Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

See also: Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table, File talk:H1N1 map.svg, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country, and Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline

Patien Zero

The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September 2008 in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, says Laurie Garrett, Council on Foreign Relations of USA.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 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)

Chart Suggestion:::

If you want to send along the spreadsheet for the data, then I can help make a chart. I think it would be best to upload to wikimedia commons. That way people can edit and update easily.Enviropearson (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a spreadsheet expert- basically I have 3 rows- days from "case zero", US infections, and Mexico infections (we could add more). As the numbers came in on that day (and numbers were changing per-day), I picked one report, noted the source, and then put it in the box. Then made a clumsy graph of that. I know we can do better. We would need to decide methodology, since the reports are varying, and even within a single day the numbers increase. If Wikipedia supports graphs (which I couldn't find) we'd be able to do this a lot easier. Otherwise, we need to find a centralized point to collaborate (Google Docs doesn't support graphs... does Zoho?). Maybe a mysql-backed database that could generate graphs on-demand..? ie, mapview, by country, by demographic etc. This will require good solid info. Maybe the CDC could be the central source? do they provide this raw data already? --Replysixty (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this graph is graphic a cumulative number, rather than the current # of patients. Very misleading as it looks like the disease is sky rocketing. More what you want to do is graph the # reported on each day. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding support to this suggestion of a graph of cases over time.

I have been checking this wiki page as a way to be informed of the progress of swine flu and I have felt a lack of such a graph showing overall progress of cases. As a regular reader of wiki (and some ocassional editing) I was going to suggest a graph of progress also of "Cases over time" to add to the current page.

These are my suggestions for such a graph.

1. What statistics? What should be graphed?

I suggest track the statistics for the world only, rather than attempt tracking individual countries.

The figures ploted should be the "Totals" figures at the top of the current table "Cases by Country". A total of four lines: Namely Cases (Labratory Confirmed & Suspected), Deaths (Attributed & Confirmed). This keeps it simple, and compliments the information currently in this table, providing a view over time of the overall situation.

2. Where should such a graph start in time?

Time 0 on the graph should be the date the first case was identified. This way the graph shows progress from the very beginning to present in time. The identified point of first case may change with new information. For example, the recent identification of a village near a pig waste site in Mexico as possible origin.

The origin time should be adjusted updating the graph as facts become better established and with authoritive references of first case. That may take several weeks to be clearly established. Given swine flu will continue for some time, pandemic or no pandemic, updating the origin point will not change the overall look of the graph to much, so I do not see an issue from a readers point of view and possible confusion taking this approach.

As a citizen of Earth, I find I am using this wiki page as, in my evaluation, the most reliable and easily accessable information source to remain informed of the progress of swine flue and the possibility of a new pandemic. I think those central to this wiki page are doing an excellent job overall. Well done. Hope these suggestions from a "outside readers" point of view are of value to your endeavours.

CofE001 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofearth001 (talk • contribs)

If and How do these numbers come down? When cases are confrimed? When cases are cleared as negative? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking further on this. I don't know how up-to-it everyone is, but I think this would be pretty cool:

• There is no technical reason to limit the graph to world totals rather than country, state, or region.
• Each country should have an agreed-upon authoritative source (such as the CDC in the US, which is currently issuing state-by-state counts)
• The world stats should also have an authoritative source, such as the WHO.
• We should expect and accept that sometimes the numbers won't add up 100%, and that at a certain point we'll have estimates rather than exact figures.
• Graphs should be generated regularly, at least every 24-hours.
• Numbers should be retroactively corrected as new information comes to light
• Standard graphs (total suspected infections worldwide, per country, mortality, etc.) will be useful, but if the raw numbers are available, people could ideally be able to generate any kind of graph they want- say to compare mortality rates or rates of infection by certain characteristics (region, age, etc- whatever we have available), this could also be useful in analyzing the trajectory or lethality of the virus in different parts of the world.

The more I think about this, it may be beyond the scope of wikipedia to achieve, but perhaps wikipedia could benefit from a sort of real-time statistic warehouse-like database. It would be nice if the raw numbers could somehow be transcluded from a centralized area, so that the data is updated once and then automatically appears in every article. I also suspect we should keep an eye on this page from the CDC as it will be very helpful. --Replysixty (talk) 04:36, 29 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)

Except the data we have is about when reports of infection were published. In many cases, those reports do not mention when the person's symptoms started, or even the date on which the sample was taken. Case in point is the little boy living near the pig farm: he got sick and recovered weeks ago and as of last night his sample was reported to be the oldest found so far in Mexico, but from context it appears the sample was obtained some time in April. The first spikes in influenza-like illness were first detected in Mexico in mid March, so a sample collected in April tells us little about the origin of this outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 16:47, 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)

I'd say that a static image is preferred in case, per WP:ANIMATIONS. However, if you're suggesting to keep the main map at the top, and just adding another version of a map (an animated one), I'd say that's a wonderful idea. hmwithτ 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Map "H1N1_map.svg" incorrect

The map H1N1_map.svg is not is up-to-date according to the table "Cases by country". There are no confirmed nor suspected cases in Costa Rica as erroneously the map states:

Costa Rica Free Of Swine Flu, But Maintains Alert --Ornitorrinco (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved. Thanks for the notice. CB...(ö) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it has not been resolved at all, the map still states that Costa Rica has susspected cases, which is wrong.--Ornitorrinco (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one confirmed case in Costa Rica.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More recent comment re portugal moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More recent comment re google map links moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article split

I see someone split out the country-by-country section, which I think was probably a good decision as a general matter. Now, however, we need to rebuild the section in this article. I think a good approach would be a focus on countries where actual cases are suspected or confirmed, a only brief mention of the various restrictions on travel and pork import etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should only be a summary as usual for main/daughter articles.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too short now. While the "one country, one single-line paragraph" approach wasn't the best, we need to have a summary of at least the effects in North America (whether more granularity is needed is debatable, although I'd be in favor of it) and Europe. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

added man made theory

plz improve it.added with a lot of proof. dont del it just cuz it is loony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Please recheck your article and post non-youtube references.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this user failed to sign, but regardless of that, I've deleted the section. It was clearly original research and relied upon self-published sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He failed to sign so that we could not report his vadilisum.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) You can look at the edit history to see who added it. Not sure it should be considered :vadilism." The "man-made" claim was referenced to a Youtube video of a "9/11 Truth Investigator" and journalist named Wayne Madsen. Youtube is not usually permitted as a reference. But the section included other well referenced information CNN about missing virus samples and Times of India about how "Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic" from March of this year, thus not directly related to the present. Putting this info out as a possible cause of the present epidemic would be original research and synthesis. We should not get ahead of the scientific and news reporting community in being "disease detectives," but neither should we censor inclusion if any reliable sources examine the genesis of the outbreak and look at accidental or intentional creation and release of the virus. Edison (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is reason enough; these sources are not exceptional. In fact they are barely tangental. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it violated our content policies. You're right, it's no way vandalism (spelling notwithstanding!) and I think that Ken went way out of line giving a vand-warning to the user concerned. But there we go... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Calm talk}}

I am just a little touchy about people posting things without any kind of proof at all. I do NOT consider youtube to be a reliable reference! How was I out of line?--Ken Durham (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line because you accused a user of vandalism, when in fact, he just breached WP:NOR. Perhaps you should re-read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF before leaving threatening messages. In future, {{uw-nor1}} {{uw-nor2}} etc. may be of use to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Check Google News for reliable sources discussing whether the flu could be man-made: The Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, said on April 28 the "deadly swine flu virus could have been man-made." The same statement was reported by Agence France-Presse. Telegraph.co.uk has an article from April 27 "Beware of swine flu conspiracy theories." The responsible route is to have a section stating the conspiracy theory, with countervailing statements to the contrary. We do not have to maintain an artificial implication that opinion of experts is equally divided. There is not a huge amount of material at this point on the question one way or another from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

how was I threatening? tell me that!--Ken Durham (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very tone of voice there is threatening. Tell me that! is threatening. What you should be saying is, "I didn't consider what I said to be threatening, what specifically were you referring to?" And what I was specifically referring to is/was this - it says that the section was deleted marked as vandalism (untrue: I deleted it, and said nothing of the sort) and that it was a "false section"... I'm sure that the user thought they were behaving appropriately.

All I'm suggesting is that you need to calm down a little, and refresh your memory of what vandalism is. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what. I think I am letting the wikistress get to me. I should take a wikibreak, don't you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Durham (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist (April 27) had the article "Is swine flu a bioterrorist virus?" with a discussion of how the odd combination of viruses could have arisen through normal processes.They discuss the conspiracy theories. They say "Yes, it's possible that this virus was created by a mistake at a research laboratory or a vaccine factory." But they say it is more likely a result of how we operate farms. Edison (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well that several events gave some power to this hypothesis, specially the cnn article: "Army: 3 vials of virus samples missing from Maryland facility". Echofloripa (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

you skeptics want legitimate source hre you go http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-04-28/Swine_flu_is_manmade_virus.html http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/is-swine-flu-a-bioterrorist-vi.html

just cuz a RT news was on youtube it was not news worthy.wiki is biased against alternative news. manchurian candidate 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

The map

I like it! One person has been caught coughing in Russia, and so they chalk up one suspected case - so most of the top of the world gets to be painted bright orange. Wallie (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the map is intended to show what countries have been affected, meaning colouring all of Russia yellow is an unavoidable effect. Cordovao (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have an easy solution but I don't think Putin would like my Siberian Liberation plan. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Major facepalm right there. However I see where you are going with this. Perhaps we should break larger counrties up based on existing social, natural, or political lines. If you think you can do it pig, go ahead. If not, shoot me a message and I'll see what I can do...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you google it, theres a much better map, with dots pinpointing individual cases. It seems the flu is staying away from extreme cold as its furthest north suspected case was moscow. and that was a passenger from mexico with a fever, so its probably not even that far north. Alaska, is a major tourist area despite the extreme weather conditions, and they have no cases, suspected or otherwise. I have a feeling if this does turn into a full pandemic they will be telling people to run to the north. Or for people on he southern hemisphere, run to the south! Also, hawaii hasn't been hit yet despite our(yes, i ive in hawaii) high velocity of tourists. Hopefully it stays that way, but its probably only a matter of time.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his point was that it is a rather misleading map. When you're talking about cases in the hundreds it seems ridiculous to label a country of tens of millions as "affected" when the handful of cases in that country are not even confirmed. The country-wide shading lends disproportionate weight to what is so far a very minor outbreak. Remember, hundreds of thousands of people die from influenza per year anyway. We certainly should keep the page current but I'm sure there is a way to do that without joining the moral panic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thats why I told him if he can do the coding to go ahead and do it. I even volunteered to do it if he couldn't. I was just pointing out an interesting fact.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Container Explodes on Train

IMHO it should be at least mentioned in this article: [2] --romanm (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. As the article says in its introduction, "the virus was not the mutated swine flu that has killed around 150 people in Mexico and that has already spread to parts of Europe." As a result, I believe the incident is not notable enough for inclusion into the article. Thank you in any case, though. Cordovao (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also says "the dry ice melted" which I sincerely doubt, and which makes me question the reliability on scientific matters of the writer. Edison (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article said that the government claims it was not the same one. However, a few paragraphs later it says there were five cases of H1N1. The virus in mexico. I think their governement is telling people its not the same to avoid panic. Also, if dry ice isn't handled correctly it can melt causing sever gas buildup. Check out any of the millions of "Dry-ice bombs" on youtube and you can see just how easily this can happen.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many different strains of H1N1, one of which is the subject of this Wikipedia article, another different one that was involved in the train accident. The viruses on the train and in Mexico are not the same. Cordovao (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposition/remove chart?

The chart at the top of the article is getting a little out of hand (i.e. massive). Would it be better to remove the chart and only have it in the subartice 2009 swine flu outbreak by country? Or should it be moved? (Maybe to the by country section?) The problem with moving it is there would have to be a big space because the table is much much longer than the by country section now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes, a further column was added, that's why. Better is to delete a column, either Confirmed or Attributed deaths. We don't have much figures to fill the columns. -- Grochim (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We can fix it/format it better (we have enough smart people for that) but I'm still opposed to removing it from the top of this main article. It's an invaluable resource, and the best single focal point for where things stand. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We could hide it in a collapsible box. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, imo, Juliancolton. Cordovao (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the map at the top and the collapsed chart next to the by country section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the table should remain at the top; it is a much better reference than the map since the map shows no differentiation between countries with many confirmed cases and those with only 1 or 2. My suggestion would be to split the table in two, with one table for countries that have confirmed cases and a second, collapsible table with possible cases below. Another alternative is to only have a table with confirmed cases, since it's getting to a point that every time someone gets a headache in a country it gets reported as a possible case. Wine Guy Talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Map Colours

Can we please bring back the original black/red/yellow scheme. The current colours are pretty poor, plus it will be harder to distinguish between the colours as the affected country gets smaller.

Agreed, we also already know the ocean is blue. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah leave the oceans white.

I agree that black/red/yellow was better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms

Nowhere does this article specifically discuss the symptoms of this disease (except the picture). If they are the same as every other swine flu, then maybe a sourced statement to that effect should be added. (And maybe a brief summary of the symptoms with a pointer to the complete article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The symptoms are quite possibly the most important part of the article, short of the casualty table - and they are missing. 66.41.149.20 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico case count?

Any sources on these counts? It's been at 1995 for some time--has there been no new news out of Mexico? rootology (C)(T) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico is offically a retarded thrid world contery. Their Dept of Health has put a defacto ban on letting health care workers talk with the press and put an end to press confrences. Likewise the Mexican press has the crack investigative journalism skills of Channel One. Don't expect much for the next few days. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me augment my comments. The Dept of Health is still giving press confrences but is (accoring to the transcripts I've found) not mentioning numbers at large, only a few particular cases here or there (~of these 26 cases on this date 5 were postive, ~of the 24 cases on this date 3 were positive). IMHO when you have 1000s hospitalized and probally 1000s more at home trying Tamiflu and Tijauana knockoffs, the response to whitewash numbers is just pathetic. The Mexican style of press conferences isn't the same as in the United States, its more standing up infront of a crowd of photographers letting them snap pictures for 15 mintues, giving a 30 minute speech that contains more praises for goverment workers than useful information, and maybe taking one or two questions from friendly reporters. As far as the ban on letting workers talk to the media, that came from Anderson Cooper 360 on April 27th, I can not find a transcript though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the Mexican government has banned all contact with the news media? That sounds insane. rootology (C)(T) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so that is the case, then? I saw talk of adding a note in the table that Mexico is known to be underreporting. If this is an established fact, it should be clearly pointed out. --π! 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you establish it? It would bascially require a reputable source discounting the Mexican goverment. Frankly I don't think Janet Napoletano, who is more interested in keeping guns out of Mexico than stoppig people who have the flu from crossing the border, is going to do that. As far as the American media, they're too busy covering Britians Got Talent. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact the information of Mexico are quite poor, in comparison to the United States. I miss for example the current number of the laboratory confirmed cases and deaths. We had at first 20 confirmed cases, and then there was from one day to the another 172 confirmed cases. I think in a week more they will suddenly publish 2000+ cases or more. Is it so difficult to publish the current cases? For Mexico, apparently, yes. -- Grochim (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the CDC has a count tracker right on the frontpage of their site, since it updates based on state Dept of Health statements and CDC testing its not always the first updated but it has a timestamp and is updated consistantly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatality rate

This article is saying the fatality rate is 7%, 4.5% higher than Swine Flu. It cites "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society", a quarterly philosophy journal. The actual report is based around Spanish Flu, and has nothing to say about swine flu whatsoever. Where did they get this figure?

I'm guessing they got it by dividing the total deaths by the total cases? --π! 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know the total number of cases. We have numbers from various sources we post, but no one really knows. 273 dead out of 2528 gives you a mortality rate, but not the correct rate. What if there are an additional 2500 we don't know about or an additional 25000? Fact is until it burns out in at least one area, having infected as many as it will, we just won't know. I vote we stay away from mortality rates until a very reputable primary source(like WHO or CDC, not like the Daily Mail or CNN) puts a number out there. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against putting together "information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources." A health official stating a mortality rate would be legitimate for the article. A Wikipedia editor dividing a number of attributed deaths by a number of estimated cases,to arrive at a mortality rate would not be appropriate. Edison (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An other problem is the number of people died by the swine flu. In Mexico there are only 7 deaths confirmed. It means that the other cases could have been caused by other diseases. It is impossible to calculate the fatality (and even an estimated of it) if only the 5% of the deaths are confirmed.--Fixvon (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

'Hundreds Of Kids' Have Suspected Swine Flu

"Many hundreds" of schoolchildren in New York are sick with suspected swine flu, according to the city's health commissioner. [3] -- Grochim (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many columns in table; suggested merging of refs

I think there are too many columns in the 'Cases by country' table, perhaps the references should be merged into the other columns such as the table in 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States? This would also make it clearer which reference is for which number in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nskrill (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I second this. Someone want to be bold and fix it? hmwithτ 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way it was yesterday... does anyone know why it was changed? --π! 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd check the edit history of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. In the meantime, I made the refs column thinner. hmwithτ 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be easter for the reader, because they wont know which reference is the right one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I separated the confirmed and suspected deaths because three editors separately suggested it. You can change it back if you want; I'm indifferent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nskrill (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 cases in Venezuela

Can anyone add Venezuela and update the map?? And Uruguay has one case, here are the references, they are in Spanish Venezuela, Uruguay--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are suspected cases for those who don't speak Spanish, but yeah, let me add them there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

To all who have contributed positively thus far, I wanted to say well done. The outbreak is a sensitive and fast changing issue, and the quality of the article at the moment stands as a testimony to the value of the Wikipedia community. Thank you, and let's keep it up. Cordovao (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed! Though I haven't personally contributed to the article(s), I've been watching them progress and maintain a high quality despite the huge amounts of information flooding in. Well done, everyone. Jozal (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We're all going to die. 75.164.159.67 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But the article will survive ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, great response Grochim. Cordovao (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grochim gets a point. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia longa, vita brevis, mutatis mutandis. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful and not just focus on the WHO. Those who want WHO's viewpoint can go to their website. The WHO and CDC are starting to have separate opinions. NPOV requires that WP not be a WHO spokesman. I see no problem now but let's be mindful when editing. User F203 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDICAL applies here?

Is there a template we can use to advise of this disclaimer? Seems appropriate here.  GARDEN  20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did but someone removed it. I'm not going to fight over it even though it should be there. User F203 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Use one at the top of the talk page if you want, but not in the article per WP:NOT and WP:NDA. Cenarium (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the info.  GARDEN  21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The no disclaimer is not policy, just a guideline. I don't favor huge banners that say "this article may be full of lies and may be wrong" but I've seen warnings in articles of active hurricanes before. User F203 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the policy guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles:

There are a few exceptions to this: ... * temporal templates such as {{current}} or {{future film}}. These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia ...

Seems quite applicable in this case. Readers should be advised that available info is in flux. Plvekamp (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it may be an idea to suggest contacting local officials in the banner as suggested above? If you Google 'Swine Flu' (as I'm sure millions are), two clicks on the first result takes you to this page and, baring in mind that there are a lot of stupid people out there, it may be helpful. Don't come back at me with some stupid policy/guideline that says no banners, because IAR should be invoked when we're talking about people's well being. RaseaC (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Data Needed

• The layout of the article and chart deliver a 'snapshot' perspective on the outbreak. It is very difficult to see how things have evolved over the past several days, which in turn makes it difficult to estimate where they might end up.
• The page needs to offer a better "outbreak-over-time" experience. Right now the only way to get a feel for where things are headed is to look at previous revisions.
• As officials have stated infection is 'unlikely to be contained', this outbreak could last a while, and therefore additional incentive exists to add time data to this article.

Attributed/Confirmed Deaths Confusion

May I suggest that the "confirmed deaths" be incorporated into the "attributed deaths", since confirmed deaths are by definition attributed? So still have two columns, just have the confirmed deaths added to the tally of attributed deaths. Or add (unconfirmed) to attributed. It's a little confusing as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.165.37 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

US Attributed Deaths

Resolved

I noticed that the attributed deaths column has "Two" listed under the US. I feel this is very misleading considering the original source states that these two deaths were likely NOT attributed to the new swine flu strain.

I think that when writing about the first attributable US deaths, wikipedia must be VERY careful in what it writes. The first US deaths is an extremely significant event and needs to be checked and re-checked before that first "1" is put up there. I suggest that the attribtued deaths column entry for the US be reverted to "zero", until there is serious speculation among experts that a death is attributed to the new strain of swine flu. I will not edit myself as I am not that experienced but I suggest that someone change it. Vihsadas (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This has since been fixed, but I do not know what the proper protocol is in marking this complete, or removing the topic heading altogether... Vihsadas (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Genes From Pigs Only, Not Humans or Birds

See http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/swinefluupdate/. I would update the article with this information, but at the moment I'm occupied. Emw2012 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's confirmed by more sources. This journalist can't even spell the University of Edinburgh correctly, which makes me severely doubt the quality of his research. Many other sources have claimed that it has the human/avian/swine components, so I think we ought to make sure that's thoroughly debunked first.62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen this is both true and false. There are 8 pieces of RNA in the virus, of which between 2 and 5 came from European pigs and between 3 and 6 came from American pigs. Of those 3-6 pieces from American pigs, one most closely matches bird flu RNA in simple homology searches, and one most resembles a piece of human influenza RNA from a strain circulating around 1993. (These are two basic polymerase genes, PB2 and PB1 - which can have an important effect on species specificity [4][5]) The simplest explanation is that many flu strains in pigs have come to include bits of bird and human viruses - the "mixing vessel" idea. But the homologies between these sequences and other known bird, human, and swine sequences are not really that different (see [6] #20), and only members of GISAID currently have direct access to the sequence. Until we see a published molecular taxonomy of these sequences it might be premature to say whether a gene came from a bird or a pig based on the top BLAST match. Nonetheless, some people have made these statements, perhaps based on careful analysis, and for now we should cite all the reliable sources we can find without choosing one favorite interpretation. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps need to be updated

The maps need to be updated, i see that not even Costa Rica wich has one confirmed case has painted in red, and Honduras and Venezuela has new cases Honduras.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC

CDC vs WHO

When there was a SARS outbreak, the WHO issued travel advisories to certain cities (ie Toronto). The CDC issued a similar statement saying that traveling was fine. Respiratory therapists considered the reaction to be overblown. WHO is used in this article, I suggest the use of the (more level headed) CDC. Any comments? BFritzen (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we tell people what they both say. There is no need to choose one over the other. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a global perspective on all events, and when we're dealing with an international disease outbreak, this is particularly important. Why use the CDC when we have a perfectly decent, authoritative, official global authority? Turkmenistan, Armenia, Bolivia etc may also have a particularly level headed health department, but using their advice as the benchmark would be absurd. Why should this change for the CDC just because the USA is a larger country? 62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the argument that a global issue such as this requires a response by a global organization not to be secondarily placed in the article to a national organization's response. Cordovao (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You realize your arguing a point nobody will ever get?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I was arguing a global organization's responses takes precedence over a national one. Cordovao (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm not sure it's worth having a whole independent section for the WHO. Maybe it would be better to integrate that info as appropriate throughout the article. Maybe some sort of omnibus response section that incorporates the WHO info as well as info from the 2009 swine flu outbreak by country article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how often that is not true.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the WHO can't even manage to pack dry ice around Flu Samples to keep them from exploding... [7] I think I'll take my hand washing and travel advice from someone else... 'Hello Mom?' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better global organization than the WHO? CDC is American true, but they are not prone to fearmongering. And fearmongering can lead to real death. Swine flu vaccine has given people Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Which is more dangerous? I just don't think WHO has a good track record and I agree that both should be used. BFritzen (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the EU have a CDC or WHO equivilant? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ECDC [8] publish daily reports. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map problem

Portugal has NO confirmed cases. Should be white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.11.67 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the legend again and realize your error. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have any suspected cases either. (I'm assuming he means it should be gray.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are also assuming he is a he. I learned the hard way to never make such an assumtion. ;) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A safe assumption it turns out! (Preliminary user survey says that only 12% of wiki editors are female. :( ) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Userbox

Discussion unrelated to article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Use this template to put the userbox on your page{{Template:Userbox Swine Flu}} If you have swine flu use this template {{Template:Userbox Swine Flu2}} Drew R. Smith(talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC) A Pig This user has NOT contracted Swine Flu. Template:Userbox Swine Flu2 This box needs a {{fact}} tag.... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) A wha? This is more for amusement than any scientific uses.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC) All we need is one that says they have and they might haved and we shall be fine.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Good idea! Working on them now...Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Got the "Have swine flu" box up. Probably not going to do suspected box. seems like a waste...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Please keep discussion on this page limited to discussion regarding improvements to the article itself. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I'm invoking WP:IAR here. There are a lot of editors working very hard on this page, and a bit of harmless, light relief never hurt anyone. Well done so far, and keep up the good work guys. Manning (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you manning.Drew R. Smith (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

More cases in Nicaragua

OKay, 3 posibles cases in Nicaragua has been confirmed, now it supposed to be in red (can anyone add it to the tabl?) here is the reference in Spanish.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wearing Masks

Some physicians in the US are recommending the use of masks when in public.[102] The purpose of a face mask is to effectively cover a person's mouth and nose so that if a person is around someone who is infected

Could this be changed to uninfected,

Table formatting problem

"United States" and "United Kingdom" are breaking over two lines in the table for me, but the counts aren't, causing the counts to not properly line up with the countries they refer to. --π! 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that same thing happens to me. It needs to be fixed. hmwithτ 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed I changed it to say US & UK. They're pretty common abbreviations, and they link to the articles. hmwithτ 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The same thing is happening with New Zealand now, but I'm not sure if there is any come abbreviation that would work.--69.148.8.183 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zlnd.? Haha, come on. There has to be a better way. Can someone give that column a fixed width? We should take this to the template's talk page, although it only shows up incorrectly when transcluded on this article. rhmwithτ 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Table discussions should be held at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. (There's a very small "d" link at the bottom of the transcluded table.) --Zigger «º» 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it just got started here because the problem only existed on this page, but good idea. Discussion directed in that direction. hmwithτ 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SARI

PAHO's Influenza cases by a new sub-type: Regional Update (28 April 2009 13:00 WDC) (Epidemiological Alerts Vol. 6, No. 14) describes the early Mexican illnesses as SARI (severe? acute respiratory infection), but also mentions "SARI/ILI" in the surveillance section. SARI is currently absent from the 2009 flu articles. Does anyone have more information on this? --Zigger «º» 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be severe acute respiratory infection.[9][10][11] Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Acute respiratory infection now more properly redirects to Influenza-like illness rather than to Common cold. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Source 8 bunk info

I don't edit Wikipedia because it's scary, but I thought I would let those who do know that source #8 links to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081755.html , which is an editorial that is unrelated to the swine flu outbreak. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.158.48 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually its source 9 right now... The headline is correct "Authorities fear third and fourth cases of swine flu in Israel" but the url should be http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081774.html --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done A thank you to the editor. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Deaths new number

Actual Deaths from swine flu in Mexico is not 20, but 7 according to WHO[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.249.29 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the table, but we should explain the discrepancy in the article somewhere. -- Avenue (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map difficult to read?

It seems to me that his newer map is difficult to comprehend as a lot of the countries blend together, because they're so small. I know you can just click on the map to make it larger, but the olded map seemed a lot more easier to read to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.2.171 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You can use a googlemap someone setup [13] now you can track the flu's progress right to your front door. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a PNG version. –Howard the Duck 10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Name section

Seems like it might be worth writing one. Sources: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New possible cases in Colombia

The total number is 42. Source: Las autoridades vigialn 42 posibles casos de gripe porcina en Colombia [20]--SaitoK (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on Sambucol should be removed

 Done A thank you to Tim Vickers --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Treatment paragraph on Sambucol is extremely poor. The majority of the references are years old studies or WebMD articles that show Sambucol has had some effect against some (unnamed) strains of the influenza virus. The first source [21] is the only one that mentions the Swine Flu outbreak at all. The one word mention on the PNJ is: "Alan Woolford, a Perdido resident, has stocked up on an anti-viral herbal remedy called Sambucol, ibuprofen, diarrhea medicine and face masks." The notoriety of it as an effective treatment or a note-worthy response taken by doctors or even random individuals is extremely scant. I recommend this paragraph be removed until some offical medical authority makes a statement on it with regard to this outbreak, or a source states someone more notable than Perdido resident, Alan Woolford is using Sambucol. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search turns up exactly 3 mentions of "Sambucol". The PNJ, The Huffington Post, and the Rocklin and Roseville Today.

The Huffington Post [22] mentions it as Tamiflu with "no negative side effects". 'Doctor' Matthew Stein then goes on to call Garlic. and Grapefruit seed extract "true wonder herbs". - Um yeah

The Rocklin and Roseville Today. [23] mentions it as "Always remember the wonderful cough suppressant, Sambucol! We are now carrying it as it is from the black elderberry extract; literally stops coughing in its tracks, is an anti-viral liquid and tastes fantastic! ". Not Exacty journalism. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies, now more than ever. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided this section to document (a) that some people are taking this extract, (b) there is some (limited) evidence in the literature of its effectiveness against ordinary flu, but mostly (c) that it may increase the risk of death by "cytokine storm", a leading explanation for the deaths in Mexico. I understand that the sites advocating the use of elderberry for the swine flu do not describe it very scientifically ... I think if they did they might think twice about it. Here it is:

"A few news reports describe the use of an elderberry (Sambucus nigra) extract as a potential preventative.¹² The preparation has been reported to reduce the duration of influenza symptoms by raising levels of cytokines.³⁴⁵ However, the use of the preparation has been described as "imprudent" when an influenza strain causes death in healthy adults by cytokine storm leading to primary viral pneumonia.⁶ The manufacturer cites a lack of evidence for cytokine-related risks, but labels the product only as an antioxidant and food supplement.⁷"

• ¹Louis Cooper (2009-04-28). "No swine flu cases in state; officials on alert". Pensacola News-Journal..
• ²Matthew Stein (2009-04-28). "When a Super-Bug Strikes Close to Home, How Will You Deal With it?". Huffington Post.
• ³"The effect of Sambucol, a black elderberry-based, natural product, on the production of human cytokines: I. Inflammatory cytokines". European Cytokine Network. 12 (2): 290–296. 2001-06. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• ⁴Barak V, Birkenfeld S, Halperin T, Kalickman I. (2002-11). "The effect of herbal remedies on the production of human inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines". Isr Med Assoc J. 4 (11 Suppl): 919–922. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• ⁵"Elderberry Fights Flu Symptoms". WebMD. 2003-12-22.
• ⁶Jeffrey R. Ryan (2008). Pandemic Influenza.
• ⁷"Sambucol FAQs". Manufacturer Web site.

I should add that as per WP:MEDRS, the first two sources are used for historical information (that people are using the substance). Sources 3 and 4 are the more recent and more conventional among the four references that turn up from a search of "sambucol and influenza" at PubMed.[24] (A search of elderberry and influenza turns up more articles, but nothing explicitly contradictory; are interesting [25] but their relevance is hard to prove). Source 5 serves as a tertiary source from WebMD, a well-known Web site used by patients. Source 6 is a 2008 book about pandemic influenza with quite a bit of interesting information. Source 7, the manufacturer Web site, is included because if I'm casting any doubt on their product, they deserve to have their say on the issue.

Mike Serfas (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect figures

The death/case figures are sourced from the press, who are not always accurate. Best to go with the WHO figures which are much more reliable, having come from official sources. Since swine flu cases are notifiable, these are as accurate as we can get. (Unsurprisingly, these are much lower than the media-hype would suggest.) Let's use common sense here, and avoid sensationalism. Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This came up before and it was agreed that we should use the more up-to-date figures from the media rather than the WHO figures which are out of date. For example the WHO claim that there are currently 26 cases in Mexico and 64 in the US, which gives a US bias because of the better access to testing laboratories. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmed" deaths

WHO says "Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths". That means that there were 7 confirmed deaths, not 26. Could someone correct me if I am wrong and point me to official WHO data that says otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.19 (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and correct. This has been widely reported. Wallie (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Shouldn't "Mexican flu" be mentioned as an alternate name? According to Israel, it should be called that, therefore it is an alternate name that is used. [26][27][28] 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• One Israeli politician suggested it, and the sources say he is being ignored, so no. Resurr Section (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thailand calls it Mexican flu too [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.19 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

unproductive discussion about whether editors think the name "Mexican flu" is racist
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Terrible! Giving the flu a national name. How racist is that for an idea, whoever suggests it! Wallie (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Mexican is a nationality not a race. Some people live their whole lives in anticipation of being offended; when this fails to happen they resort to being offended on behalf of other people. Then they spring to action with accusations of racism and exclamation points!!! The 'offended cusader' then reflects on his heroism and takes pride in his smugness. He writes on his blog how he made a difference and then listens to his Michael Bolton cds. The rest of us just develop thick skins, know the defintions of words, and learn how to make whitty comebacks. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Other flu epidemics are named after the country of origin or suspected origin, like the Spanish flu (at the time, the only news reports came out of Spain... even though the outbreak of that year started in the low countries, and the related one a year earlier was in the US), the Hong Kong flu, etc. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Lets not get on to the definition of racism. I think you know that Mexican people can be discriminated against. It is called racism. As for the Spanish flu, the flu certainly did not originate from there. It was just reported there, as they had a free society, unlike some who kept it secret at the time. Associating it with any country hurts that country, and as such could be racist. Thick skins do not help. These ideas need to be killed of quickly. It is not a joking matter. Wallie (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous. Naming a flu after its known country of origin is in no way discriminatory or racist toward the people of that country.62.253.240.9 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) The Spanish Flu did not start in Spain it was only known to have been reported to start there, thus it is named the Spanish Flu. How would this be any different, and how could it be racist? Besides, Mexican isn't a race, or an ethnicity, it is a nationality. There are several ethnicities contained within the Mexican country. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I never said Mexican was a race. If you say something derogatory about "Mexicans", that is racism. The fact they called it "the Spanish Flu" was certainly racist, especially as it never started there. In today's climate, these slurs are not to be tolerated. Wallie (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Well, CNN reported that patient zero is a 5 year old Mexican boy from Veracruz, who likely contracted it from a Smithfield Foods Farm there. So that would mean it did originate in Mexico... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) How is this saying something derogatory about Mexicans? If manure from Scotland were used in England and called Scottish manure, would that be "racist"? The first reported cases are from Mexico, or are you arguing that they aren't? (I don't mean the first actual case, I mean the first reported case) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Don't you people have anything better to do than to interpet words and sentences in a way that will help you push your agenda? Stop being butthurt over every single thing. Curgny (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Deaths

American deaths are expected. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_he_me/med_swine_flu ----Sky Attacker (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

um duh , About 30,000 to 40,000 deaths occur due to the flu eachyear in the United States.[30]. Your comment is neither news nor unexpected, there is no need to sensationalize. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One american as died of confirmed swine flu. at least, according to MSNBC...Drew R. Smith (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CDC confirms with this case - a Texas baby - from Reuters. -Xavier Fung (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually a Mexican child who died in a U.S. hospital. There are still no fatal cases that originated in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Hi I can't edit but could some either delete or re-write and source this sentence.

"Mexico dealt with virulent strain, which didn't export other countries, which isolate devastation Mexico only." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Suspected case have decreased to 2 only

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090429/4/bxmf.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BVEsun (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Table already updated with official reports from Centre for Health Protection. -Xavier Fung (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland's suspected cases have decreased

Someone please change it in the table. There are now only 2 suspected cases - a Mexican woman, and a Pole recently traveling to Mexico. Three other patients are confirmed not to have swine flu. Based on news from onet.pl, Poland's major web portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.65.179 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Achive problem

Last night Mizbot removed four threads, but the deleted threads do not appear to have been added to the archive pages above. 172.129.75.13 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It moved them to Archive 1. I'll check the parameters on the bot code. --GedUK  13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done It will put them in archive 2 until that's full, then start 3 and so on. --GedUK  13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've checked both archives 1 and 2 and didn't see the missing threads. Are u sure they were moved? Looking at their brief histories, neither page has been updated by the bot. 172.162.132.23 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, something weird happened. I've asked the bot owner to have a look at it and see where it went. The content is still in the history, so we can easily recover it. --GedUK  14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the template problem that was pointed out on the bot page and manually archived the missing threads from the history. 172.133.110.134 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's Change the Infection Table Layout Again.

I've seen more than five iterations to the formatting of the table that shows the number of cases. Would it be possible to decide on a column format and simply stick with it? Some of the changes are less than meaningful, like moving the totals from the bottom of the table to the top. Plus we've had data in three to four (and maybe more!) columns. --76.241.85.38 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, what's the difference between "probable" and "suspected" cases?? Isn't all probable cases suspected ones?? This is wikipedia, if you are editing it you must work with the group. eks (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people are arguing about the layout of the table. I think the smaller font (how it is now) is easier to read, understand, and looks much nicer. If you'd like to further discuss the table, please see the talk page for the table, linked at the top of this talk page. hmwithτ 13:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Patient Zero

Edgar Hernandez, 5yo boy, contracted from Smithfield Farms (Smithfield Foods) pigfarm in Veracruz, Mexico (state), according to CNN, Sanjay Gupta. (aired 9am EDT 29 April 2009 CE) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is already in the article. (Not his name, but information about the outbreak in La Gloria, where he is from.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is speculation that he "contracted it from Smithfield." Dr. Sanjay Gupta reported on CNN from the scene that Smithfield regularly vaccinated and tested their swine, and none had the flu. Edison (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I already mentioned it in the discussion of the time line: That boy (in other sources said to be 4 years old, probably at the time of the illness) fell ill on 2nd April (check http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fg-mexico-flu28-2009apr28,0,1701782.story). Therefore, the two confirmed cases in California at the end of March must be presenting the "patient zero" (so far). The other cases in La Gloria were "normal flu" (as it already says in the article). Please point this out.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From the article I have seen it is not clear that he fell ill on April 2 or earlier in March. I removed the date from his mention in the article. For instance: "Patient zero in Mexico – the earliest known case of the mutant virus - is a five-year-old boy, Edgar Hernandez, who suffered and survived the flu in early March."[31] which neither claims he is the global Patient Zero or that he fell ill on April 2. It must also be remembered that the locals in La Gloria are in a series of disputes both with the local pig farms and with the Mexican government over land and health issues. Rmhermen (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Flying Pig Flu

""Flying pig flu" has been suggested as a more accurate description of the virus' genetic makeup."

Are you serious?? Is this vandalism?? Dvmedis (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced. The reference is claiming that this isn't really swine flu: "the virus contains elements of human, swine and bird flu". hmwithτ 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article to clarify. Does it make more sense now? hmwithτ 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming, "North American influenza"

I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. --Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. --Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it if there is a name change, H1N1 influenza would be the best option. Someone has already tried to rename it, and the edit was discussed and reverted, per WP:COMMONNAME. However, if its "common name" changes, the article can be moved. hmwithτ 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Although H1N1 is a common influenza A virus type that is responsible for 50% of seasonal flu in humans, so "H1N1" would be misleading. This is a specific type of H1N1. "Swine flu" is, as you say, the common name, and is consistent with scientific naming convention (bird flu). --Oldak Quill 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.

Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]

The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]

I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will propose the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a formal WP rule, but articles tend to have the year then the event - like 2008 Mumbai attacks and 2003 Bam earthquake, not Mumbai attacks (2008) or Bam earthquake (2003). Equilibrium007 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Attributed vs. Confirmed Deaths

Does "1 (1)" indicate one death total or two? This is unclear. --π! 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Better is to put a table where all figures appear separately (no number appears included in another one) t clear things up. The most important figures are the confirmed cases and deaths, from my point of view. That should be the ones that should appear very clearly, without causing confusion. --201.153.40.28 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's more to it than that, though. Does/should the attributed deaths figure include confirmed deaths? --π! 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it shouldn't. To make it even clearer an * below the table could give the explanation that the figures are not accumulated. Just as an idea. Maybe the head of the table can be renamed to clear things up. For suggesting something, my English isn't that good. Any idea?--201.153.40.28 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Epidemic Endemic etc.

Sorry if you view this as pendantic but the "demic" root refers only to people. The disease cannot be endemic in pigs. In livestock the term zootic should be used, as in enzootic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.241.102 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "endemic" is used in the technical literature in precisely the way it is used here, and is applied to plants and animals, as well as viruses. --Una Smith (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization proposal

I think national efforts to prevent the spread of disease (travel restrictions, pork import bans, etc) should be merged into the prevention/treatment section because they are similar to the content that is already there. The cases by country section could be shifted to be a short summary of where and when cases were reported after the initial outbreak to give better chronological coverage. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for N99+ respirator recommendation?

This is the first I've seen for a N99/N100 respirator recommendation. Most other sources I've read and seen indicate that an N95 is sufficient. While N95 is NOISH rated for 95% efficiency, that is under specific flow circumstances (85L/m I think, which is supposed to be breathing under heavy work loads), with a specific "external concentration", for all sized particles; the efficiency of an N95 respirator is often much higher than 95%. NeoteriX (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Is there any really good reason why "Hong Kong" should be listed rather than "China" in the country column of the table of data? Hong Kong is not a country, it's just a specially-administered part of China. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. I think that it should remain Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very different from China. You need a separate passport to get in and out. And although the Chinese government exerts a lot of influence over Hong Kong it still has a lot of autonomy. And more importantly, an outbreak in Hong Kong means something very different than an outbreak in China. Hong Kong has more health infrastructure and is much more contained. China, on the other hand, is very crowded and has a lower overall level of health care. I think if we put that China has a suspected case it would mean something very different than Hong Kong Hdstubbs (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Google map link removal

Where are the maps gone now? The external maps used to be linked underneath the orange/red/dark red map. But now there is only one link in the 'external links' section. The other map link has been removed. Unfortunately, it was the other map that is far superior in its depiction as well as being up to date. - However I do not recall the url for that map any longer, it was the second google map that used pins with numbers of deaths indicated per region. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed them because they were maintained by random people without credentials. (And are therefore unreliable, even if they've been doing a pretty good job so far.) What do other people think? Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong number of infected

Hello I am from Iceland and wiki said that there are 2 people in Iceland infected but it has just been diagnosed as negative. http://visir.is/article/20090429/FRETTIR01/727631714/-1 here is a link about it but of course you cant understand it :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.95.113 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

• 2009 swine flu outbreak → Swine flu outbreak (2009) — Looking at many reliable sources, there are none that use the Wikipedia title. Creating a non-standard title violates Wikipedia rules against original research. There is already a worldwide discussion (non-Wikipedian discussion) about naming which is described at the end of the Wikipedia article. --User F203 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I will remove the template as per WP:NCCN. When it is declared a pandemic we can rename it then. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to 2009 H1N1 Flu Outbreak

• It is clear that pigs only play one part in this disease, and their place in the transmission chain is no longer a threat. Humans are now primarily transmitting this disease, and thus a normal flu name would benefit Wikipedia's community better. In addition, a governmental agency (USDA) requests that it be referred to this way. Wikipedia should stand for official sources, and not what independent media stations are saying.

Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name you are suggesting? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most sources call it "swine flu", so we should use that per WP:UCN. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

However, many people are confused as to whether pork spreads this disease. It does not, according to multiple sources. If Wikipedia clears this confusion by changing its article name, then its community will benefit. In addition, swine flu is a misnomer because this strain contains avian, human, and swine components. Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So? It's the name it is commonly known as which is the most important thing here. What one government agency (that I for one have never even heard of) says is unimportant in this case.  GARDEN  21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO and the CDC continue to refer to it as Swine Influenza (Flu). Those are the most official sources there are for this. Wine Guy Talk 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We reflect the sources. . .why would we care about what the USDA wants to call it? It's NPOV that's reflected here, not the view(s) or agenda of a gov't agency. Move back to original title unless a case can be made that this new name is more common (unlikely in my view). R. Baley (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion in this thread, the article is currently at 2009 swine flu outbreak.  GARDEN  21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

according to an AP article, Israel claims the name is offensive to jews and muslims and should be changed to Mexican flu (one can imagine the people of Mexico would be none too pleased with that!) for better or worse, I think it should remain with the name it started with. sherpajohn (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The best common name for this is disease is "Mexican flu". People have named earlier epidemics of the influenza virus as "Spanish flu", "Asian flu" and "Hong Kong flu, based on the area in which they may have (but not necessarily did) first appeared. Wikipedia should therefore use the name "Mexican flu" for the current epidemic.Corker1 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent Avien Flu outbreak would be a counterexample to that. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone actually calling it that? We're not prescriptive here; we should use the name being used. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Every source I've seen so far including several in other languages, calls it swine flu. It's common to the point of regular translation. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" may not be the usual name for the disease much longer. Farmers are complaining that the name may hurt their businesses. Corker1 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As this situation is rapidly developing, I revise my earlier suggestion. I propose not to immediately change the article's name, but instead to wait 48 hours and see what is happening then. Nintendo 07 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press article that I cited above contains the following information: "We're discussing, is there a better way to describe this that would not lead to inappropriate actions on people's part?" said Dr. Richard Besser, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "In the public, we've been seeing a fair amount of misconception ... and that's not helpful." The European Union's health commissioner has suggested the virus be renamed "novel flu."Corker1 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth including a section on the virus's name somewhere in the article. I've seen a number of news stories about proposals to change it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The LA Times is reporting (via Reuters) that Israel is now going to call this the "Mexico Flu". I'm thinking that this what we should be calling it from now on. All previous flu outbreaks have been referred to from where the outbreak began (think Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, etc.) It's only a matter of time (I think) before the major media outlets call it this, and it also falls more in line with how these flu outbreaks have been handled in the past. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that, as long as the media is still using the name "swine flu", it's what we need to go with. Until sources are more consistently using the term "Mexico flu", it doesn't seem practical to use it in this article. You may very well be right that the name will be changing soon, but we should wait until we cross that bridge. DreamHaze (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. --Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. --Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it if there is a name change, H1N1 influenza would be the best option. Someone has already tried to rename it, and the edit was discussed and reverted, per WP:COMMONNAME. However, if its "common name" changes, the article can be moved. hmwithτ 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Although H1N1 is a common influenza A virus type that is responsible for 50% of seasonal flu in humans, so "H1N1" would be misleading. This is a specific type of H1N1. "Swine flu" is, as you say, the common name, and is consistent with scientific naming convention (bird flu). --Oldak Quill 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"swine flu" is obviously wrong

Is the english wikipedia the last one which changes the lemma? It's not a swine flu, because it has genes from swine, bird and human influenza. It isn't even proven if the virus can infect swines. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Our naming conventions say to use the "common name" for things. Right now, that is how it is commonly known. hmwithτ 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Common names not necessarily are the most used names in the media. Because the most media simply multiply terms without reflecting. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let us all take the enlightend view then pride ourselves in our enlightenment... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CNNm, yahoo, google, every other news, the government, all call it swine flu. I think thats the media adopted common name...--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Common names" for breaking news stories often change, especially if the pork industry threatens news media and politicians with withdrawal of advertising dollars ("the other white meat") and "campaign contributions. Israeli government officials have objected to calling it "swine" flu in favor of "Mexican flu" to which Mexico objected. Scientific nomenclature like H1N1 makes more sense, but let's see what the news media and health organizations call it over the next few days. Certainly it is not exclusively swine flu, and there are no reports of infected swine so far. Edison (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The term "swine flu" might be extensively used by the media, but yet it is scientifically wrong. --bender235 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the failure is on all sides perhaps it would be best to call it something neutral e.g. Human Avian Swine Influenza or H.A.S.I. 80.254.147.36 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Swine Flu is the current media term, so swine flu it is. magnius (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I gather, the virus contains 4 different strands of influenza, two of which originating in pigs. What's the point in renaming it "XYZ123"? Every time one would read about it, it would say: "The influenza XYZ123 (formerly know as "pig" influenza". This hardly seems worthwhile

--88.147.75.244 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move page?

Should I move the page to "2009 H1N1 outbreak"? According to NBC Nightly News, the government is starting to call it the "H1N1". --Goldblattster (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better to wait till more sources are calling it H1N1. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has happend before; though the outcome may change. The government (Janet Napoletano, DHS secretary that has been doing most of the Press Confrenses on the outbreak) also refers to terrorism as 'man caused disasters', and the Global War on Terror as 'Overseas Contingency Operations'. I highly doubt the WP communitiy has the consensus to follow such name changes. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone already moved it (see discussion on WP:AN#Swine flu article just moved). Consensus was to move the article back and move protect it. hmwithτ 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the Move History of an article? I remember when it was the 2009 North America Swine Flu. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Logs showing two recent moves: [32] [33] --Zigger «º» 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, see #"swine flu" is obviously wrong 2 sections above this one. hmwithτ 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the feedback. I will not move it. I realized that so far, the US is litterly the only country that is calling it the H1N1 2009 outbreak. :-) --Goldblattster (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 causes about 50% of seasonal flu, so there have been dozens of "H1N1 outbreaks" this year... This outbreak is different because it is a novel form of H1N1 containing genes from pigs, birds and humans. Calling the article "2009 H1N1 outbreak" or any variant thereof would be incorrect and misleading. The EU has been using the term "novel flu virus", but that will get old very quickly. H1N1 would be more misleading than "swine flu", because "swine flu" is a distinct marker and is consistent with previous novel flu virus namings such as "bird flu". I suppose a more accurate name would be something like "H1N1 swine-avian flu outbreak", but this might mistakenly associate this virus with the H5N1 avian flu virus. --Oldak Quill 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.

Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]

The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]

I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will change the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not move the page until you have gained consensus. Oren0 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

POSSIBLE TITLES

Swine flu outbreak (2009)

1. Support per above. User F203 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican flu (2009)

Influenza A (H1N1 virus), human, 2009

Swine flu emergency (2009)

North American flu (2009)

Oppose any move at this time

1. "2009 swine flu outbreak" is not a name. "Swine flu outbreak" is the name, "2009" just describes it. Using parenthetical disambiguation like "(2009)" is generally reserved for situations where there are more than one. Oren0 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Leave the name "2009 swine flu outbreak" alone and move on, at least for now. This is the common name. It's our task to report it, not change it.Nosimplehiway (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. The common name currently used in the majority of sources is "swine flu." The policy is to use the common name, whether or not it's the best name. The convention on Wikipedia appears to be to put the year before the name, rather than to put it in parentheses after it - for instance, we have 2008 Mumbai attacks and not Mumbai attacks (2008), and 2003 Bam earthquake and not Bam earthquake (2003). So "2009 swine flu outbreak" is the title best conforming to convention. Equilibrium007 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about confirmed deaths

What is the criteria being used to determine "confirmed deaths" ? Confirmed by what criteria, and confirmed by what organization(s)? Furthermore if the organization in charge of "confirming" deaths has a hierarchy within it that enables a single person or sub group within the organization to control the release of data then that is not an acceptable criteria in itself. Confirmed deaths should require more than one source. Ideally 3-4 sources. Am I wrong? 99.254.216.48 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think using WHO published figures is fine. RaseaC (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think alot of things, but that does not make them correct. If we are using WHO as an acceptable source for confirmed deaths than we ought to allow the use of other agencies in confirming deaths. Claiming data of which the sole discretion of death confirmation resides within a single entity is a gross misrepresentation of good science and accurate information. 99.254.216.48 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't try and be funny, you're not good at it. If we have a reliable source (such as a UN agency) then it's sufficient, especially as the WHO is a global agency and this is a global matter. When information is rapidly changing like this it is inevitable that if you take a hand full of government agencies (all in their own right reliable sources) you may very well get a hand full of different responses, there is no way we can prevent this. Picking one source and sticking to it is the way forward, not listing a bunch of numbers, all of which could be wrong, and all of which are changing rapidly. RaseaC (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see the article have multiple sources and be somewhat wrong rather than relying on a single organization (which is heavily biased) and have the information be totally wrong. Yogiudo (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources is fine, multiple figures is stupid. RaseaC (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmed" should mean "tested positive for this novel strain of flu", regardless of the source of that bit of information. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's a reliable source that's fine. RaseaC (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Naming Calmness

I would like to suggest that we all take a deep breath and pause. The scientific community, the media and govenrment agencies are hashing out what to call this flu even as it develops. It is a moving target we are not going to hit. We have no idea what the common name will eventually be and it is not our job to decide that name, only report it. The current name "swine flu" is not egregiously wrong, is a commonly recognised name for the disease and commonly searched for on Google (6,550,000 results vs 813,000 for H1N1). Most wikipedia articles use the year at the start of the article name. And this is at least an outbreak, if not worse. So, I would like to move that we temporarily lock the name at it's current status ("2009 swine flu outbreak")and then discuss it again in 1 week. That should hopefully give enough time for a common name to coalesce in the public consciousness. We are spending a lot of time and energy arguing over what the article should be called rather than improving the actual article. Nosimplehiway (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with protecting for a week, but not with another naming thread!! RaseaC (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be declared a pandemic soon so we can rename it 2009 Influenza pandemic or whatever and be done with it :-) --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, yeah, though some diseases take a long time to settle on a name, like "Sweating Sickness"/"þe English Sweate"/"sudor anglicus". That still has multiple names and that was in the 15th century! Nosimplehiway (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Typographical error

On the Prior influenza season, just after source 59 it reads "The improvement was attributed ,in part" not "The improvement was attributed, in part", might want to fix that.--Launchballer (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 DoneRaseaC (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Patient zero

The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, said Laurie Garrett at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source (eg, CDC, Texas state surveillance program) that documents this September case in Texas? In particular, documentation that this case involved this same strain of swine flu? --Una Smith (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Beware Red Herrings! Farm workers often catch mild and short term flu from livestock. That is not a widespread or even rare occurance. The effect is often limited to a few persons, most of whom never even notice they're ill or mistake the cause (must have been bad chili?). It is the changing of that flu into "human to human" transmission that is the flashpoint for what we have now. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Death is misleading. Was Mexican family visiting U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?ref=health .   Don't know if we should do anything about it.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should give a half point to the U.S. row and a half point to the Mexican row. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not að question of which country issued the person's passport, but rather it's their location that matters as far as the spread of the disease is concerned — which is what the table is supposed to be tracking, right? This person undeniably died in the U.S., their nationality is irrelevant. --Cessator (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they crossed the border to seek medical attention, according to sources. Only deaths have been Mexican nationals. Might be worthy of mention.--173.28.159.111 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what the article should say is that the only deaths have (so far anyway) been of those who caught the disease in Mexico — that might matter, but their nationality does not. In any case this death occurred in the U.S. and that should not be removed from the table. --Cessator (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Me like how the NY times refers to 'visting'; apparently we don't have illegal immigrants flooding our schools and hospitals: we're just a very popular toruist destination. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cytokine Storm Speculation

I've removed instances in which this article has grossly exaggerated information from its sources to indicate that the phenomenon known as a cytokine storm may be causing some of the deaths in Mexico. So far, the CDC and WHO have released no information indicating that a cytokine storm may be taking place in A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) patients or patients with related viruses, so there is absolutely no basis for this theory. All sourcing on it was based on speculation from the media or from sources with no experience on this virus. While cytokine storms are theoretically possible, there is no evidence that they do occur in this virus strain, so they are not factual symptoms. OcciMoron (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this has been extensively speculated on in the media, we do need to cover this, if only to help provide some real facts on the point. Can you provide some authoritative sources to balance the media speculations? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with providing an authoritative source on this issue is that it is similar to providing an authoritative source to show that sheep do not lay eggs; since they don't, scientific and medical authorities have not recently published a paper debunking this "theory." Similarly since there is no evidence of a cytokine storm phenomenon with this virus, the best support is the lack of support. I can offer you limited information from the CDC--

"The symptoms of swine flu in people are expected to be similar to the symptoms of regular human seasonal influenza and include fever, lethargy, lack of appetite and coughing. Some people with swine flu also have reported runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." from [34] As well as-- " Clinical Findings

Patients with uncomplicated disease due to confirmed swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection have experienced fever, headache, upper respiratory tract symptoms (cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea), myalgia, fatigue, vomiting, or diarrhea. Complications

There is insufficient information to date about clinical complications of this variant of swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. Among persons infected with previous variants of swine influenza virus, clinical syndromes have ranged from mild respiratory illness, to lower respiratory tract illness, dehydration, or pneumonia. Deaths caused by previous variants of swine influenza have occasionally occurred. Although data on the spectrum of illness is not yet available for this new variant of swine-origin influenza A(H1N1), clinicians should expect complications to be similar to seasonal influenza: exacerbation of underlying chronic medical conditions, upper respiratory tract disease (sinusitis, otitis media, croup) lower respiratory tract disease (pneumonia, bronchiolitis, status asthmaticus), cardiac (myocarditis, pericarditis), musculoskeletal (myositis, rhabdomyolysis), neurologic (acute and post-infectious encephalopathy, encephalitis, febrile seizures, status epilepticus), toxic shock syndrome, and secondary bacterial pneumonia with or without sepsis." from [35]

As you can see, the CDC expects symptoms to be no different from normal seasonal influenza, and hence, no cytokine storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OcciMoron (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, how about saying something such as "Some media sources have speculated that the swine flu might produce a cytokine storm, and be unusually lethal to healthy adults, however the CDC has stated that the symptoms reported so far from this strain do not appear to differ from normal seasonal influenza." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned about providing information that will needlessly worry people that this virus is 1918 Flu returned, because it is distinctly not that. A better phrasing would probably be something like "The CDC has indicated that symptoms reported from this strain so far are similar to those of normal seasonal flu, and so are relatively mild in comparison to historic pandemics. While some media outlets have speculated that this virus could cause a cytokine storm in patients, there is no medical evidence for this hypothesis."OcciMoron (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for cytokine storm are the reported high proprtion of deaths in the 20-45 age group, which is not found in seasonal flu and is indicative of a cytokine storm effect as seen with other respiratory disease outbreaks such as SRAS and the 1918 pandemic. There are plenty of sources for this e.g. [36] Howard Markel, a physician and director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan: "It's a fairly novel strain, and the deaths could be from healthy people who have a healthy, robust immune system that overreacts. That could result in a 'cytokine storm' in which the body secretes too many chemicals as it tries to kill offending microorganisms." --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to recognize that "could result in cytokine storm" does not mean "does result in cytokine storm" and there are many reasons why the data from Mexico may be distorted; high pollution in Mexico City, extremely high population density, inaccurate reporting, etc. Until we know more, speculating about the progression of the virus will just proliferate rumours. Before you post something, you have to remember that there is a huge difference between the words "could be" and the word "is." "Could be" is speculation. "is" is fact.OcciMoron (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few sentences discussing this idea to the virulence section. I think we do need to note this, since as you say Pontificalibus, lots of people are discussing it. However, we must be careful to stick to what the most reliable sources say not not generate undue concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit is good and well-sourced; nicely done. OcciMoron (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu in South Africa

2 Confirmed cases of swine flu in South Africa. The infected individuals were given medication and sent home. Should this be allowed in the face of a pandemic on the horizon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdjeva (talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that this was confirmed? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound alarmist, but, oh no! With the large number of AIDS victims there.... A confirmation please. BFritzen (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are not confirmed,[37] and at least one of the two never will be because according to the source "The specimen taken from her was not stored appropriately, which meant a laboratory assessment to confirm the case could not be done." Wine Guy Talk 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Exist a girl in an Oporto Hospital (São João), that is waiting for her exams, and I've discovered a notice that says that is a portuguese military in a Lisbon Hospital (Curry Cabral). He had came back from Texas, in the beginig of this week, and today has surged the information that he is in the hospital, waiting for the first exams, that if are "confusing" they go to the Instituto Ricardo Jorge, to be made more exams, you can read the notice here João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alaska included as confirmed death?

All of the infections in the United States occurred in the continental US.

In the interest of accurately conveying information visually, should we include Alaska as being marked black? It is so geographically separated that in the sense of tracking a flu pandemic, I think it should stand on its own. I know that when I first saw the map, I thought that it meant there WAS a case specifically in Alaska. I pulled up the CDC data and see that there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyHuston (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alaska is part of the U.S. If the coloring is by country, it should be colored. Otherwise, there has been no death in Illinois so that shouldn't be colored, etc. Further, there has been no death in Dallas or Amarillo so why should those cities be colored, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

same for Hawaii. I appreciate this is by "country", but with very large countries this can be rather misleading. Lovingly painting every Arctic island of Canada for "confirmed cases" seems a bit beside the point. Perhaps it would be better to work with circles with sizes proportional to the number of cases. Such an approach would convey an actual idea of the impact of the swine flu, as opposed to the incidential point of "areas of affected countries". --dab (𒁳) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be too much trouble to keep updated considering all the new cases constantly being found and how quickly it's spreading not just from country to country, but within each individual country. That might be something to work on after this whole thing is over with when it doesn't have to be updated every hour. The whole idea of these sorts of maps is to show a very general idea of where this thing has spread to with a quick glance, and anyone who does want a detailed account can just look at the table in the article. Sbw01f (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of how things work in the world sometimes. A Mexican family crosses the border and a child dies, then nations around the world ban all American pork (though some have limited the bans just to confirmed states) it doesn't matter how far you are from Houston or that eating pork doesn't expose you to the disease... Its reflective of a natural human bias to classify, a bias to sensationalise, and an adversion to death. While WP shouldn't necessarily engage in such behaviour, were laregly powerless to stopping it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alert Phase 5??

Can anyone confirm this? [38] "The WHO has moved the pandemic alert from four to five, the second highest. " --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they just jumped the gun, according to Sky News the WHO are just considering the level raise [39]. magnius (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it's level 5... I've just heard here in portuguese television, the Health Ministery is making a situation state João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO website has Level 4 and no new statements posted. Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely incorrect. It's still at level 4, as shown on their own website: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html 62.253.240.9 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They announced the rise to level 4 before it was on their website. It seems some media organisations are indeed 'jumping the gun'. It maybe they have information not offically released, but we should wait for more reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO are planning to hold a press conference within the next hour and a half, and it's highly anticipated that it'll be raised to 5. If they do, that'll be the time to edit the article. 62.253.240.9 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sky news reporting the intention to raise to five [40]

WHO are holding a press conference at 21:00 to say it is a level 5--Wrcf1 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Health Minister is holding, right now, a conference about swine flu and announce he has just receive a note from WHO declaring level 5 189.102.192.46 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend we wait until representatives of the WHO explicitly state that level 5 has been reached before reporting as such in the article. Cordovao (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An opening paragraph focus to address immediate personal concerns, rather than history and technical details?

Hi. The current article is hugely impressive, not the least due to it's apparently having evolved so far in only 4 days. From looking at the change history, it's pretty clear that contributors are making serious efforts to improve the document. So I view my suggestion as minor, but think it could be helpful: The thrust of the article, now, is primarily historical and technical, with the opening immediately jumping into things like origins.

I suggest having the opening paragraph serve to give a casual, non-technical reader some insight about this in lay terms, to respond to lay concerns.

For example, the article does not make clear that the disease is infectious rather than contagious. Also, the fact that the global display of symptoms (and individual course of the disease) is apparently globally on a par with typical flus, probably would be enormously helpful.

I'm specifically not offering candidate text because I simply don't know enough to be confident in anything I'd write.

In any event, folks, many thanks to those contributing to the article.

/d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecrocker (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

cnn breaking news.

i've just seen a developing story from cnn, they show more evidence towards the threat level rising to 5 within the next few hours and patient zero has been discovered as a five year old boy from Mexico. [41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.250 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball. We need to wait for clear evidence of a WHO announcement. The supposed "Patient Zero" is already in the article and some of the problems with this identification are discussed above. Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

International press reporting W.H.O. saying Level 5 close and imminent [42] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.51.25 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--If the WHO announces a level 5 it's rumored most U.S. schools will shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolOne99 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to report rumors, or even initial reports. We are writing an encylopedia article based on the best information available from multiple reliable sources. Let's not fall into the trap of the newsmen who must report quickly and so sometimes report incorrectly. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rmhermen. If level 5 is reached we will enter that information into the article, but not before. Cordovao (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is easy to get carried away sometimes. However, we also don't want to be an out-of-date encyclopedia, so we should be on the ball when the facts become evident. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is the place to write breaking news stories. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO is holding a press conference right now to announce level 5. Plenty of sources should be available shortly. And yes, wikinews is the place for breaking news, but once sources are available it should be added to this article. Wine Guy Talk 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

In the first paragraph of the introduction, it says "Despite the scale of the alert, the WHO stated on April 29 that the majority of people infected with the virus make a full recovery without need of medical attention or antiviral drugs." "with the virus make a full recovery" doesn't make sense; does it mean "with the virus will make" or "with the virus have made"? I checked the cited source, but it didn't clarify from what I could tell. Cordovao (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads as a continuing? tense (My 7th grade english teacher is shouting in my head right now). Its based on past evidence but is general enough to assertain WHO's theory of how the rest of this will play out. The majority people who become infected, make a recovery with without drugs. WHO applies to all the people that have become infected, are infected now, or will become infected. (Unless the virus changes again) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 5, how to approach

Please do not adjust the article to say level 5 has been reached without citing a reliable source. We know the level has been reached, but please cite to a reliable source nonetheless. Thank you in advance. Cordovao (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN has it. I'm not great with editing so I'll leave it up to some of the more technically inclined people to do it. I'm more here for fact checking. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)