything credible about that or any complaint about Mexican response? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a coverup? That is preposterus!--Ken Durham (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Earlier press on this patient was in the Tiempo En Linea (see the archive for 2009-04-19) entitled "Confirman Neumanía Atípica" byline Iván Castellanos / Tiempo. There is also an entry about her dated 2009-04-16 on FluTrackersLeadSongDog come howl 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to what I'm reading on the second link you gave, (and its a little hard, given the awkward way google translates things), the Doctors at the hospital were denying she died of Influenza as late as 16 April. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The final results were available on April 16 (as mentioned in the first case articles): La confirmación oficial, por parte de la Secretaría de Salud no se dio hasta que el Centro para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades de Estados Unidos, ubicado en Atlanta, ratificó el caso, el 16 de abril último. (Official confirmation by Health Secretary wasn't available until the Control Center in Atlanta ratified the case). Until then, it was being treated as an atypical pneumonia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgium

6 suspected cases in belgium now: http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/zes-verdachte-gevallen-van-varkensgriep-in-belgie/site72-section24-article32724.html Dilliana (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh nnooo! Quick, someone update the main page!--Ken Durham (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by the Interministerieel Commissariaat Influenza that the 6 are NOT infected with the Mexican influenza. source: http://www.influenza.be/nl/persberichten/2009-04-27_Communique-touslescassontnegatifs_nl.pdf (DUTCH)

So the Belgian numbers may be cleared from the board, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helt91 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama near infected person?

the white house press conference today spent quite some time on something about a person who later died of swine flu in Mexico, who at some point was in close proximity to Obama during his state visit. Does anyone have an RS about this? because the reporters were all very worked up... The person's last name was maybe "Solis" but I couldn't tell for sure. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this confermable?--Ken Durham (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See the 'First Case' Section on this page. Obama was in the Capital, where is Oaxaca? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

so I found a ref already, [[8]]... apparently a museum curator who hosted a reception for the visit, has later died of flu-like symptoms, but it has not been confirmed as swine flu yet. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the LA Times he was at a Museum in Mexico City on April 16, The Museum Director later died of what is suspected to be pneumonia. (Of course thats what doctors thought the first victim had, not accusing, just noting) The WH contends the president is fine, I'll note his doctor is probably a lot better than mine [ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-obama27-2009apr27,0,2301972.story ]--PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

brazil

Brazil already adds up 4 suspects of the Swine Flu. Two are interned in Belo Horizonte with suspicion of swine flu. It rises for 4 persons interned in Brazil with suspicion of swine flu. A couple was interned by suspicion of swine flu in the Hospital of the Clinics of Belo Horizonte, in this Monday (27). According to the General office of Health of Minas Gerais, the couple had spent some days in Mexico and began to present the symptoms of the flu still in the aircraft, which landed during the dawn in the International Airport Tancredo Neves. The two will be subdued to examinations.

The first 2 suspected cases are no longer suspected cases - the pacients showed no signs flu. But yes, we can now talk of (only) 2 suspected in Minas Gerais 189.121.179.143 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1 - http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1099897-5598,00.html

2 - http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/27/casal-internado-com-suspeita-de-gripe-suina-em-bh-755454490.asp

3 - http://odia.terra.com.br/portal/brasil/html/2009/4/casal_vindo_do_mexico_e_internado_em_mg_com_suspeita_de_gripe_suina_8672.html

4 - Source: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/brasil/2009/04/27/casaleinternadocomsuspeitadegripesuinaemmg+5781907.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodfanaia (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should add Brazil to list with 2 possible cases. Marcosrom (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina's respone not notable?

From the article:

"Bosnia and Herzegovina

No immediate steps were taken by the government as the swine flu does not seem to be a problem for now. The government officials met in Sarajevo on April 26 and determined that it would not ban any imports of meat."

To me, this response doesn't seem notable for inclusion into the article. What does everyone else think? Cordovao (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am also concerned this may not be notable:

"Italy

Italy's agriculture lobby, Coldiretti, warned against panic reaction, noting that farmers lost hundreds of millions of euros due to consumer boycotts during the 2001 mad cow scare and the 2005 bird flu outbreak" Cordovao (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus:

"Argentina

All passengers arriving to the country from Mexico and United States must fill out a form to be located in case they show symptoms of flu according to an Epidemic Alert order issued by The Ministry of Health." Cordovao (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit more hesitant to remove that, as it includes actual info (rather than simply "Nothing has been done here"). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Cordovao (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seperate articles for certain topics

The article is growing quite big by now, and hence I think it's time to start moving some topics out to seperate articles. TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases and responses by country

What about we move this chapter to a seperate article as was done similarly with the article of the Mumbai attacks back in November? TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am supportive, as per WP:SS; the collection of responses is quite large already and I believe we can reasonably assume it will get larger. We can leave a summary of responses on this article. Cordovao (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Will be necessary sooner or later as more cases are reported.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Initiated. TRBlom (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed yet. The article is still within acceptable size limits and most of the country subsections have very little content. --auburnpilot talk 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite long already, containing quite a list that is also affecting the list of contents. Anyhow, it won't shrink, only grow, so let's just be there on time, so it won't get annoying for the reading to scroll all the way past it. TRBlom (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's actually not that much info; all the level-four section headers make it appear longer than it is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the readability tool, the moved content only accounts for about 17 KB of prose (excludes references, images, and the like). It's not so much that it needs to be split into a second article. Each country should be fine with a subheading and a few sentences describing the issue. When it goes beyond a few sentences, a separate article for that country should be created. I just don't see a need for a Cases of and responses to the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. --auburnpilot talk 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the creation of new pages on an as needed basis. I think a good rule of thumb is any nation with a confirmed case gets a page and any big nation that takes really drastic action also gets a page (like if China were to seal their borders, for example), and their listing on the main article page is reduced to perhaps a sentence or two and the link to the new page. If this thing burns itself out, we can always recombine, but if it suddenly crops up in several dozen countries all at once, there will be a lot of remedial page creation to be done in a short time. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ video and US deaths

The video cited for the 111 suspected cases in New Zealand gives a figure of 20 cases and 6 deaths in the USA. In my opinion this makes it an unreliable source, since that is not consistent with any other data (I'm aware of) cited on this page. --π! 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this before... Scroll up. Its several hours old and no one else is collaborating this: I'd attribute it to some kind of mix up on the numbers by the graphics guy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I scanned the page for "death" before adding this, but it's there as "6 dead". Silly me. Should we take down the NZ info or mark it as possibly unreliable? Or just leave it since it's the best we have? --π! 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press says "nearly 2000" in Mexican hospitals with "serious cases of pneumonia"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124081528924558633.html#mod=article-outset-box

What do we make of this? This is the first I've seen an outright report that nearly 2,000 people are hospitalized with serious anything. I have a feeling--yes, yes, OR--that not all the news is getting out of Mexico based on this, since this is the AP now saying this. What do we do with this? This is directly counter to a lot of the commentary that's been coming from the Mexican government. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do with this? Panic, that's what. (Seriously, though, I advise we leave the figures the same and cite this in the possibility of the disease being more virulent than thought. Odd there wouldn't be any reported cases of pneumonia north of the border, though.) --π! 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, this is a cumulative total, so does not mean that 2,000 people are in hospital at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the last paragraph in the top section?

The concern of what the millions of schools and universities will do because of the flu is a main issue. I ask whoever keeps deleting it to stop. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep re-adding it. I do not say this because I don't agree with your aim, but because you may risk breaking WP:3RR. The onus is on a poster who adds something original to, if the add is contested, bring up the issue here to the talk page to gain approval before trying to re-add again. What is the text you wish to add, and from there you may gain community approval which will mean your text will stay. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Earliest confirmed case to date, Feb 2009 in La Gloria, Mexico - 3 independent sources it appears

A four year old boy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-search-outbreak-source

Clinical test confirmed, on this, per the article, but oddly the Mexican government is claimed--outright--in the article to downplay this (how do you downplay a clinical lab test which confirms it??).

It appears this article in Grist Magazine from this past Saturday, which I posted here, was correct-- La Gloria as of now per several sources and lab tests at least appears to be where this began. The Smithfield Food connection is there too, but read these two articles. I haven't seen any test-confirmed results in any sources earlier than this. This also lines up squarely with Dr. James Wilson's blog analyzing the situation here, so we have 1) one of the world's leading experts in the field in a WP:RS compliant blog post, 2) a major news source confirming it and lab tests, 2) other news sources also identifying this. What can/should we do to mention this earliest appearance of the bug in La Gloria? rootology (C)(T) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now moved from phase 3 to 4

acording to cnn the w.h.o. have moved from phase 3 to 4 --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give us a link to your source? Cordovao (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find a Internet link but CNN International just had a grapic saying "Mexico:WHO raise to phase 4" (or something similar)--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it is on the cnn.com front page as breaking news--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Unfortunately, linking to the CNN front page is temperamental as the text on there changes frequently, but based on the seriousness of the WHO change I expect a proper article will be up shortly for us to link to. Cordovao (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27/swine.flu.international/index.html " (CNN) -- The World Health Organization has raised its pandemic alert level in response to the outbreak of swine flu that originated in Mexico, U.S. homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday. Relatives of flu patients wait oustside Mexico's National Institute of Respiratory Diseases. The move indicates the world body has determined the virus is capable of significant human-to-human transmission." --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_20090427/en/index.html --82.103.205.150 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Flu cases in Sweden turn out not to be swine influenza

Would some one edit the table? Here is my source: http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/svininfluensa/aktuellt/negativa-provsvar-om-misstankt-svininfluensa/ (in Swedish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.103.205.150 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is the 'Swedish Institute for Infections Disease Control' Google Translate Follows

Negative test results on suspected swine influenza Today, Monday April 27, the Infectious Diseases Institute analyzed three samples from suspected cases of swine flu, all with a negative result. Two samples analyzed during the day at Malmö General Hospital, MAS, has been negative. Three of the sampled individuals have visited Mexico (one woman in 29 years, two men of 52 and 65 years) and a U.S. person (69-year-old man). For the fifth person has SMI no information on visiting country or age.

--PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

-> So that reduces number of suspected cases in Sweden to zero. --82.103.205.150 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

->Besides the 5 mentioned, there is more test on the way. Source: Swedish gazette in swedish language http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5008594.ab

Shrunk TOC

I added {{toclimit}} to this article, as the table of contents was getting a bit long. The only thing it did was eliminate the very long list of countries under each continent header (see before and after). This will allow people to still find the relevant information they seek, without having to scroll/scan through the level 4 subheadings that will likely only increase in number. --auburnpilot talk 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph concerning Schools and Universities?

There is a big issue about what schools and universities are doing to prevent the spread of the swine flu. I have written a paragraph and referenced it. Does everyone agree to keep it at the beginning?

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed while numerous of other schools and school districts in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students. It is of great concern many U.S. schools and universities will be forced to close within upcoming weeks to prevent the spread of the flu." TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball predicting the future upcoming weeks. Especially without sources. See no particular reason schools are more important than everything else shut down in Mexico. Should be in the country specific sections.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed[33] while other schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[34][35] On April 27, 2009, Mexican Government officials announced the first nationwide shut down of schools in history.[36][37]"

Now? TheCoolOne99 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but why only mention schools when almost everything is shut down in Mexico? In the intro we should only provide a general outline.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Government Reaction

The Portuguese Minister of Health released a written statement confirming that there aren't any cases in the country, that the security measures have been increased, some advices regarding travellers to the affected zones and remembering the 24-hour active phoneline from the Ministry (808 24 24 24) to those presenting symptoms.

http://www.dgs.pt/upload/membro.id/ficheiros/i010814.pdf (portuguese) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgesj (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Border

Is it really neccessary to say, "Following this discovery in the states of Texas and California (which border Mexico),"?

This seems like extremely common knowledge and adds pointless bulk to the header. Thoughts? 205.155.5.206 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a US reader probably knows that, international readers may not. It's only three words, leave it. Wine Guy Talk 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it could be reworded to, "Following this discovery in the bordering states of Texas and California."74.220.66.33 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit. There are American and Mexican states involved, including Mexico State (which is a state in the nation-state of Mexico), and furthermore the D.F., like Washington, D.C., isn't a state at all, but is exactly congruent with Mexico City. Fortunately that level of granularity isn't called for in the opening paragraph. kencf0618 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First "mutation" in a woman from Oaxaca

I have altered the claim that the virus mutated inside a woman from Oaxaca. This is just a mistake on the part of the Mexican headline writer. If in fact a virus mutated inside a person or an animal that was then unlikely enough to be tested, the test should reveal a mix of pre- and post-mutation viral RNA not found in later cases. Resurr Section (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First case in Argentina

Can anyone please update the map and add Argentina as a possible case? Here is the reference (in Spanish).

Brazil: Belo Horizonte registers one more suspect of swine flu

A man was interned in the Hospital of the Clinics of Belo Horizonte, in this Monday (27), with suspect of swine flu. According to the General office of Health of Minas Gerais, he is not fitted inside the criteria of suspicion of the Ministry of Health.

In accordance with the General office, the boy passed by a clinical evaluation and did not present all the symptoms of the swine flu. He can have another disease and is going to take the exams for precaution.

The doctors also gathered material, which was directed to analysis. According to the hospital, the boy would have returned recently of the United States.

In the moment he is passing by examinations.

1 - http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100227-5598,00-BELO+HORIZONTE+REGISTRA+MAIS+UM+SUSPEITO+DE+GRIPE+SUINA.html

Other cases 

A couple also was interned by suspect of swine flu in the Hospital of the Clinics of Belo Horizonte, in this Monday (27).

According to the General office of Health of Minas Gerais, the couple had spent some days in Mexico and began to present the symptoms of the flu still in the aircraft, which landed during the dawn in the International Airport Tancredo Neves.

1 - http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/27/casal-internado-com-suspeita-de-gripe-suina-em-bh-755454490.asp

2 - http://odia.terra.com.br/portal/brasil/html/2009/4/casal_vindo_do_mexico_e_internado_em_mg_com_suspeita_de_gripe_suina_8672.html

-

Might anybody update and to add Brazil in the Cases by country? Thx !! --Rodfanaia (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Rodfanaia (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATED:

The man arrived of Nova Iorque, in the United States, ten days ago. Firstly, he looked for service in a health center of the capital. The doctors of the unity dectaram possible signs of the pig flu and they directed, therefore, it to the HC.

The patient is interned in the same wing in which the couple is. The hospital is the only one of the state{condition} prepared to pay attention to this type of case. A filter obstructs the contamination of diseases for the air.

In accordance with the advisory body of press of the HC, three patients are being subdued to examinations and they will be interned until the diagnosis is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodfanaia (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

I think that the edit code is harder to read by unformating the inline citation templates and blurring the distinction between text and code. Why not use the format in this article [9], it makes no difference to the article display format. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; though, it's hard to keep the citations formatted correctly/consistently in such a high-visibility article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany: the 3 possible cases no swine flu

As of the german newspaper "Maerkische Allgemeine" the 3 possible cases in germany are now proved to be NO swine-flu infections. -Validom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Also, in Spain there are 26 possible cases, not 35, plus one confirmed.--Fryant (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There had been lots more "possible cases" in Germany, but all negative. Currently there's only one possible case in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/47/466627/text/ —85.179.140.94 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Cases in Massachusetts

This is probably worth updating the North American map. It's already on the US page. Two people are being tested in Massachusetts after a trip to Mexico.

Here is the reference (different than the one for the US page):

--Rick 69.43.113.2 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New about mexico

Classes are suspended country-wide. There's been a lack of surgical masks and vitamin C complements. Most mexican can't travel by airplane since almost all flights need a connection in Mexico City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.89.104 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added that classes are suspended nationwide at the beginning of the article.

TheCoolOne99 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases in the United States

There are new posible cases in new US States, the references are in the main article. I think the North American and US map should be updated. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why they took away Brazil if Brazil has 3 suspects of the Swine flu?

Can anyone please update the map and add Brazil as a possible case? Here is the reference http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/27/terceira-suspeita-de-gripe-suina-registrada-em-belo-horizonte-755466269.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodfanaia (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Belo Horizonte - The mining capital registered the third suspect of Swine flu in this afternoon of Monday. After the admission of a couple that was passing honeymoon in Mexico and in Panama, the Hospital of the Doctors (HC) confirmed the entry of one more patient with symptoms of the disease. The man arrived of New York, in the United States, ten days ago. Firstly, he looked for service in a health center of the capital. The doctors of the unity detected possible signs of the Swine flu and, therefore, they directed it to the HC.

The patient is interned in the same wing in which the couple is. The hospital is the only one of the state prepared to pay attention to this type of case. A filter obstructs the contamination of diseases for the air. In accordance with the advisory body of press of the hospital, three patients are being subdued to examinations and they will be interned until the diagnosis is given.

1 - http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100227-5598,00-BELO+HORIZONTE+REGISTRA+MAIS+UM+SUSPEITO+DE+GRIPE+SUINA.html

Other cases

A couple also was interned by suspect of swine flu in the Hospital of the Clinics of Belo Horizonte, in this Monday (27).

According to the General office of Health of Minas Gerais, the couple had spent some days in Mexico and began to present the symptoms of the flu still in the aircraft, which landed during the dawn in the International Airport Tancredo Neves.

1 - http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/27/casal-internado-com-suspeita-de-gripe-suina-em-bh-755454490.asp

2 - http://odia.terra.com.br/portal/brasil/html/2009/4/casal_vindo_do_mexico_e_internado_em_mg_com_suspeita_de_gripe_suina_8672.html--Rodfanaia (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

8 New Cases in Canada

8 possible cases in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Here VeronicaPR (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed they have over 60 Cases of Swine Flu and now at Level Yellow.

Recently after 22 students and 3 teachers from Rangitoto College (a High School in Auckland) returned from a tour in Mexico, New Zealand health officials have said "it was [is] likely nine students and one teacher who returned to Auckland after a trip to Mexico on Saturday have contracted it". 5 of the students have tests results returned showing they are positive and have been put in isolation. One of the teachers is also suspected but has not received test results. Later druing the day (28 April, Tuesday, 2009), all the people who have been givin treatment (put in isolation and givin Tamiflu) are doing a lot better, which is a sign. The young people who had positive for Swine Flu are doing a lot better and also feel better, and are ready to get out of isolation soon enough. CNN Reported 3 students from Northcote college are now showing symtoms. And on Tuesday morning, 28 April 2009, New Zealand health officials are investigating another possible 56 further cases of swine flu (NZ Swine Flu Cases have gone up another 10, now standing at 66 cases). New Zealand Health Officials also says "New Zealand always handles such outbreaks quickly and makes plans to prevent the outbreak[s] spreading and/or getting worse. We always investigate and prevent, and work as quickly as we can. New Zealand is serious when these threats come our way, and then we start working on vacinnes". Health Minister Tony Ryall told a press conference in Wellington today it would be six to eight months before a swine flu vaccine could be produced. TVNZ One News told the nation to put together a kit, including gloves, masks and Tamiflu Pills. Although according to paharmacys in Auckland, you need a prescription in order to buy these pills. New Zealand Health Line says since yesturday their calls have raised 60% which all calls where information about the Swine Flu, and One News's kit plan. According to the public in Christchurch, they don't need prescriptions. And Pharmacy's Confirmed the Tammy Pills has been selling and their stock inadvance is also been sold. Aucklanders complained because in Auckland you need to be sick and then need a prescription but Christchurch does'nt. On Monday 27 April, 2009 New Zealand Priminsiter told New Zealand "New Zealand is well prepared to handle swine flu and has increased surveillance". Mr Key said the Government was invoking its flu plan and health officials hiked the potential influenza epidemic status to yellow, just below the code red response phase. John Key said "I think New Zealanders can be confident that the government has a plan, that plan was put in place quite a number of years ago when we were concerned about avian bird flu," Mr Key told Breakfast on TV One. And on Tuesday morning NZ Officials confirms Ten Rangitoto College students have tested positive for influenza A after they came down with mild flu symptoms on returning from Mexico on Saturday. People on the flight are being checked out. And it maybe imposible to contact all 300 + passengers on that flight. There was a total of two flights with not every passenger will be able to be contacted. Health Minister Tony Ryall this morning (Tuesday 28 April 2009) said a further three children, from Northcote College who also visited Mexico , have started developing symptoms. But it is not confirmed that they have the Swine Flu. Mr Key (John Key, Prime Minister of NZ) said the plan set up since the 2003 bird flu scare meant New Zealand had good stocks of the Tamiflu vaccine -- about 1.4 million treatments and the single gateway into New Zealand via Auckland meant control was easier. Options included people not being allowed onto Air New Zealand flights if they were ill and those who arrive at Auckland being sent by a doctor stationed there since 5am for checks. He urged people who suspect they may have the flu to see a doctor, for sick people to stay home and precautions like hand washing and covering mouths when sneezing to be taken. Mr Key said the 10 cases of influenza A appeared to be mild. Althogh there are over 56 Cases since Monday 27 April 2009. New Zealand has Confirmed New Zealander's have the symtoms, but after taking Tamiflu they become better within hours. John Key has moved NZ to Level Yellow on Monday 27 April, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neben93 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Five new probable cases in New Jersey

CNN JUST announced they have news of five probable cases in New Jersey. Once another source comes online or on air can someone make a yellow highlight of the state on the map; I don't know how. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been new posible cases in ther states such as Idaho, South Dakota, North Carolina, etc, the references are in the main article of the US.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme consistency

The world map was updated with a new colour scheme, which no longer matches the rest of the maps on the page. --π! 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: 3 for 11 the suspect cases of swine flu..

The Ministry of Health, of the government, spread in the night of this Monday a note informing that it accompanies the level of health of 11 persons who came from the countries affected by the swine flu with the symptoms of the disease. In accordance with the organ, however, no case was confirmed till night of this Monday.

According to the organ, three cases are being investigated in Mines, two in the Rio de Janeiro, two in the Amazon, other two in the Rio grande do norte, one in Sao Paulo and the last thing in the Pará. The persons are being monitored by the respective state general offices of Health.

Source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u557093.shtml --Rodfanaia (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

S Korea Suspect case

Sam bristol (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) S Korea has a suspected case, as reported on Asia Pacific news. Could someone add it? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/425395/1/.html

Done. Veronica 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restructure for readers

Having detailed similar information by individual country makes this article too large and provides poor reading. Some suggestions:

1. A new section to summarise common and notable "National responses". I don't see the point in itemising every country's similar announcement on this page. Delete these.
2. A new page for (List of ?) possible cases by country. If the topic is regarded as news rather than encyclopedia-worthy, move it to wikinews/wikia.
3. A new page for the virus strain and/or ilness. This article is about the outbreak. Specialised articles also help attract experts.

--Zigger «º» 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Other nations may not be all that interesting to a citizen of a particular nation but his own nation will be. Both cases and other responses which are quite diverse. Wikipedia is not written for the readers from one particular nation. Ignore what is not interesting.Ht686rg90 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By poor reading, I meant lack of narrative flow and appropriate focus. Having dozens and potentially hundreds of items is a list, not an article. I have no problem with an individual article per country or a list page. --Zigger «º» 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested earlier today that the "Cases and responses by nation" should be moved to a separate article (or list) but it was rejected then since the material was not very big in size compared to rest of the article.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See "Seperate articles for certain topics" above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cases and responses by nation" is now 40kb. This is certainly large enough for a page. Any opinions on this point, or the other suggestions? --Zigger «º» 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ready for its own page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I didn't see the need a few hours ago, I don't see the need to split it now. The section is not 40kb, but less than half that at 19.9 KB (when calculating WP:SIZE, references, images, and other formatting should be discounted). --auburnpilot talk 02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would favor splitting, if barely. The section is quite large and is only poised to get larger. Not to WP:CRYSTAL, but if we believe that in a short time even more countries will be listed and we'll have to split, why not just do it now? Oren0 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this section as being mostly a list, showing annoucements (screening/quarantine/pork-bans/cases/test-results) by country. WP:SIZE excludes lists from "readable prose". To me, the issue is more about whether it is a list, and if so, whether it should comprise 50% of the article. --Zigger «º» 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Background information

Canada's early contributions are missing from the background. Mexico contacted Canada to ask for help in identifying the virus on April 17th, Canada had confirmed Swine Flu by April 20th. Canada's confirmation of Swine Flu in the Mexico samples was very important in the early recognition that people were dying from this, that Mexico was a hot zone and that the Mexico virus is the same as the California virus.

1. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/sn_swine-eng.php

2. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/04/24/mb-swine-flu.html

Dumuziwik (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, evidence exists of a February outbreak in the eastern Mexico state Veracruz. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30434921/ This should be added to the background section. Dumuziwik (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added edit notice to this talk page

FYI, to try to control some of the chaos that this talk page is becoming, I have added an edit notice to this talk page (just click "edit" to see what I'm talking about) advising people who just want to add updates to country case counts to do so at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. I recommend that conversations regarding individual cases be moved there so that this talk page can be about the actual article contents. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases by country

Why are we maintaining a runny tally on these cases? At this point every continent except Antarctica and Africa has cases reported, and I'm sure that will change as it seems we are only at the beginning stages of the discovery/outbreak. Is there some specific relevance in it? Even if so, can we reliably prevent the cases from being doubly counted when some article posts "x" number of new cases and then another article reports "y" cases that they aren't the same ones? If it is decided we need to track every nation's caseload, should we not set criteria for a source (e.g. health ministry for each country)? --MartinezMD (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. --Una Smith (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 149 deaths

This source doesn't support the statement: "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source [165], [166], and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042702017.html do support the statement "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City." Dumuziwik (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases are deiliberately under-reported in my state.

Here in North Carolina, I'll quote our media reports: "The state is encouraging providers to only report more severe cases – people with higher fevers or more prominent respiratory problems."

Thus the patchwork of private care here gets a state mandate to under-report flu symptoms. Just wonderful. And ignorant. The state can't be bothered with identifying and quarantining the less-inflicted. I'll bet that in another week we will all be shut-ins. 172.129.205.158 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The primary goal of the US influenza surveillance program is to detect new strains of influenza that kill people. So, yes, they prefer reports of people with severe influenza (and/or pneumonia). This new swine flu strain causes mild influenza and appears not to be killing anyone, except in Mexico. Usually, influenza alone does not kill; what kills is pneumonia due to a secondary bacterial infection. Anyway, your doctor cannot report influenza, only influenza-like illness, and most of that is not influenza of any kind. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of that excuses doctors at this juncture from not reporting mild cases of ILI where I live. The new strain is suspected to have been spread here and it can and should be quarantined. BTW, isolated populations were spared from the Spanish Flu by travel restrictions during that period, proving that not every governing body during that era was inept... not that the fatalistic WHO sees much merit in travel restrictions now. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

diarrhea is NOT a symptom

The diarrhea that these spring breakers have is freaking travelers diarrhea - e. coli. It's possible to have 2 infections at once people... come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? --Vessol (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your sorce? Where did you get your info?--Ken Durham (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 50 confirmed US Cases

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=6782396 69.231.128.137 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rate of death in Mexico compared to other countries

Reading the article, I wasn't able to find exactly why the rate of death in Mexico is so much higher than in other countries. Is this solely because other countries are more developed with better medical care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.250 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it has had more time to incubate in Mexico as it originated there? --Vessol (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one hospital in Mexico initially lacked antiviral drugs and most stay-at-home mild cases are likely not getting reported. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard much more dire news from Mexico, as in the number of dead being much higher, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for anecdotal evidence. --Vessol (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the high level of air pollution in Mexico City is so high that it weakened people's lungs. Resurr Section (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be temperature related. How does Mexico differ from the US? Mexico is a lot hotter for one thing. And for a virus that spreads through the air and attacks the lungs, air temperature is most definitely relevant.Hawthorn (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware many of the deaths in Mexico appear to be from pneumonia which could be from a secondary or co-infection. This could be an existing problem in Mexico that is spreading there but not elsewhere so far (which could also be related to the quality of healthcare there, environment etc). It's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware of but the poorer quality of the detection systems and healthcare, the fact that it's only recently been detected et al mean that many of those with lighter symptoms who had the disease were not detected. See [10] for some discussion Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They could potentially have a higher rate of survival, and we wouldn't know it if they underreport cases (common amoung the poor who would not be diagnosed/treated). We have weeks or months to get the information. Anything now is speculation. Stick to the available facts. --MartinezMD (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean by 'it's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware' Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is total speculation, but haven't the US cases been mostly children? The 28 at that one school in New York represents more than 1/2 of confirmed US cases as of yesterday I think. If like the 1918 infection this one tends to kill people with mature immune systems (see Cytokine Storm), that alone could account for the discrepancy. Also, if we assume this has been in Mexico longer, say a month or so, it's had much longer for those deaths to accumulate (how far back in time does the Mexico "attributed" mortality list go?) If we're looking at the "tip of the iceberg" for each country's infections, I suspect the base of Mexico's iceberg is much broader than that of the US. As the virus spreads in other countries and a broader swath of the population is infected, my non-educated guess is the larger sample will result in a wider spectrum of severity. Like I said, total speculation. --Replysixty (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the virus is always changing when it's circulating in human bodies. As higher the virus population is, as higher the mutation rate, too. And the virus population in Mexico is far more higher than elswhere. For example, I chatted with a friend from Mexico yesterday and she said that she had fever, and her grandfather, too. A lot of people in Mexico don't go just to the doctor because of fever, and other cases have shown that the virus can disappear quickly with only mild symptoms. That means it is not adapted to humans well. On the other hand it is quite possible that the dark figures of infection are far higher and only some of the virus strain are leading to death. It needs some time to understand the virus. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

South Korea

South Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports one probable case up to today(Apr 28th). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedukh (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Shouldn't "Mexican flu" be mentioned as an alternate name? According to Israel, it should be called that, because "swine" is unclean... [11][12][13] 76.66.196.218 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And we wouldn't want to refer to deadly diseases by "unclean" names... --194.105.255.161 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China

Several suspected human swine flu cases in China http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/425467/1/.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intershark (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

timeline?

I think a useful section would be a timeline for the disease. People in the far future who are dealing with another outbreak will want to use this entry as research and being able to see how the disease progressed would be very useful for them when dealing with something similar.

It would also be useful for now because people who want to look to see if something major has happened they can just check the timeline without having to parse through all the entries in the history. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested graphing the rate of infection and created a (lame and poorly researched) example above. I may move those comments down here as I just picked a random spot for it, but if you scan for the graphic, you'll find it. --Replysixty (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed cases.

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Swine-flu-confirmed-in-NZ/tabid/209/articleID/101621/cat/87/Default.aspx

Tony Ryall, health minister just confirmed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.88 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 confirmed, likely that 11 will be soon. 43 possible...

http://tvnz.co.nz/health-news/students-test-positive-swine-flu-2684698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand? No one has died there. Why is this even noteable? Wallie (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because New Zealand's location effectively changes the disease from an epidemic to a pandemic at least as far as the Pacific Theatere is concerned. Furthermore No one has died in anywhere but Mexico, but the response seems notable. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In the last outbreak in 1918 of the flu, 8900 people died in New Zealand. There is no article about this. Sometimes I wonder about the balance in Wikipedia. Wallie (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All this means is that no one has gotten around to writing about New Zealand in the 1918 flu... yet. rootology (C)(T) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath. I guess that people now think that this 2009 version is more important. It is quite sad really. Wallie (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing sad about this. Is there any value to Wikipedia to your being so negative for no good reason? People write what they're interested in, or what's right in front of them. This is Human Nature 101 going back hundreds of years. When someone is interested in a red link that doesn't exist, they'll write it. It not existing today isn't a fault of any of us or "Wikipedia" or "Web 2.0" or any such thing. If you have something helpful to add to the creation and growth of this article, please help out. Otherwise, pages you have an interest in improving are --> that way. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the Top

This article is now bigger than the 1918 Spanish Flu article. Around 60 million people died in this one. Is this outbreak really more serious than the one in 1918? Wallie (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because the 1918 Spanish Flu article was more significant in terms of death rate it does not mean this article should not be bigger. Many things are different between now and then, now there is more information readily available then there was back then, due to globalisation this swine flu can travel between countries a lot faster and there are more people in the world now that will become affected. Therefore more information is warranted, wikipedias purpose is to ensure all information about this can be accessible in one location, if you have any issues with that you need to speak to the media to stop reporting, therefore the page will not be updated.121.221.95.47 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. On that reasoning, if this 2009 version exceeds 60 million in deaths, I guess you will still think that the "death rate" doesn't matter. As for countries affected, I can assure you that many countries were affected in the 1918 outbreak. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also think about the amount of sources this article has. In pure article text, the article isn't even that big. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources? The article should be NPOV. If there are 60 million killed, the same coverage should be given to both events. I just think that the POV is sometimes pushed by the younger folks. Some who were around in 1918 might have a different POV. After all they are living through both the 1918 and 2009 outbreaks. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The scope is different. Now news travel immediately, before it took days before they were published. Comparing events happening almost 100 years in between is even malicious. There wasn't internet, there wasn't Wikipedia, there was a global war, healthcare wasn't as developed as today, and viruses didn't travel as fast as today. There are too many differences to compare them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it malicious? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a current news service. I just disagree with some people. I think the 1918 incident was more serious than the 2009 one is now. Others may think that the 2009 one is more serious. Wallie (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1918 was 90 years ago; of course there's going to be more information on a current flu epidemic than an historical one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to present a balanced view. I would have thought that 60 million deaths was significant. Older people used to think it important. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to younger folk in the 21st Century. That's the way it is I guess. :( Wallie (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing prevents anyone from improving the 1918 flu pandemic article. If you think that one should be longer, fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died. The old guys who lived through it think it was important. Does that not mean anything? Wallie (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel Confirmed

A case of swine flu has been confirmed in Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.115.131 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dccdz (talk • contribs) 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Just letting editors know that the Czech Rep has 0 in all categories in the table so either it is an error or it needs to be removed. Lachy123 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is to reflect that the previously suspected case turned out not to be swine flu. But not sure --Replysixty (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

___

no final results (only predictions) - still 0-3-0

confirmed infected in Valencia (Spain)

Is the partner of the first infected in spain

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/28/espana/1240911361.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.207.55 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. --Replysixty (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Still on map, not anymore in the table in the header... I know the Polish "possible case" seems more like panic (with slightly elevated temperature and not a real fever), but we should decide on one version. And either erase from map or put in table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.85.216 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Responses: Serbia

Serbian authorities began to check travelers.

[15](Anonymus)--81.62.174.187 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed infectred in Bilbao (Spain)

The 3rd confirmed infected

http://www.berria.info/albisteak/33519/Bilboko_gizonezkoak_txerri_gripea_duela_baieztatu_dute.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.200.204 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5 notimex news story

I have removed the sentence "The first evidence of abnormal influenza patterns in Mexico arose when Notimex, a Mexican newswire, reported on April 5 that Mexican health officials had taken sanitary measures in the rural towns of Perote, Quechulá and Xaltepec due to the spread of a disease affecting 60% of the population and with symptoms similar to those associated with the influenza virus." from the article. It was cited to http://www.swineflu.org.uk, which doesn't appear to be in any way reliable. I tracked down what seems to be the original source for this site at http://sdpnoticias.com/sdp/contenido/2009/04/05/369612. The Notimex article, however, just says there was an outbreak of respiratory illness that led to pneumonia and broncopneumonia. It doesn't refer to influenza at all. It actually says the sickness was in La Gloria (not the towns listed in at swineflu.org.uk), in Perote municipality. It also says the suspected cause is flies that reproduce in pig farms and lagoons of pig feces around the towns of Quechulá and Xaltepec. I think any connection to the swine flu outbreak is pretty much original research at this point, unless we can find a better source that connects this sickness to swine flu. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sub-articles

I think it's best to hold off on creating extremely short sub-articles for the time being. The point of forking is to prevent the main article from becoming to long, but one-sentence stubs such as 2009 swine flu outbreak in Israel are of little use. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It has no sence to make such an "article"... 77.127.96.96 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Animate the map?

Just an idea to animate the File:H1N1 map.svg to show reports of infection. I can't animate, but... thought someone else might be able to. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

need to add conspiracy section

Bunch of unrelated sources, most of them from after the outbreak started
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
links http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_swine_flu_mexico Mexico's Agriculture Department said Monday that inspectors found no sign of swine flu among pigs around the farm in Veracruz, and that no infected pigs have been found yet anywhere in Mexico. just before the outbreak http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/missing.virus.sample/index.html http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/04/24/testing-our-readiness-for-a-global-flu-pandemic-91466-23463061/ http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5270&Itemid=2 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I http://www.infowars.com/baxter-product-contained-live-bird-flu-virus/ this is a bio attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.10 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Face mask comment by UK health secretary

J removed a paragraph regarding a statement by the UK health secretary:

"However, in the United Kingdom, Health Secretary Alan Johnson told MPs on April 27 that, "Although we are aware that facemasks are being given out to the public in Mexico, the available scientific evidence does not support the general wearing of facemasks by those who are not ill, whilst going about their normal activities."[120]"

J's explanation was "Prevention and treatment: Rm nn quote from someone with no medical background that may, in fact, be quite inaccurate and, I regret, dangerous if people are searching Wikipedia for advice."

Firstly, the health secretary of the UK is almost certainly acting on scientific advice so its dubious to claim that his advice is dangerously inaccurate (and misleading to say he has no medical background). Secondly the article is not giving medical advice but reporting that of others (amongst other things). If there is a notable criticism of the health secretary's statement then that could be included. Otherwise I think it should stay. I've reincluded it. Barnaby dawson (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a doctor...

Everyone, wikipedia is not a doctor. If you need medical help for swine flu or something else,or if you suspect you have swine flu, you best call your local doctor. If you have a new Varifiable FACT, then go ahead and post it along with a reference. Please also make sure that your posts a legable. Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

References

While it is essential to include only referenced information, I would encourage people to be economical with them. We have now 200+ references and many no doubt with the same information. If at a loss for what to do (...) please do look at finding good overall references for sections to try to keep them as concise as possible. I have been trying this with the table, but it is a never ending process. Thanks, |→ Spaully^₪† 14:48, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

It does not matter. The references prove that what is being stated is fact. Please include references in all posts! Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as mentioned. However, if possible use 1 reference for several points. It does matter as it makes tracking references and updating them difficult thereby potentially reducing the accuracy of the article. This is especially relevant as time goes on as some sources change and become outdated. |→ Spaully^₪† 15:08, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

The article is far too big. It is growing faster than the virus. Already it is bigger than the 1918 Spanish flu (the article, not the event). At this rate it will soon be the biggest article in Wikipedia. Wallie (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a major event that is In Progress. The article will shrink when the event is over.--Ken Durham (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile 5/8 DO NOT have the flu

Reference: http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355620 Translated to English: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emol.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnacional%2Fdetalle%2Fdetallenoticias.asp%3Fidnoticia%3D355620&lp=es_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Blopa64 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Prior influenza season" incorrect interpretation of source.

Sorry, I do not remember my wikipedia username or password so I can't edit this myself. The last sentence of "Prior Influenza Season" reads: Furthermore, from December 2005 through February 2009, a total of twelve human infections with swine influenza were reported from ten states in the USA.[45] The source it cites is http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/?s_cid=swineFlu_outbreak_internal_001. However, that source does not contain the information in that sentence. Somebody please remove the misinformation, or correct the source. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)