Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic by country summary

^{< Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak}

See also: File talk:H1N1 map.svg, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline, File talk:H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg, and File talk:H1N1 map by confirmed deaths.svg

Amount of information

This table has a lot of information on each country. It makes it very difficult to read. It would be much better to just have the most significant information, and the rest can be found in the articles. The table should just serve as a summary, not the sum of all information. All it needs is laboratory confirmed cases, probable cases, and confirmed deaths. The cases contracted in-country is not needed, as it's hardly mentioned by any of the countries, and the suspected cases/deaths can just be mentioned in the article, just leaving the best information in the table. hmwithτ 08:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead, be bold, and make the change, per WP:BRD. The table is pretty much unreadable at this point, and I see this as in the best interest of the encyclopedia. hmwithτ 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I undid the change. This was a pretty massive change to make without any consensus. The suspected columns have been there from the very beginning with no prior complaints & dropping them leaves a bunch of countries off entirely. I don't care if the transmitted in country column goes, but the suspected cases should stay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as it gets bigger, it becomes more of an issue. There have a great deal of complaints since the beginning about the table looking sloppy, suspected numbers, etc. Perhaps most of them were on Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak and didn't get brought up here. However, removing just the transmitted-in-country column would be a good first step. The column accomplishes the least. Not many countries even have a number, and it just serves to make the table look even more cluttered. The table doesn't have to include every morsel of information. It simply is not feasible. Therefore, we can just put the most important information on it.

I think the primary goal of this template should be having a readable, understandable summary of the most important figures by country. Right now, that goal is not being accomplished, and something needs to be done to reach it. hmwithτ 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been prior objections to the suspected column - see this archived discussion, for instance. There just hasn't been consensus to drop it yet, and so it remains out of inertia. -- Avenue (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have been more clear - there were some complaints about the suspected # for a variety of different reasons, but this is the first about it making the table unreadable. We have changed the format several times to try and make it easier to understand, but I don't recall any comments that suggested dropping the suspected number for readability reasons. Also, probable numbers are actually much less reported than suspect, so I can't really see dropping suspect but keeping probable... The long term solution is to replace that columns with "estimated total cases," but unfortunately I don't think enough countries have reasonable estimates yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to wait until there is something we want to replace it with. Personally I think the precise numbers of confirmed cases are not that important anymore, and certainly the suspected case counts are not worth the effort of maintaining them. I would prefer simply listing countries grouped by the number of confirmed cases. Failing that, dropping the suspected cases column is a step in the right direction. -- Avenue (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Also, I was aware actually of the previous discussions to drop the suspected numbers when it happened, but, as ThaddeusB said perfecly, this debate was a little different. hmwithτ 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we drop the in-country transmission sub-column?

To me, this column provides very little information and doesn't actual seem to be updated very often. I know some people like it, but I have always felt it is best left to the main text. Given these new complaints about the table becoming bloated, I see dropping this as a logical first step. How to others feel? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support dropping - as nominator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, the data is not widely enough available. -- Avenue (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per above reasons. -- CB...(ö) 02:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support As I mentioned above, the table doesn't need everything. It would be nice, but it's not realistic. However, I think that the information is useful, but I just think it should be in the article, as it's not one of the main, most important numbers. hmwithτ 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, there is not enough info about the other infected countries and right now, most of them are having in-country transmission, so i think is irrelevant now. --Vrysxy! (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I have also thought this is best left to discussion in the text, especially as figures are difficult and what is important is whether there are sustained community level outbreaks. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:16, 26 May 2009 (GMT)
• Support per nominator's reasons. - Xavier Fung (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and dropped the sub-column as the consensus is pretty clearly against it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the column is very important, because it determines in which countries the disease actually spreads. And there are more data available for this column than for the "suspected/probable" column. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is less information for this column. We only had "(y)" for the main three countries which is ridiculous as they are the key ones showing sustained transmission. There was information for European countries and that's about it. |→ Spaully^₪† 08:53, 28 May 2009 (GMT)

Neither do we have data for the main three countries' number of suspected/probable cases! And it's not ridiculous since everyone knows that the disease originated in North America, and therefore practically all their cases will be in-country transmissions. Originally there was a "Most" instead of "(y)" for these countries, we could restore this. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we drop suspected numbers (cases and deaths) in parentheses?

This information isn't even available for all of the countries, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source. The number of confirmed cases and deaths suffices for an encyclopedia. It also makes the table basically unreadable and very sloppy looking. It's just too much information for one table. It doesn't need everything, and the rest of the information is (or can be) available in text at the proper links. This will also make the references in the table make more sense and look neater. hmwithτ 02:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. hmwithτ 02:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems to be more contentious. The main problem is that we have more information on suspected cases than on probable cases, and so to strip the suspected only to leave probable would make that column pretty useless. The discussion should really be over whether to remove this column completely, as we have little information for either suspected or probable cases. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:09, 27 May 2009 (GMT)
• Support removal of the whole column. I wouldn't object to probable cases being noted for countries where there are a relatively substantial number (Costa Rica and New Zealand at present), perhaps alongside confirmed ones in parentheses, but preferably in footnotes. I feel the number of suspected cases is not important enough to be devoted as much space and effort as it currently takes. It has not been a particularly good predictor of increases in confirmed cases, and is primarily a measure of each country's current workload. Its availability is also patchy. -- Avenue (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't object to retaining the suspected deaths in Mexico. Like the probable cases in NZ and Costa Rica, that seems important enough to mention. I do object to keeping the noisy, incomplete and unimportant suspected cases column. -- Avenue (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia should ideally have a long term focus. The numbers of the most long term interest are total cases and total deaths. Since we do not have reasonable estimates of total numbers at this time, the only way to have any kind of information is the include the suspect numbers - the probable numbers alone are insufficient. Additionally, removing the column entirely would leave some countries off the list. I am especially against removing the suspect deaths number b/c that information is actually complete - it just so happens that most the time there aren't any suspect deaths except for the original 100 in Mexico that will never be confirmed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See, I actually have the same reasoning as you, but I came to another conclusion. The goal should be long-term. We should only have the totals. And, although the numbers are incomplete now, I think they'll eventually confirm more. Then, the confirmed numbers will be the total (nothing else should be), and that table will be complete. hmwithτ 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• They didn't take samples from the suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico, so that part will not resolve over time. I say forget about trying to agree what will happen in the long term; instead, let's ask ourselves "what will give our readers the best understanding now?" -- Avenue (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support (for countries with at least one confirmed cases). The column gives an impression of being some sort of error bar on the number confirmed cases but this is not even close to being true. The column is also messy and not terribly useful. Where the number of suspected cases is substantial a bracketed figure or footnote might be appropriate. Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support for removing suspected cases (for countries with confirmed cases). I also support removing the "Probable cases" column entirely. When there is viable information on this again for the "Big Three", it can be restored. What's the use of a column full of "N/A"s? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support removal of suspected/probable column -- what constitutes a "suspected" or "probable" cases is so open to interpretation that it's too hard for us to present anything meaningful. If these suspected cases become confirmed in the future, then they can be added to the total at that time. This table is meant to be "detected" cases of swine flu, and I feel it is misleading to present data that indicates the actual numbers are uncertain: they're not; they're just what has been detected so far. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I've made a mock up of it to make my mind up: User:Spaully/Test2

As in my edited version I think the column should be completely removed with the suspected deaths. These can be discussed in the text and are not reported by most media. I feel less strongly about removing the suspected deaths however. This makes the table much more straight forward and accessible. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:34, 28 May 2009 (GMT)

• Support. This column is sketchily maintained, the numbers aren't reported by many CDCs/MoHs, the numbers for any one particular country can vary widely by news source, the column clutters the table, and as time goes on, the column's usefulness will become less and less important.Sqlman (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Suspected cases are quite non-consistent in terms of every ministry of the country and not necessary equals to those defined by the WHO. - Xavier Fung (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped the probable/suspect cases column per the clear consensus here. There was no point keeping only the probable cases, as this data was only available for a tiny handful of countries. Countries with only suspected cases have been moved to just below the main table. I have left the suspected death # because the same arguments don't apply to it. Specifically it is complete & serves a long term interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding edit conflicts

To avoid edit conflicts I suggest adding some in-table, noinclude headings. e.g. [1]

Perhaps not a heading for every country, but one for every five or ten countries. Of course it is only helpful if most editors display the [edit] links on headings, and I'm not bold enough to make this change without some consensus. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When I edit this table, I do so in my sandbox. Then I copy/paste it back here. I then check to see if any edits have been lost during the switch. hmwithτ 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table

Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

the TfD notice appears to have disappeared, but the TfD discussion is still open... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we A) delete the 'probable/suspected' column and B) replace it with an official WHO column?

Taking into account the sections below discussing deleting the 'Probable (suspected)' column--a deletion I support--and adding to that the confusion that appears to exist between the official WHO counts and numbers from each country's CDC or MoH, I'd like to suggest killing that column and replacing it with a column containing just the official WHO number of confirmed cases. This would accomplish the following: 1) It would de-clutter the table for all the reasons stated in the sections below. 2) It would allow a placeholder for the 'official' WHO numbers, which would serve to highlight the lead/lag time between WHO and individual CDCs/MoHs. 3) It would improve the readability and understandability of the table by presenting the WHO numbers with no citations of any kind (as the entire column would be cited in one place, the heading). 4) It would make the table far easier to maintain, as the WHO column would only need to be touched once per dsay (when the WHO report comes out). Just a thought... Sqlman (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having the official WHO break down by country would serve any real purpose - it is really just the same data as our confirmed column, but with a day or two lag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Current Situation

(NOTE: This topic was cut/pasted from a section in 2009 swine flu outbreak where it was seen as a WP:NOTNEWS vio. It can reasonably be kept up here in talk space for support of all the related articles' editors. Please feel free to edit as if it were in article space, but keeping entries for at most five days.LeadSongDog come howl 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

North America

I came across this statement a couple of days ago and now again! I can't help, but I have to give a comment: This is bullshit! Of course the numbers in Mexico don't follow any rules, because they are arbitrary regarding the dates, so you cannot deduct anything from them. But have a look at the US deaths. They clearly follow an exponential growth until now (this becomes even more clearly, if you try to adjust them according to a - partly estimated - date of illness onset). FHessel (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

United States

New York

Houston

New Mexico

Associated Press, May 27: “New Mexico now has more than 100 confirmed cases of swine flu. The state Department of Health reports 108 cases, up from the 97 listed last Wednesday. The state, following the lead of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updates the number of cases once a week. . . . The agency also says the number of reported cases nationwide is considered an underestimate because many people who become ill don't seek medical care, and many of those who do aren't tested for influenza.” NM now has more than 100 cases of swine flu, KDBC 4 News, Associated Press, May 27, 2009 5:15 PM ET.

Illinois

Associated Press, May 27: “A second person in Illinois has died from complications of swine flu , pushing the world's death toll past 100. Illinois officials said the latest victim was a woman from northwest suburban Cook County who had other medical problems that might have made her illness more severe. They did not give her age, and said no other information would be released. The death reported Wednesday was the 15th in the U.S. and the 101st worldwide linked to the virus that has sickened more than 12,000 people. The deaths of two more New Yorkers were linked Tuesday to swine flu.” Deaths linked to swine flu hit 101 worldwide, Associated Press, May 27, 2009.

Asia Pacific Region

Australia

BBC May 27: “ . . . coinciding with the southern hemisphere's traditional winter flu season.”Australia swine flu cases double,Phil Mercer, BBC News, Sydney 04:22 GMT, Wednesday, 27 May 2009.

ANNE KELSO, director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza in Melbourne, May 25th/26th: “We certainly are concerned about that because as the conditions become more suitable for the spread of flu in winter here, then if there is wide-spread circulation of this virus then inevitably it will mutate. What we won't know of course, until it happens is whether those mutations will make the virus worse or better so that we simply have to wait and see.” Swine flu containment critical, ABC Online, interview with Tony Eastley reported on May 26, 2009.

AFP, May 27: "Under the new rules, all cruise liners docking in Sydney will be treated as potential swine flu sites and passengers will be held on board until the ship is cleared. The protocols were tightened after authorities came under fire for allowing 2,000 passengers off the Pacific Dawn to voluntarily self-quarantine despite a suspected outbreak of swine flu on board." Australia locks down cruise ships as swine flu toll mounts, AFP, May 27, 2009.

Canberra Times, May 28 (Australian Time): “Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has warned Australia should expect swine flu deaths as another two Canberrans were confirmed yesterday to have the disease, bringing the national tally to 67. The Canberra Raiders NRL team is also on alert for signs of the H1N1 influenza after four referees from a Raiders game at the weekend were quarantined. Canberra now has three confirmed swine flu cases. The latest victims are a 43-year-old woman and a 21-year-old man who disembarked from P&O's Pacific Dawn in Sydney on Monday.” NATASHA RUDRA, DANIELLE CRONIN AND DAVID JEAN Warning on swine flu deaths, Canberra Times, 28/05/2009 6:55:00 AM.

Bloomberg, May 28: “Carnival Corp.’s luxury cruise ship Pacific Dawn was asked not to stop at ports in north Queensland after 38 people caught swine flu while on a South Pacific voyage, Australian health officials said. Passengers and crew tested positive for the H1N1 virus after nine days at sea on the 11-deck vessel. Most patients had a “mild illness” and were diagnosed after the ship docked in Sydney on May 25.” Carnival Passengers, Crew Catch Swine Flu on Pacific Cruise, Bloomberg, Jason Gale, May 28, 2009 12:07 EDT.

GUIDELINES:

• Please help add sources as able.
• Keep it quick.
• Use any of the above formatting styles, but please only add items that have potential to make an enduring contribution to the article.
• Please keep articles for five days, then allow to be pushed off by more recent articles.

Numbers with multiple sources

For a day or so the US deaths has needed 6 sources to sum to the 17 there seem to have been. This looks fairly cluttered and so I have merged 4 {{citations}} into one <ref> section allowing the reader to see all the sources but let the table flow (diff). I've not seen this done much before so raised it here as I think it is a good way to solve the problem of multiple references if the problem arises again. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:53, 29 May 2009 (GMT)

Good idea, well done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, very good idea, improved the readability a lot. FHessel (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be done for all of the numbers with more than one source. hmwithτ 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we add country flags

Should we add country flags like they did on the dutch Wikipedia page for Swine Flu? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicaanse_griep Scroll downwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.224.170 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus is not to add flags to avoid cluttering of the table. - Xavier Fung (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiny flags will make it look less dull, and won't increase clutter in my opinion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Having previously been against it, I now am neutral on this issue as the table has become more streamlined. I don't think it brings much to the table but I don't think it increases clutter much. There could be a new consensus given the big changes that this table has seen. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:21, 29 May 2009 (GMT)

I won't oppose to add flags when the pandemic dies down and the table becomes less busy than it is now, but from maintenance side it may not be optimal if we can see the frequency of updates when the disease is now propagated. So I cannot see the urgency to add flags. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags are not needed and as Xavier points out inhibit easy editing by adding clutter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags would be a poor addition. We just went to a lot of work trying to make less information in the table. Flags would just add clutter. hmwithτ 22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure changed to WHO source

I changed the U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure to the one given by the WHO. (The previously given figure (from the US source) included also probable cases, and is thus not really correct for this table.) I suggest that we stick to the WHO source (or other sources which really give the "Confirmed cases" number) for this figure from now on. (Note that most of the previous difference between our Total and WHO's Total for the confirmed cases resulted from the U.S. figure we used, so I assume that the US report the "correct" number to the WHO, even if they don't publish it themselves.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should seek to keep it consistent but using confirmed cases. The CDC gets its information from the individual states now and says that where there is a difference the states published numbers should be used so we could also use the numbers tabulated in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table table. Daveonwiki (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "by" instead of "but" in your first sentence? It seems we could use the "Total" number of the second column of the table you gave (if the data there are really only confirmed cases for all 50 states), but it would make this template hard to maintain. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the difference in numbers comes primarily from a time delay. That said, Daveonwiki's suggestion of using the US table's numbers is reasonable - and we have done this in the past. A few people complained that doing so was using Wikipedia as a reference, but that isn't actually true - citing the table is just a short cut to repeating the 50 references used to create it individually. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can use CDC numbers (US source) just as well as the WHO data, there is evidence that the numbers from WHO also consists of both confirmed as well as probable cases. The ECDC report states the same numbers as the WHO concerning USA, and notes that the numbers consist of both. (http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/files/pdf/Health_topics/Situation_Report_090529_1700hrs.pdf)¨. --User:Pedromarx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. The ECDC report says it uses also data from the national governments. While you may be right, your reasoning is original research. By their own account, WHO reports only confirmed cases, and CDC reports only combined numbers, thus only WHO is suitable for our purposes.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Btw, the numbers from ECDC are not exactly the same as those from that day's WHO report. OT: You should not claim to be User:Pedromarx when that username does not exist. Just use your IP adress for signing, or a nickname without the "User:" prefix.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm new to Wikipedia and wrote here for my first time.

To the case, when I wrote that the numbers were the same, I was just referring to the USA figures (ECDC compared to WHO). Pedromarx, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all right. Welcome to Wikipedia, then! - I was also referring to the USA figures, but at the time I wrote the above comment, ECDC hat one or two more US cases than the latest WHO report. But it doesn't matter now we use still another source.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now used Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table as a source, as suggested by Daveonwiki. (I hope that the figures in that template are updated more often than the WHO data.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is China and Ecuador

I see that some one have erased Ecuador and China from the table. --Vrysxy! (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

China is actually still there (under "Mainland China"), but Ecuador was removed by an IP some 10 hours ago and not caught by anyone until now. I have restored the next and warned the IP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia update

I'm not sure how to do the referencing but if someone would like to update Australia's toll it is now at 303. ref. cyclosarin (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at least 400. [2][3] cyclosarin (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

I think the suspected death for Argentina should be removed pending new information. The article used as reference itself says that it's "poco probable" (i.e., not very likely) that this death is due to swine flu.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Third confirmed case in Venezuela

Please update the table and the info, because since june 1st Venezuela report a third case, the sources available in english are these: [4][5]