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

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)

You're right that the initial discovery of the virus' existence in Mexico makes the first few weeks of the timeline a mess. But moving forward I think we'll have more reliable data now that there is awareness, the virus can be confirmed in a lab, and there is less need to go back and modify data from weeks prior. --Replysixty (talk) 21:36, 29 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)

Someone should make a video/slideshow showing the progression day by day, numbers-wise and by country. The BBC has something similar, and it would be very informative. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice color choice on the map. Is it meant to imply Germany is responsible for the virus? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.43.124 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they responsible for everything? Hey, who is hungry for some bacon? BFritzen (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that animating the map would be great. But if someone animates it can we get a different color scheme? First it is the colors of the German flag, which is a little bizarre and second it is a little dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It would make a good addition to the timeline article. It won't be two hard, but perhaps a bit early to make one... It won't be so much information and having to update it every day with a new one... Perhaps wait a week or two (if we're still alive) chandler ··· 06:18, 30 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)

The map is again incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.105.5 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to state something like that, at least tell us what is wrong. Viet|Pham (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"You're doing it wrong!!!" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:42, 29 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)

I have no problem a brief mention of well sourced discussions of conspiracy theories. However any OR like linking this to news stories of missing vials I am strongly opposed to particularly when the virus in the vials isn't even an influenza virus and the viruses most likely went missing a very long time before the outbreak started Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 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)

No, we are biased against teh crazy. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "alternative news" and us being "biased against it" sets off WP:REDFLAG, if you ask me. 66.91.63.125 (talk) 08:06, 30 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)

H5N1 != H5N1, human. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico case count?

1st edit in discussion, so I apologize if I'm doing it wrong. The Washington Post has 336 confirmed cases in Mexico on their front page this morning. That count is also reflected in their interactive web map. Raydawn (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized the mexican case count. It has been lowered to 49 to reflect this source, when a much more reliable publication (The Times) has stated it to be at 159. Click for article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.46.253 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think this information should be included as well:

However, flu death toll in Mexico could be lower than first thought, said on 04/29/2009 Dr. Gregory Evans, head of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada and a member of a federal pandemic-planning committee(http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1547114):

There was a lot of speculation and what seemed to be evidence there were dozens and dozens of deaths. Careful analysis showed these people likely died of something else, and not flu. That's really good news, and that would fit with what we've seen outside of Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.96.104 (talk) 01:29, 30 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)

Unfortunately, there are some people who want to hide the fact that WP is not perfect so they hate banners. Some other people wikilawyer and say it's policy when it's not. I take the moderate approach that people will do dumb things and we have to caution people in major issues, like health and hurricanes. However, we don't put cautions in every article like "kids, don't copy this for your schoolwork". User F203 (talk) 15:00, 30 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.

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)

The deaths listed for the US lists one, but there should be a (2) for suspected. There is an unconfermed death in CA. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/Story?id=7456439&page=2 at the bottom of the page. Anon 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.117.36 (talk)

Given that the US is so much better than Mexico in timely testing (or doing any testing), I'm content with waiting for the results; but then again I can't edit this article anyways. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only US death is incorrect. That was just a Mexican baby that travelled to Mexico to see family and got sick, after he/she got back he/she died from swine 'flu. I too suggest that it goes back to "zero". Yaggayaggayooyoo (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Anon 07:37 30 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

I agree.--Parker1297 (talk) 20:48, 29 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... [3] 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)

They did put it in dry ice, some idiot obviously sealed whatever it was travelling in. Viridae^Talk 12:33, 30 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 [4] publish daily reports. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that WHO is fear mongering is point of view. How do you know the CDC isn't just playing it down for national interests, like other countries? It would violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia to for some reason make the CDC the leading global voice on the outbreak. Lemniwinks (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page so POV isn't really relevant however, for the article yes WHO overblows many things including the "SARS Scare" of (check me) 3-4 years ago. The mayor of Toronto was plenty angry because of the tourism lost to his city. CDC downplaying? Probably, but I trust their stance before I would trust the WHO. And the ECDC seems like a likely place to find good info on H1N1, which they consider a "novel" strain of influenza.... BFritzen (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No one knows if the WHO overblew the SARS scare. Perhaps the reason why we aren't all dead now is because of the WHO's response. Without good evidence the the WHO doesn't have a good track record in dealing with health crisises then they remain the best source. It's funny people should bring up GBS since the people responsible for that are the US authorities including the CDC not the WHO. It's also funny that people should bring up travel advisories since regardless of the merits of the short lived travel advisory to Toronto, it's the CDC who are putting out a travel advisory whereas the WHO say it's not going to help. Also the failure of one technician does not reflect much on the organisation they are working for. Remember this was a harmless sample so the person involved probably wasn't very high up. If they were carrying Ebola you might have a point. I also suspect this happens a lot more then you think, normally no one notices. Also let's not forget that the US army lost 3 samples of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis some time over the past 4 years as they recently discovered and conspiracy theoriest are making big noises over. The point in any case is that the random POV of editors is irrelevant Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that can be a claim. SARS has been around for years. The WHO overblew things. Other organizations (CDC included) did not. In a city of 5 MILLION, why wasn't there more death? "ALL DEAD?" From SARS? Meh. Mayhaps you should do some research on SARS. POV in the discussion page? (it is all POV) But in article it allows for balance.BFritzen (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page is intended for ways to improve the article. Editors opinions/POVs are unwelcome and indeed completely OT. Again, perhaps the reason why there are not more dead is because the WHO handled the situation well. Perhaps not. What we do know is SARS was successfully contained so if the WHO did make mistakes, they're werent catastrophic. And I trust opinions of epidemilogists much more then I trust random wikipedians who can't even understand simple wikipedia policies. Regardless this discussion has long ago gone away from having any relevance to improving the article Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 30 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,

No, then it wouldn't make any sense. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have references of it, but the use of masks has three purposes. The first one is when healthy persons carry them, so they do not breathe the tiny drops of saliva floating in the air, that might contain the virus. The second reason to wear them is because some people have the virus and don't know it yet; the mask stops the saliva drops that might come out from a carrier person (even if he/she fells still healthy). The third reason, and probably the most important, is that common population feels less scared when they think, that they can do something against the virus. It makes then fell safe; this way they do not make lots of silly thinks like self medication.--Fixvon (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

NZ is a common abbreviation. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:27, 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.[5][6][7] 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)

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. [8][9][10] 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 [11] —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.[12]. 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)

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."[13] 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)

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)

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)

From WP:NCNUM#Other events:

For disasters (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention), the recommended format is "<year> <place> <event>". Examples: 2006 New York City plane crash, 1700 Cascadia earthquake. This is only a "soft" recommendation, if no other more appropriate name is available. Counter-examples include Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, Pan Am Flight 103, Minoan eruption, Krakatoa (no separate article about its best known eruption), Cyclone 05B (1999) and Kyrill (storm).

In other words, nobody knows... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should call it the "Bacon Wrapped Sausage Flu." :DBFritzen (talk) 12:28, 30 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)

WE ARE random people without credentials! What makes us any better than them? I do not propose to put the map on the page as that would be a violation of WP:NOR, but a link would not be a problem. I also invoke WP:IAR. I propose a vote.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the link to [14]?

Yes. According to the linked news article | here Dr. Henry Niman is the researcher responsible for the map. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In favor of keeping link to google map

1. Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3. invenio tc 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Angel Thane (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Raysonho (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
6. magnius (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Seems like the perfect application of WP:IAR. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. chandler ··· 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

One of the Google Maps is maintained by a guy called Henry Niman who is well known to have done exaggerated and false claims in previous epidemics. Just google it. The fact that has been cited in the last days by thousands of web pages and blogs does not mean that the map is 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 09:55, 30 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)

One problem with that is having a term in brackets is used for dab purposes meaning that there is another article or articles with the same name. In short, the proposed title implies that there is a seperate article about a swine flu outbreak in a previous year which there is not.--76.65.143.98 (talk) 23:07, 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)

How silly. Nobody gets the right to objects to the use of a /word/ like swine. Nobody is making them eat bacon. 65.60.200.186 (talk) 22:43, 29 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)

I support a move. "2009 H1N1 flu outbreak" would be correct. --bender235 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Very much against, would be a clear break of common name. Everyone knows what Swine flu is, but what is H1N1? naa. chandler ··· 10:40, 30 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)

ECDC is calling it: "the Novel Influenza A/H1N1 Strain." This isn't really just Swine Flu, I think we all know that now. But this seems a bit more accurate, plus, in 1337 it would read: "Heinie." (Just some brevity, let it go.) BFritzen (talk) 02:18, 30 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: [15] [16] --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)

Adding to my own comment... it seems today that several new, more politically correct names, which do not offend the pork industry, such as "novel influenza", "H1N1", "2009 Pandemic Flu" and others have appeared. For those who want to change the name now, I suggest wait a week or so. Something more precise will catch on in the public consciousness. Nosimplehiway (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding again... there definitely seems to be a shift afoot in the name away from swine flu. I am keeping my vote at maintaining the status quo until a new common name emerges fully so that we don't need to go through the renaming thing again, but I expect it will within a few days.Nosimplehiway (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1. 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)
2. Everyone knows it as "swine flu" - I read an article this morning where the Israeli government requested that it be renamed "Mexican flu" as references to swine upset Jews and Muslims (though I'm sure Mexicans wouldn't be that happy with the new name...), but nonetheless, "swine flu" is the common name. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:41, 30 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)

The four articles do mention that particular kind of virus, for the human-to-human transmission at least for the two children in California and for the one in Texas in mid-March; that is still earlier than 2nd April for Edgar Hernández Hernández (the linked article I put here says so: "He contracted the disease on April 2"). At least, Edgar is not "patient zero", for sure.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 21:54, 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)

The NY Times is doing the appropriate thing and not speculating as to why the family was there and whether the family was there legally or not. The presecence of other illegal immigrants doesn't make all Mexicans in the US illegal immigrants Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times has never done the "appropriate thing". They have ran, almost monthly, and article about lack of jobs, which invariably leads in some way to mexicans taking up the jobs. Usually in a very delicate manner, but they still do it.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start OT discussions here. The NY Times did the appropriate thing in this case which was describe the family with the best information available rather then make assumptions. Whether or not they are doing the right thing with stories about jobs is irrelevant and completely OT. Your personal feelings about Mexicans and the NYT are unwelcome and uncalled for. (I'm somewhat doubtful that Mexican's job seeking behaviour is influenced by the NYT or heck that most Mexicans even read the NYT. Believe it or not, Mexicans are not as stupid as you seem to think and they don't need the NYT to tell them if there are job available in the US) Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone caught it travelling through Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, then dies in a fourth country, it gets credited to the country where they died. Not through speculation as to where they caught it. Edison (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, going into someone else's house and dying is a pretty rude thing to do. Any University Economics proferssor will tell you this one death has easily cost the Texas economy alone hundreds of millions of dollars in trade and tourism. That damage extends in every level of the economy from people not going out shopping to children staying home from school: which due to the DOE per-child/per-schoolday funding method is costing school districts money they simply don't have. Everyone agrees that deaths will occur due to this outbreak, but this one family has pushed the window up, making the overall costs significatly higher. Time will only tell by how much. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is all completely irrelevant. Also I doubt that the people involved went to the United States to die Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with calling it a US death is what would Mexico think? If one of your countries citizens dies in another country while visiting, then do you want to refer to them as a foreigner? Xclamation point 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The list is currently defined by geography, not nationality. chandler ··· 14:22, 30 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 [17] 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 [18]

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. [19] 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,[20] 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)

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)

Not practical to break out each state seperately, here, though if anyone wants to do such a map for the US page, search "naoutl" in Google Image and you'll find some nice blank outline maps of the US and Canada to use as a template. In the meantime, Alaska is part of the US despite it's being an exclave. The Isle of Wight, Mykonos, Baffin Island and Tasmania don't get their own color.Nosimplehiway (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason is that the .svg file is set up in an elaborate fashion to be modified with a text editor by adding two-letter country codes. Modifying it with Inkscape has been less than recommended. Personally, I think it is easier to find countries by sight than to research obscure country codes, but until that decision is made it is not possible to modify Alaska independently of the continental U.S. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I would be willing to do a more indepth map. I would use a simple map outline of the world, and large counrties would be divided into pre-existing political borders(e.g. In the us, it would be by state, or possibly time zone). As pig said before, Stalin may not like the new map, but it would serve better as an information tool. It would be simple to update. Merely copy, paste into paint, fill in said area, and repost.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the North American map... (File:H1N1 North America Map.svg) but if you did that to the world, every first-level subnational division in the world would need to be included. On the other hand, it could be included in the article, for a greater breakdown by continent. It's not all that North Americ-y since it includes Hawaii, and excludes Greenland... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely done. What I was hoping to do is incorporate breakdowns of only the three largest countries onto the world map. If any can do a map like that for russia and china and then incorporate them into the world map we'd be all set to go.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:16, 30 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)

The lead section in an article should be a summary of what is in the article (see WP:Lead section). However, if the wording is too technical, we can work to make it more understandable to the average reader (per WP:Make technical articles accessible). hmwithτ 20:59, 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. [21] —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 [22] —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)

And just to illustrate how ridculous that rumor is... The United States is a nation of 300 million, it has a shit-ton of schools (the dept of Education now teaches shit-ton measurments instead of the metric system). The overwhelming majority of which are over 100 miles away from an infection. Infact of the 263 cities with populations over 100,000, the vast majority are over 100 miles of a confirmed or even suspected case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:19, 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

Resolved

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)

Since we shouldn't really make such sweeping predictions, I've changed this to read "have made", since all we can really say is that is what has happened so far. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is a bit awkward, but we have to distinguish between virulence (level of lethality) and epidemicity (how easily the virus spreads), and all in the context of epidemiological known unknowns, to coin a phrase. There are many variables, but part of the problem is that we're dealing with the law of large numbers. A tiny percentage of a very large number is itself a large number, such that a global pandemic of low lethality shall generate a lot of dead people —even a flu virus can win the lottery. Hence the WHO's caveat —most people shall recover, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:20, 30 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)

Added. Good to have you here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome. :) Thank you for your source, and thank you Tim for adding it. Cordovao (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO link in the lead needs updating as well but I can't currently get their page to load. Rmhermen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally got the WHO page to load, but they haven't updated their Current Level illustration. We will need to update our link after they update theirs. 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 6

Actually, I heard on the news today that it was raised to a level 6. I'll try to find a source for that. hmwithτ 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, it is confirmed 35 minutes ago at press briefing at WHO it was raised to 5, I don't think they raise it to 6 in under 30 min. _→AzaToth 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NO, it's on CNN right now and it was raised to a level 5. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, the news was wrong. Wow, I almost want to call in and complain. I literally just heard it moments ago. I looked, and I can see that this is totally false. They must have accidentally said "level 6" instead of "level 5". That's a big mistake. It was only local news (Columbus, Ohio), but I'm going to call the station and make sure it gets corrected. hmwithτ 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens, with how fast updates are coming. New Zealand announced "six dead" in the US 48 hours ago... rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to interfere with your non-Wikipedia decisions, but may I venture it was an accident as you suggested. All humans make mistake, and so long as they said it is level 5 later on I do not believe a complaint is necessary. Cordovao (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Its important to remember that the WHO director is the director of an international health organization. Her comments are primarialy directed at national leaders; national health organizations; and medical centers. While we record her comments in an encylopedia nature and the press covers it, her comments are not directly intedended for private individuals. Wash your hands, cover your mouth when you cough, and prepare your zombie defense kits. Its not yet time to start looting or shooting people in the head. For most of us, nothing actually changes from 4 to 5 to 6, only the wikipedia article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as level 6?

RE: Pandemic_Severity_Index#Guidelines

I am confused, this section of wikipedia only goes up to level 5, and the graph, from the CDC, only goes up to level 5, quoting the CDC:

Future pandemics will be assigned to one of five discrete categories of increasing severity (Category 1 to Category 5)"

Can someone clarify in the Pandemic_Severity_Index article? Ikip (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer: Yes (level 6 is a pandemic). hmwithτ 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better Answer: The CDC classification is diffrent from the WHO scheme. This page uses the WHO scheme. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a much better answer. Any ref for the WHO scheme. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:FedFluPandemicResponse.png This page has an image of both side by side. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect I should have named that WHOFedPandemicResponse! I hadn't expected the image to be cropped, so the original name is a bit of a misnomer now. kencf0618 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

WHO director Margaret Chan refers to it as such: [23]

For the first time in history, we can track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time.

WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

The biggest question, right now, is this: how severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?

JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - should be 2009 flu pandemic as per 1918 flu pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO is now labeling this a pandemic, then we have to as well. Subjective severity or where it ends up doesn't matter, and is WP:OR. Note that I protected ALL of these articles earlier against non-admin moves as possible vandal targets. Once we have confirmation and broad consensus, any admin can move these--I just did all the ones linked off off the outbreak template which needs renaming then as well. We have a LOT of valid redirects here as well--all of them will need to be redone. Since (as ever with these articles) this is time sensitive and literally is a black and white binary decision, let's just poll and do this efficiently. rootology (C)(T) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming these articles to -pandemic per the WHO

1. Per the WHO, use 2009 flu pandemic as the top-level naming structure going forward once the WHO begins calling it a pandemic in public documents/statements. If/when the WHO calls it a pandemic, it's 100% not sensationalism for us to do so as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Once WHO officially calls it one, it is one. Move when needed. hmwithτ 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. When it gets to level 6 on the WHO scale then move. I don't think it's there yet.  GARDEN  21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, and why

1. Not at WHO level 6 yet: which most closely matches the deifintion of a Pandemic --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. No yet. No sensationalism please. Yug (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Not yet. Just because WHO uses the term does not mean that it is the Common Name per our policies. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Not yet. Margaret Chan is referring to the 'coming Pandemic'. Phase 5 represents an imminent Pandemic, but not one in progress. It is not yet a Pandemic and the WHO is not advertising it as such. Addendum: And what, dare I ask, is wrong with calling it an 'outbreak' or 'epidemic' anyway? Both are blatantly more applicable. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
5. It's not of sufficient scale in two WHO regions yet. http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html kencf0618 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia follows the health authorities, who have not moved it to level 6 yet, and reliable news media. We should not strive to be tabloid journalists. Edison (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   WHO called it a pandemic. See the beginning of this section, or this link. I'm about to be bold and move it. hmwithτ 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   too bold. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, I wasn't being totally serious, but I don't understand why people don't want to move it. WHO is the ultimate authority on this, not Wikipedians or our opinions, per WP:OR. hmwithτ 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Beware ultimate authorities. The WHO statement when they updated to 5 was for nations to get ready for a pandemic. The WHO always assumes that each outbreak will reach pandmic because that is how they operate. Its better for them to be safe than sorry. But WP operates diffrently, we wait until things 'are' rather than 'might be' or 'will be'.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm aware of how Wikipedia operates. My point is that when it's called a pandemic by WHO, we should move it. Most people are opposing based on the fact that they don't think it is one yet. However, if you read the first supporting vote (by Rootology), this poll is simply saying that it should eventually be moved there when WHO calls it a pandemic... not necessarily that it should be moved now. hmwithτ 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Not yet. While it is clear that the WHO is anticipating a pandemic, and that we are watching the likely evolution of one, we are not there yet. When and if the WHO goes to phase 6, I will support renaming this and all related articles. Wine Guy Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. According to the WHO guidlines, set forth by who, this is not a pandemic yet. As wikipedians we are supposed to only post verifiable facts. Also, for the dabate as to "swine flu" or "H1N1". Swine Flu is the common name. As wikipedians, we are supposed to use the common namesDrew R. Smith (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
9. No, let's avoid sensationalism. Also WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support removing "swine" from the page name

The statement by the World Organization for Animal Health that this strain has not been isolated from swine anywhere[24] persuades me that it is not swine influenza. Rather, it is human influenza that has acquired elements of avian and swine influenza. Also, given that at the time of discovery the strain was already in circulation in both Mexico and the US, I am in favor of calling it 2009 North American flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous comments from doctors on television and print (I'd honestly Google them up but there are dozens+) is that it is from swine. I've seen comments almost daily from such animal activist type groups. If the WHO (and WHO > WOAH) calls it swine flu, so should we. rootology (C)(T) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain either, but that is still what it's most commonly called. And I agree with T too, that if the WHO calls it swine flu, then we should too. --Cessator (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rename article to either "2009 flu outbreak" or "2009 flu pandemic"

The fact that it traveled through a bird and then a pig is meaningless now that the flu is spreading person to person.

Currently it is not yet categorized as pandemic, thus keep it named outbreak but please remove the work swine from this article. Mineralè (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Read above, this is quite a heated issue.  GARDEN  21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if we did we would have to have a 2008 flu outbreak, 2007 flu outbreak, all the way back to the first strain of flu(dont ask me when that was, I have no clue), as flu does not refer to this particular strain. Moreover, the commonn flu claims hundreds of thousands of lives every year, so ANY flu strain could be considered a pandemic. The only thing that makes this one so dangerous is the fact that it was previously thought to exist only in pigs, therfore no vaccine was created to combat it in humans.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to report new cases

Is there a place to report new cases, or do we just sit back and wait for it to work its way through the system. I'm referring to http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/042909kvue_Lucy_Reed-cb.26f0453.html (Austin, TX school closed because of probable case) Victor Engel (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table for the standards we use. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan name?

I hear Japan was calling it the 'North American Flu' or something. Should they be at the top as an alternate name with the others? Lemniwinks (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't list all the names people call it, only the most common ones to help people find the article and avoid confusion. Actually I think the four names there is too many already. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create a bunch of redirects though. That way, everyone who wants to find this article can. hmwithτ 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect talk page should contain an explanation, otherwise it may be deleted at WP:RFD, if the term isn't in this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be consensus to delete a redirect to this article based on a noncontroversial alternative name. A talk page clarification would help though. hmwithτ 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO Phase 5 - Not a Pandemic

WHO Phase 5 does not represent a Pandemic, but a likely Pandemic.

Phase 5 is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short. -[25]

The UN's World Health Organization has raised the alert over swine flu to level five - one short of a full-blown global epidemic, or pandemic. -[26]

Thus I shall be removing erroneous references describing the current WHO classification as a Pandemic. Please comment as appropriate. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your WHO reference. It suggests, visually, that the so-called "phases 5/6" are in fact "pandemic". It's right there on the image. It's even circled! Need more? The entire ranking scheme is titled "pandemic influenza phases". Phase 1, phase 6, it's all a pandemic to them. Or so it would appear. (I can't even discern a substantive difference between phase 6 and 5.)

Even the CDC's hurricane-style rating system is all pandemic. A feeble CDC class 1 pandemic is, as far as I can tell, always running. Everywhere. All the time. 24/7 for the last 10,000 years. Are you running screaming for the exit yet?

But I still support your mission of removing every last trace of pandemic from this article: it is abundantly clear that the very word "pandemic" is being intensely abused by almost everyone involved in this media and medical fiasco. Up until a week ago, you ask a random person on the street about "pandemic", and you would get a description of mass death and human suffering on unimaginable scales. Well, I guess we are all wrong on that count, aren't we? It's really just the system state of a medical bureaucracy. Feh! The news media has an excuse for propagating this nonsense -- they have money to make. I suggest that Wikipedia rise above it all, WP:NOR et al be damned when there are massive, blatant, NPOV violations in the very sources used to make up this article. mdf (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion over what the WHO alert scale is actually about. Having worked in developing software for managing pandemics within the British NHS, I've done plenty of extended reading to familiarise myself with national and international procedures regarding pandemic continuity planning.

The WHO system is an 'alert scale'. It represents the planning stages to be utilised in individual country's continuity plans for dealing with a pandemic. As the stage increases, each country is expected to adopt a different set of procedures relevant to that stage of a pandemic. However, the confusion therein lies in the fact that WHO clarification includes planning for a pandemic. WHO Phase 5 refers to an 'imminent pandemic'. It is assumed, at this stage, that a pandemic is about to occur and that countries should plan as though one were inevitable. However, it does not represent an actual, on-going pandemic.

You have to bear in mind that the WHO's scale is not for general consumption. It is aimed at informing branches of national governments which measures of their comprehensive (or otherwise) plans they should be enacting at any given moment. Notice how the text is written and who the intended audience is.

The WHO, confusingly, uses the term 'pandemic' in many different contexts. The outbreak itself is not labelled as a pandemic, but the procedures being enacted, and the status assigned to them, are those of a pandemic (literally: pertaining to a future pandemic). Phase 5 refers to a localised series of community level outbreaks. By its very nature, a localised outbreak cannot be a pandemic. It would be a contradiction.

Addendum: "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness." [27]

"The World Health Organization has raised its alert to level five - one short of a full-blown pandemic." -[28]

Both the WHO and the BBC refer to Stage 5 of the plan (that image aside) as an epidemic leading up to a pandemic, not otherwise.

For the record, text is always more authoritative than an associated 'dumbed down' image. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the confusion comes from the WHO itself. One reason is that the scale is named the 'WHO PANDEMIC ALERT' scale. Once people see the words 'pandmic alert' they think were in one even though only the 6th stage is the actual pandemic. The second reason is word choice. In the US our goverment leaders traditionally avoid the 'Recession' word so much that when they acutally say it: its a big deal. In contrast the WHO director is extremely open (perhaps too open) in refering to 'a pandemic' or 'pandemic flu' though if you read the words carefully she never calls the current H1N1 outbreak a pandemic or refers to 'the pandemic'. Perhaps the problem is the WHO director isn't a politican, we aren't used to people talking openly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between 5 and 6 on the WHO scale is that someone else get sick in another WHO region. If that hasn't happened yet, it probably will by the time I click on "save page". This entire alert/warning/whatever system makes a mockery of what most people think of as a "pandemic". Maybe it should have been called "WHO International Medical Clusterfuck Index"? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO system is "not for general consumption", then is it appropriate to refer to it in a general encyclopedia re: naming the article? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not only is it appropriate, the chart is as authoritative as the WHO itself. There are other charts (the U.S. is still at Stage 0 http://www.pandemicflu.gov/ http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/federal/fedresponsestages.html), but only one pertinent global bureaucracy. kencf0618 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we record things that are said by notable people, but not all things that are said are relevant to people everywhere. People should read press statements and wikipedia with salt. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The devil's in the details —there's always some context to be considered. kencf0618 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But we don't record notable things by record people umm...... BFritzen (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Discussion of how WP:NPOV governs article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some persons think that the flu pandemic is a lie and that the frequency of deaths during this period is the normal frequency of people who die of pneumonia. I do not think so, but I also consider that we should give a place for conspiracy theories if we want to present the multiple points of view of this outbreak.--Fixvon (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Multiple points of view is diffrent than NPOV. Its also not what we do here. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. Per neutral point of view policy we present the mainstream view. At present none of these very odd alternative ideas have achieved any prominence, so per WP:UNDUE it would be wrong to include them in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I find it a bit unusual that what would otherwise be called a null hypothesis is now referred to as a "conspiracy theory"! mdf (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Hypothesizing a vast media and governmental conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Sometimes people pride themselves on knowing concepts and being able to wiki-link those into an argument. Sadly, that ability does not turn straw into debate gold; nor does not get you laid. -sigh --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Who said it did? Regardless, the baseline model is that all these deaths are unremarkable. mdf (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Other than the fact that all of the deaths have occurred in people under 50, mostly young, otherwise healthy adults? Sbw01f (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) And that a new virus has been isolated from the dead? 164.107.200.228 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Occam's Razor ViridaeTalk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration in words

In the intro someone put many schools closed and I changed it to a few. Then it was changed to numerous schools, then I changed it what I counted from the references to be 18. What do you think is the right thing to do? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently 1 in NYC and one in Onondaga County (Central New York State). That is all I know of in NYS. I am probably wrong, there could be more. BFritzen (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Panic vs Facts

Shouldn't this article include (mayhap I have yet to see it) the normal death toll of influenza? From WHO:

In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections. Hospitalization and deaths mainly occur in high-risk groups (elderly, chronically ill). Although difficult to assess, these annual epidemics are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. Most deaths currently associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among the elderly over 65 years of age.

So, 250 000/ 365 = 685 500 000/ 365 = 1370. So, according to statistics, between 685 to 1,370 people die from influenza every day.... is this really all that different. Shouldn't we put forth the "disclaimer" that strains of influenza cause X amount of deaths every year/ or day at the top of the article in order to put this into perspective? BFritzen (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seems to be right for now. Now, my grand mother should be a little affraid by the common flu, and not by this far-away swine flu. I noticed that a noticeable part of 'suspected cases' then switch to 'no, it was nothing'. It seems that the 'suspected cases' also include people who got the common flu in mexico.

The only thing we are currently sure is that this is a new strain. We can't say yet if this strain is contagious, or very virulent (deathly), etc. since we don't know the number of people affected. That may be 10.000, with 7.000 asymptomatic, 3000 with symptomes, and 150 death. If such, then that's almost a common flu. Medics are worry, but frankly, we haven't yet enough data to say 'this is dangerous'. We don't know, and this is the terrible side of the story, currently. Yug (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea!--201.153.40.28 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but we don't do disclamers. We don't engage in sensationlism; but we don't purposly try to stop it from happening elsewhere. Just write a good informational article and let the panic blow over. People will wake up next week and realize they're not dead. I got killed by the ozone hole, killer bees, global warming, sars, bird flu, Miley Cyrus, monkey pox, and watching that video tape of the Ring.... each time I got better. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We know it is both contagious and virulent, and since it is a new strain, it will most probably infect a large proportion of the world's population. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason for serious concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not any more or less virulent and contagious as the "regular" flu. There is no way of knowing that right now.BFritzen (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually since its flu the infection part may well become unverifiable or may not even be relevant. Most people that have mild flu never even know it, mistake it for something else, or don't seek medical treatment. The WHO has already stated on swine flu that the majority of the people infected recovered without medical treatment. Unless CDC or WHO releases estimates the actual number of infected (and therefore the mortality rate) will likely be unknown.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer per se but I did include the WHO quote to give unbiased perspective, just straight forward. I "block text"ed it in order to have it stand out a bit, but I think that it only adds to what we are trying to accomplish. Reading those first paragraphs (as a current event) may prove to be unintentional sensationalism (and only because it is current). I think the paragraph I added puts perspective. Oh and to continue on your train of thought: do we pile the bodies next to all the AIDS and SARS victims? I remember when AIDS was first talked about and the sensationalism that made us think bodies would be lining the street, "The new Black Plague" they called it. (I am not making fun of the victims just our ability to sensationalize.) BFritzen (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prior influenza season section has already had these statistics for a number of days, and supplies context effectively as the first section. Wikipedia articles make little allowance for the level of excitement or firmness of opinion in readers. (Editors are another matter…) Intros need to concisely include the significance of the topic, which currently in this case comes from the warnings of major health authorities, the actions of various countries, and the wide media coverage. --Zigger «º» 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe move those stats up then. It is relevant to an article including the term FLU (as short for influenza). Wiki does make little allowance for excitement and therefore this tempers said excitement.BFritzen (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did move them and it reads better, flows nicely. BFritzen (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This detailed background quote seems too large for the intro, mispositioned, and now no longer covered in the initial section. Can you it summarise it and place it closer to the facts that you think need the context? (I have no idea which part of the intro, if any, has people so concerned.) --Zigger «º» 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Chan quote, as it's about "a pandemic", and so not specific enough for this intro. The quote being deliberately alarmist but out of context also wasn't good. It may have a place elsewhere in this or another article. Was that the concerning part of the intro for others? --Zigger «º» 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the background flu data from the intro to the first section again. --Zigger «º» 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines you need consensus. I understand that you think this has to do with NPOV. It is the point of Wiki to provide such information as users need. There is no reason to edit my contributions. It is NPOV balance, which is acceptable. Also, the info that you reverted isn't attributed to WHO in article, rather the only mention is of the CDC. If you don't like that quotes are block texted, then change that, but you can't do a revert and blank contributions made by others. I would revert this had you done it to someone else. There is no reason not to include global statistics on influenza. Further, the CDC paragraph reads better without the WHO reference in it. BFritzen (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I couldn't copy-edit the quote because those who raised the issues in this talk-section had not explained what it was in the intro that concerned them. I asked & waited. I made an assumption (the out-of-context Chan quote) and checked here and waited. I reverted your changes and explained (poorly) on your talk page that I removed the Chan quote to restore "impartial tone", and I felt that this was a better approach than "balance". Again, what is it about the intro that you feel requires balancing data in that location? --Zigger «º» 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have only skimmed this section of the talk page? There is no problem with the content and adding information on Influenza as it impacts the world adds balance to the article. Since this is a current event, the introduction by itself leads to unintentional sensationalism. We don't want that. I have no problem with the Chan quote being changed. But my addition is completely relevant to this article. To have it included in the "Prior year" section really doesn't make sense because A) it is an annual statistic, B) it is from the WHO and not the CDC though that section only refers to the CDC, and C) The "Prior" section reads better without that aside. The section is about the previous flu season (in the USA) and nothing else. If you have an objection to part of an article, you probably should start a new topic and ask if it should be nixed. As such, I included this new topic with the idea of adding for balance. In this case, other users agreed because given the current context (it is a current event) it should be included. Further, the purpose of wikipedia is to inform, not alarm. These are the reasons for inclusion fo the quote from the WHO. Taken in context of the current situation, the mention of this particular strain of flu seizing headlines, wikipedia's popularity, and people's wish to be informed, the paragraph about annual flu statistics is included to balance that of the 1st paragraphs in the introduction. Read by themselves, they reiterate much of the media hype, even though factually based. They state simple facts as does my contribution. BFritzen (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the quote to the middle of the introduction and (right after the explanation that it is a new virus). So it is sort here is the new virus. Here is what the old virus does. We don't know what the new virus does and here is what is going on. I think it helps the readability. Hdstubbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

New map

See "Alaska included as confirmed death?" for relevent discussion. I will begin working on a new map now, seeing as there were no objections. I will post the finished product in a new section before adding it to the article.Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it an infected county map? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is infected. ;-P BFritzen (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the map just supposed to indicate the country? I mean, if you're going to remove Alaska, will you also remove Montana? What abut Siberia and Svalbard? And what about New Zealand, are we sure the confirmed cases are on both the North and the South Island? --Cessator (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The confirmed cases in NZ are 4 or 11 students (depending on what you mean by confirmed) from the same school and therefore all in Auckland, part of a group that visited Mexico recently together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if one was going to remove Alaska, then one should also remove the South Island. And then one should also change a lot of other things. Best to leave it alone on the world map, I say. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the South Island cf the North Island is comparable to Alaska cf the rest of the continential US Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If we just invade Canada or just 'bus some ill people up to Vancover for medical treatment' then we could bridge that unsightly gap. Or we could just accept that sometimes we all get blamed for a few bad apples. If the world map bothers you so much, just look at the North American one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The world map doesn't bother me. I'm saying, let's not remove parts of countries. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the point is moot. The map turned out to be a pain in the arse, and I eventually gave up. What I was going to do is divide the largest countries i.e. america, russia, and china, along pre-existing political boundaries to make it a little easier. For the U.S. that would have been every state getting its own infection status. Not sure how russia and china would have worked, dont know the boundaries there. But as I said, it's a moot point, and I couldn't even get america to work that way. I was trying to modify the map using the window program paint, but the states boundaries are just too complex for that. maybe someone with some programming knowledge could giv it a more "sophisticated" attempt.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the guys updating the US map how they do it... (File:H1N1 USA Map.svg) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given this article's global focus, the granularity of the map is ipso facto national. As the epidemic continues, smaller political units shall receive their own articles, subsections, and maps. There are already several maps down to the state/province and county level. (How often have you seen a map of the states of Mexico, or the provinces of Spain?) If the epidemic gets really bad, I suppose we'll have large-scale maps with the granularity of ZIP Codes. kencf0618 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although technically not a strain of swine influenza..."

The second sentence of the lead currently reads that the outbreak is not swine flu, but it is my understanding that in fact the flu is a mixture of several virii viruses and is at least partially swine. Is this correct and if so should this sentence be modified? Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. [[29]] --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ECDC is calling it Novel Influenza A(H1N1), which is more accurate than anything else I have heard.BFritzen (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question though. One issue is what the page should be named; that has been discussed ad nauseum. The second question is whether it is correct to say that the outbreak is not swine flu, when in fact it partially is (as I understand it, obviously I'm no expert as I can't even pluralize 'virus' correctly). Oren0 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That does answer it. It is really a new strain of H1N1 (which is found in every source we seem to be using.) It is also novel (read: new/ different) and it is influenza. This is very important if you think you are getting the right vaccine! Vaccines will be labeled with the strain they are used to fight. BFritzen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second question: I've seen no source that says it is NOT connected to swine in any way. My understanding is that these livestock viruses live in animals then infect humans. It is still the same strain of virus while its in the new host, until it makes some change that then allows it to pass from human to human. That is when it becomes a new strain of virus. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that. The strain is a reassortment of human, avian, and swine strains, and the strain has not been isolated in swine anywhere in the world. Nor has the world animal surveillance network detected any surge in influenza in swine. Swine influenza is influenza endemic in swine, and this strain is not swine influenza. Many people call this strain "swine flu" but it is increasingly apparent that the name is a major source of misunderstanding (countries proposing to slaughter all pigs, countries banning import of pork meat, etc.) and increasingly other names are in use. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your OR. Please don't add such OR again particularly when it isn't supported by the rest of the article which states that some researchers consider is a strain of swine influenza and this is sourced to a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To help allay concerns about the naming in the intro, I've copied the sentence mentioning the name is disputed and then mentioned the other names. I think trying to explain the controversy in the intro will be too much but anyone who thinks they can improve it in non ORry ways are welcome Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR; swine influenza is defined (eg, in Merck Veterinary Manual) as influenza endemic in swine. This strain not only is not endemic in swine, it is not known in swine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As that source says Merck Veterinary Manual entry on Swine Influenza "Swine influenza is an acute, highly contagious, respiratory disease that results from infection with type A influenza virus."; I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alarmism in "Genetics and Effects"

The caption to the pig image says "Pigs can harbor influenza viruses adapted to humans and others adapted to birds, allowing the viruses to exchange genes and create a pandemic strain."

The last five words of that sentence are unnecessary, speculative and alarmist. 58.165.254.91 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is no such thing as a "pandemic strain." There are just strains. Good, fix it, if you would. BFritzen (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the same can be said about humans. We too can (and in this case perhaps did) harbor influenza viruses adapted to other animals, and let them exchange genes. This new strain has not been found in swine, and it contains genes from 3 strains not found in swine in North America. What does that suggest? That one or more humans traveled internationally, picked up several different flu viruses, and brewed up this new strain. That would make this a new human influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request image change => WP:GL Yug (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage people to go to PubMed [30] and enter the quoted phrase "pandemic strain" into the query box. I understand that for the most part a flu strain isn't inherently "pandemic", because this is primarily a historical description of the public's lack of immunity - but it is still a useful idea, implying certain historical and ecological features. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but in this context, it is alarmist because, scientifically speaking (this is an encyclopedia) there is no "pandemic strain."BFritzen (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update the statistics for New Zealand...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146

16 confirmed. A further 104 are suspected cases with another 111 in quarantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A note on the 16 'confirmed' cases. 3 people in NZ have tested positive for swine flu. Another 13 have tested positive for influenza type A, and have been in and infected area (Mexico) or have been in close contact with a confirmed or probable case. These are often referred to as having swine flu, but have never had a definitive test (only influenza type A).

I think for the purposes of the table, it should use the NZ ministry of health statistics of 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 63 suspected ,or perhaps 76 probable and suspected in the ‘other suspected’ column of the table.

The following link may be more authoritative that news websites.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/mexican-swine-influenza-update-fourteen-300409?Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.147.198 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The new website has the exact same information. It has been updated... 16 confirmed, 111 are probable and 121 are suspected.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um the TVNZ site is rather confused and should be ignored completely (although it doesn't say there are 111 probable but 16 confirmed or probable). There are 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 111 suspected. While I'm normally reluctant to use primary sources, in this case it requires no intepretation or is there a risk of us getting it wrong so it's the best solution. To be fair, the MOH is partly responsbile for the confusion, they didn't initially differentiate between probable and confirmed in their reports but they do now Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican President shuts down nation & economy for a week

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53N22820090430

Just out. rootology (C)(T) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador declares state of exception because of swine flu

President Correa issued today the order, even though there are no possible cases there. Source in Spanish, from La Hora--Fryant (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming need: Name trouble (3)

Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a big template direction people to this article in the swine flu article. If people are too stupid to follow it, we probably can't help them. Anyway how do you know people were even interested in this specific outbreak? Maybe the reasonthey visited the other article is because they came to an encylopaedia expecting info about what swine flu is in general and got it... Also CNN, BBC etc are news sites. We are an encylopaedia. Hence we have an article on swine flu which is distinct from this specific outbreak which some people don't even call or consider swine flu Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't insult others please. Their naivete may contribute to their misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to be naive. It's another to see a big link directing you to another article and not be able to follow it. Wikipedia is inherently designed to be a site where you have to know how to read and click links. When you can't wikipedia can't help you. Therefore there's no point discussing ways to solve an insolvable problem. In any case, such a discussion should happen at swine flu not here Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

world view

Why is a world view important?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.227.140 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm... because we live in the world? It is a world encyclopedia? BFritzen (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The section with the Globalize template should probably have a northern hemisphere view rather than global, as that flu season is the subject. Using information mainly about the USA is less useful than regional or Mexican information, as the currently understood original infections and early clusters were in Mexico. The USA statistics are probably indicative so are better than nothing. --Zigger «º» 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixing WHO Flu Statistics in Intro

I included this and even asked opinion in Facts Vs Fears (or whatever I called it.) Does anyone think this should be removed, kept, or edited? BFritzen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to removing it from the intro. It doesn't seem that imnportant in the grand scheme of things Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek

el:Νέος ιός γρίπης —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swineinfluenza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

protection

Not being able to edit the article makes me feel alienated from Wikipedia. Better accept the risk of a few trolls messing up rather than alienate your users. Swineinfluenza (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any changes in particular you would like to make? I would be happy to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Response

Is the response to this by the media something we should consider adding as a new section to the article? The media is giving this a lot press and I think that it might be something worth mentioning. I don't know if there are sources that we can use on the matter, but it's something to look at. My reason being that given the speed at which information can be disseminated in today's world essentially allows for almost everyone to know everything instantly. I think there could be a focus on whether the media is helpful or hurtful (spreading information or spreading panic) and especially its impact on helping people/organizations/governments coordinate their efforts so that the spread can be minimized. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I'm thinking, but I think that you get the idea. The media will likely end up playing a big role in this (especially if this turns into a full blown pandemic) so I think that we should give some sort of mention to it here. What do you guys think? Pharmaediting11 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have 'media reaction to' articles on other major topics, namely recent Presidential and National Elections. However you may have trouble getting enough sources for a good article if your trying to record assessments of the media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but there has to be something out there that is usable per WP guidelines. The media can play a huge role in inciting panic or keeping peace. And if riots happened then I think we would end up with a HUGE section with analysis on the media response. But that's something different for a different time. So far this is the closest thing to a usable source . I have another one also, but it's a blog and I don't think it's usable. I'm putting it up to see what you guys think though .Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead should be <= four paragraphs, currently six five

Per WP:LEAD: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." While this is a general guideline, I don't see a compelling reason to exempt this article. Other broader and more important topics (e.g. DNA, Virus) are able to summarize their articles' content in significantly fewer words. Emw2012 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Farms closer to La Gloria?

The Smithfield/Granjas Carroll operation mentioned in the press is annotated in Google Earth, and clearly visible as a large number of CAFOs near Perote, Veracruz[31], but it is five towns north of La Gloria, Veracruz. There is a CAFO one town west of La Gloria with an obvious sewage lagoon.[32] Interestingly, there is another group of somewhat similar buildings even closer to La Gloria, but these have no sewage lagoon.[33] Since even the Michigan Sierra Club describes CAFOs with drainage tiles running into local streams, it is interesting that these buildings seem to have a wash leading into a dry riverbed which I think flows past La Gloria. Has anyone spotted mention of these closer farms in the Mexican press? Mike Serfas (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)