Jump to content

Talk:Swine influenza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bhumburg (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 16 September 2009 (→What is S-OIV?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SHELL AND JAY influenza is NOT the current Mexican influenza

Please, remove the link toward Swine influenza from the front page. The article Swine influenza is about pigs flu only (which means ALL kinds of influenza affecting pigs, how farmer keep their pigs alives, etc), while 2009 swine influenza outbreak is about the current human influenza outbreak (H1N1).

Since the 2 links are in the front page, well intentionned users are misleadingly adding informations into the TWO articles, without noticing the difference. All this will lead to a really confusing situation on wikipedia. Please, remove the link toward Swine influenza from the front page.

All the misleading adds have to be move to the relevant article: 2009 swine influenza outbreak.

--Yug (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah blah::Wikipedia talk about severals, and should clearly make the disambiguation between :

  • the pig influenza, know for decades (!!) as the swine flu ; and...
  • the human outbreak(s), derivated from the 1st, by example the current 2009 swine flu outbreak.
In this day in age the should have all ready have made a shot or sumthing to help prevent people from getting this deadly dease:

If the next american president is name 'Greece' and that media call him 'President Greece', the article Greece have not to host his biography. In wikipedia, his specific article will have to be create in 'John Greece (President)', more accurate, and not abusive.

For 'Swine flu', that the same. Wikipedia have not to copy misleading language simplifications. Yug (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yug is talking about the "In the news" blurb on Main Page, which for a time linked to this article in a contact that apparently made many readers think this article was the main article on the topic, rather than 2009 swine flu outbreak. The blurb has been changed. But ... the best thing we can do is add content about swine flu in swine: strains of concern in swine, symptoms in swine, outbreaks in swine, vaccines for swine, etc. Please help with that. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Deaths account table.

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please modify the information of the death account to respect the so far confirmed death.

As reportecd correctly in the table of the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_outbreak

the total death account of this year swine flu is at 8 deaths and not at 153 as wrongly reported by Master RDC with no references.

That table is in a section that is problematic throughout, so I moved it out of the article to here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the potential for a swine flu pandemic is now present, it is helpful to compare the current epidemic with those of earlier periods. The chart below gives figures for either worldwide or the U.S., depending on what figures were available. The most current swine flu epidemic figures are given last and will change constantly, hence the link is given to current data. It is significant that as of April 28, 2009, over 80% of cases and 100% of deaths have been in Mexico. A CNN article entitled "Why only deaths in Mexico?" highlights some questions currently confounding medical researchers.[1]. However on April 29, 2009 it was confirmed that a 23-month-old child from Texas was the first fatality from outside Mexico, raising fear that Swine flu could cause a pandemic. [2]

Epidemics (avail. data) Year Infected Deaths Mortality % Death rate/1,000
Spanish flu (worldwide) 1918-19 500 50 million 10% 100
Asian flu (U.S.) 1957 45 million 70,000 .16% 1.6
Hong Kong flu (U.S.) 1968-69 50 million 33,000 .07% .7
Avian flu (worldwide) 1990-today 421 257 61% 610
SARS (worldwide) 2002-03 8,096 774 9.6% 96
General flu (U.S.)[1] yearly average 50 million 36,000 .08% .8
Swine flu (worldwide) "confirmed" as of 4/30/2009[2] 251 9 3.6% 36
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content may belong on 2009 swine flu outbreak but is not directly relevant here. The table includes epidemics due to viruses other than swine flu (and other than influenza). The table very inappropriately mixes mortality and death rates relative to the population at large and to the population of suspected or confirmed infections. The 2009 outbreak does not yet qualify as an epidemic of swine flu. --Una Smith (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chart updated from link (footnote 6) so anyone can change this from single source. As for mixing rates, wasn't sure of your main concern, since you mentioned "population at large." If a comparison chart of virulence is to be usable, there should be some baseline information that everyone agrees on, such as "confirmed" cases and deaths per the Wikilink, which it used. But if we try to dissect "population" into finer categories, then the chart will be open to wilder variations of figures and many disagreements.
As for the "epidemics" used for the chart, since they are all viral, and mostly flu-related, and include links to source articles, don't you think it helps to give readers some helpful perspective on the subject of virulence? As for whether the chart is useful in general, or whether it should be used in the "current outbreak" article, those are open questions and I'm not hung up on either. I just felt that many readers could use some historical perspective on the swine flu verses earlier flu outbreaks.
Straw poll: to keep chart in this article; move; or delete. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I posted a piece adding onto the sentence about it being abbreviated to SIV, and I said this should not be confused with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. This has since been removed and they replaced SIV with a link to the disambiguation page for SIV as it can mean many different things. However, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus is arguably the most well known meaning of SIV, the most important due to the links with HIV, and the only other virus on the disambiguation page - therefore I think it should be made clear about not confusing it with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Marv101 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Outbreak

Someone created a short stub article for the 1976 swine flu outbreak that is largely an orphan and used just one paragraph of the section here called Swine influenza#1976 U.S. outbreak. I'm not actively working these articles but wanted to call this to the attention of the editors as I'm not sure whether that article should be merged back in here leaving a redirect back or whether it is time to make a separate article. As it is, we have an orphaned stub that is worse than an embedded section and that should be resolved. Theflyer (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give them a chance to make more of it. If it remains a stub, make it a redirect. In the meantime, how about expanding the Wikipedia content about that outbreak, either here or in the spinoff article? --Una Smith (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the last sentence of the section on the 1976 outbreak misleading. It says: "Still, as observed by a participant in the immunization program, the vaccine killed more Americans than the disease did.[55]" There should be an attempt to quantify also the number of people whose life was saved by the vaccine. It may very well be a higher number, changing the picture to its opposite, and is too important to ignore, even if it cannot be determined exactly. Petergacs (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the seperat article for the 1976 Outbreak should remain. I think if someone could find a reliable website devoted to the outbreak, the article could rise from stub status. JayLeno175 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me: Swine flu is NOT the Mexican flu

Copy from User talk:TimVickers at 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you are both expert in biochemistry and active on the Swine flu article. I need help there. I follow this epidemic spread (on wikipedia) since the very beggining, april 25th. The issue was quickly divided between :

Then, on April 27, the Main Page's 'news section' linked to both articles. Frome there, all become confusing. Well intentionned but misleading users coming from the Main Page started adding human-relate informations into both Swine flu (pig) and 2009 swine flu outbreak (human) articles, which are becoming duplicata, both mainly talking about the 'mexican flu'.

I made my best to put an warning frame at the top of the article Swine flu, to keep the 2 artices working on their respective issues, but the 2 articles are HIGHLY visited, and news users are coming again and again to say "no, 'swine flu' is the 'mexican flu': CNN said it !". This is false on wikipedia, which have to display several swine flu articles, and to keep them specific. Please, help me to keep the places clean and specific. Yug (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Yes, I do see your argument, but unfortunately with organisations like the CDC and WHO all referring to this as "swine influenza" (see WHO for example) we have to do the same on Wikipedia. Once we have more information on this H1N1 strain we could split the articles into one on this human-transmissible strain and a second more general one about "swine influenza", but presently we're stuck with this nomenclature. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your quick answer.
Here, on wikipedia, the split have already be done 3 days ago. And all was clean, 3 days ago. I try to stop the 'hemoragy'. We already have a specific article for the current mexican flu : 2009 swine flu outbreak (mexican flu specific). But new users are coming and coming again, adding such human relate data to Swine flu (formerly pig-specific, now on the way to become Mexican-flu specific... too). We are in the bad way, since this will produce two overlapping articles, and eventually a lot of time waste for wiki users. The solution may be to:
I'm not a native English speaker, please help me to find the best solution. Yug (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The currently use title 'Swine flu' alone is not clear enough now, meaning both '2009 mexican flu' and 'thousand years old pig-to-pig flu'. Accordingly, this unclear tittle should be avoid. Yug (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it is a problem but I'm not sure what to do about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue is not easy. In English language, a new 5 days-old event (mexican/swine flu) is replacing the decades old 'swine flu' virus. More we wait, more work we [wiki users] will have to do later, to separe/move/merge sections.
I can do the rename of Swine flu into 'Pig farms swine flu'. The important is that not wiki-experienced users note immediately that they are not in the mexican flu article. Yug (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to submit a better name. Yug (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about :
? I think this should be good enough. Yug (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so split the article into Swine flu and swine flu (farming)? Then we can move all the purely pig-related material into the farming article. I don't think we can just redirect swine flu, since that article needs to discuss the previous "swine flu" human outbreaks. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see a solution. Not exactly your.
This will stop the current movement of users adding (too much) human-relate data to the 'swine flu' article, and redirect their effort to 2009 swine flu outbreak. That should work. Thanks :] Yug (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<crying>the page Swine flu is semi-protected, I can't do the move....</crying>(some time, I regret to have throw away my admin tools XD) Yug (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [or never candidated on en-wiki][reply]

Can you unprotect the page 3 mins, the time I make the move. Yug (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not unilaterally, you need to propose the move and merge on the talkpages involved (see Help:Merging and moving pages). If other people agree this is a good idea, then we can do it. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine influenza is NOT the 2009 Mexican flu

There is already too much Mexican flu relate data in this article. Many users seems to believe this article is about the current epidemic. This article is not. This article is about decades old pig's influenzas.

Just thought I'd say that I came here after googling "pig flu" without thinking it wouldn't refer to current flu pandemic (just a comment)79.79.220.104 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Swine influenza, formerly talking about pig flu epidemics, is currently highly visited and have dramatically change in the last 30 hours. This mainly by the adding of Mexican flu relate datas, despite Wikipedia already have an article specific to the Mexican flu : 2009 swine influenza outbreak (article specific to the mexican flu). Currently, about 60% of the Swine influenza article is already about the Mexican flu, creating a 2nd '2009 swine influenza outbreak' article. Have 2 times the same article is misleading.

Swine flu is highly visited, the warning message I added aim to slow the adds of Mexican flu relate data. There is already too much (about 50%). In the Swine flu article, in the long hundreds years long history of Swine flu, the Mexican flu should just be one 15 lines sections. Yug (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Here. We have the same problem over and over again with this (such as avian influenza/bird flu/H5N1). Wikipedia should follow official guidelines, not media popularity, when it comes to scientific terms.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swine flu certainly has a heavy case of WP:RECENTISM, and emphasizes the current epidemic too much. That being said, "swine flu" is very commonly used in reliable sources to refer to any flu of purported swine origin, even when the flu is infecting humans; see, for example CDC 2009-04-24 (PMID 19390508). I'm not sure what "official guidelines" are being referred to here, but we need to use the same terminology that reliable sources do, and they do seem to be using "swine flu" to refer to the 2009 outbreak in humans. Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys this is totally a problem. these are the hits of the two pages compared - http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29. http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29. I don't know how to fix the problem i think it exists though - people aren't getting the information they are searching for. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! As of now a Google search for "Swine flu" (being most used news term worldwide) gets 8.5 million results with this article as #1! And the news articles are still mostly focused on hour-by-hour events, i.e. new cases, schools closing, WHO levels, fear, confusion, etc. Pretty much everything, except what many people want and need to know: what it is (human version); how bad might it get; background; history; past pandemics to compare with; what to do; how to treat it; on and on. At least that's my personal guess. If others agree with this theory, I do have some ideas for what we can do that I'll offer - at least to get the ball rolling. And I'd say time is of the essence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ LazyMapleSunday: that's a naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu. Yug (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- thanks Daniel.Cardenas ! That's a good start. Yug (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE SWINE FLU AND ITS ORIGIN?

New users vissibly not acquainted with flu issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MY FAVORITE IS THIS SWINE FLU subject, A how we came to this situation,the biggest question is how we can't stop it. My question is how the flu shot helps us in the United States, IT's able to protect us from a form of flu, but its unstopable right now. I want to know what is the CDC and Health Orginization going to do. Before the people of America will fight back. Is the flu shot strain of 2008-2009 uncable off of fighting the swine flu . If not then why do we take the flu shot every year. If it doesn't help us with the flu and the swine flu A, that we get from our southern boarders (Mexico)That we should be locking down the boarders for our safety and our colleges that are in San Diego and in southrn California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.244.120 (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEVERE CLEAN UP NECESSARY

"Then, at intervals of roughly a decade, after the bulk of the world's population has developed some level of resistance to these minor changes, it undergoes a major shift that enables it to tear off on yet another pandemic sweep around the world, infecting hundreds of millions of people who suddenly find their antibody defenses outflanked.[8]" A virus "tearing off" on a "pandemic sweep"? "outflanked" immune defenses? This is a free encyclopedia, not an anthropomorphic microbial drama. The language and style needs to be more objective. "In 1957, an Asian flu pandemic infected some 45 million Americans and killed 70,000. Eleven years later, lasting from 1968 to 1969, the Hong Kong flu pandemic afflicted 50 million Americans and caused 33,000 deaths, costing approximately $3.9 billion." An example of purposeless information in the context of a page specifically devoted to Swine Influenza. "Influenza spreads between humans through coughing or sneezing and people touching something with the virus on it and then touching their own nose or mouth." - 'Influenza can spread between humans via coughing, sneezing, or direct contact' would be more suitable. One among many poorly constructed sentences. Again: "Social distancing is another tactic. It means staying away from other people who might be infected and can include avoiding large gatherings, spreading out a little at work, or perhaps staying home and lying low if an infection is spreading in a community." This could almost be considered as one among many artefacts throughout this page. "lying low" - give me a break. Should 'zoonosis' and phrases such as 'lying low' and/or 'pandemic sweeps' be on the same page? I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.0.93 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. LeadSongDog come howl 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is semi-protected, so the person using IP 124.190.0.93 will first need to log in before editing this article. But most of the contributions this person would like to make belong in other articles, not this one. --Una Smith (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs more cleanup, and also several sections need content. I have just reorganized the article, and looking at it now I think we should spin off a new article, Swine flu in humans. What do you think? How about a show of support and oppose? --Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZayZayEM (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be introduced following Summary Style approach. A section on the main swine flu page should deal with "swine fluinfluenza in humans", however if significant amount of information and coverage can be found that would alow creation of appropriate encyclopedioc content that might swamp this page with unbalanced coverage - a new subpage should be created. Given that human health has a priority over animal health, I do not doubt that this will be the final (and speedy) outcome of such an approach.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. add your sig here, using '~~~~'

Oppose

  1. add your sig here, using '~~~~ '

With only 12 pig-to-human cases in U.S. (non-fatal?) over four years, I'd just add a section within this article instead. If it starts to get filled in with enough details and subsections, it can always be moved to a new article. As it is, although much better outlined, I'd prefer to single section like "Swine flu in pigs".~~~~

Neutral

  1. I agree, a clean up is need. By example: the article talk several times about the 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009 human outbreak. Create an article [Swine flu in humans] will lead to confusion. Don't forget that Swine flu articles got about 2 millions visits yesterday. Web-visiters not wiki-editors will be confuse to see Swine flu + Swine flu in humans + 2009 swine flu outbreak. I think we are now on the good way : a. the Swine flu article is no more in the main page ; b. the article have been cleaned up this 12 last hours, with several template 'Swine section' clearly requesting expansion. If they get expanded, we will have a good, correct, complete Swine flu article. Yug (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. add your sig here, using '~~~~'

An article outlining the medias obsession with a 'pandemic'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/29/swine-flu-mexico-uk-media1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotle5689 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cygy.com seems to have a lot about the swine/H1N1 flu outbreak. 70.68.139.248 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palau update

Palau's Health Minister has issued a health alert and increased screening of passengers entering the country for swine flu [3]]--86.29.253.163 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top tags

Many current (April 2009) readers of this article are not Wikipedia editors and are not likely to understand most of the tags such as {{Recentism}} that could be applied to this article. So, I recommend we do not use such tags. --Una Smith (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonia shots may be protective

EID Journal Home > Volume 14, Number 8–August 2008 Volume 14, Number 8–August 2008

Historical Review

Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic

John F. Brundage* Comments to Author and G. Dennis Shanks†

  • Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; and †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/8/1193.htm

Suggested Citation for this Article

Brundage JF, Shanks GD. Deaths from bacterial pneumonia during 1918–19 influenza pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2008 Aug [date cited]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/14/8/1193.htm

DOI: 10.3201/eid1408.071313

Abstract Deaths during the 1918–19 influenza pandemic have been attributed to a hypervirulent influenza strain. Hence, preparations for the next pandemic focus almost exclusively on vaccine prevention and antiviral treatment for infections with a novel influenza strain. However, we hypothesize that infections with the pandemic strain generally caused self-limited (rarely fatal) illnesses that enabled colonizing strains of bacteria to produce highly lethal pneumonias. This sequential-infection hypothesis is consistent with characteristics of the 1918–19 pandemic, contemporaneous expert opinion, and current knowledge regarding the pathophysiologic effects of influenza viruses and their interactions with respiratory bacteria. This hypothesis suggests opportunities for prevention and treatment during the next pandemic (e.g., with bacterial vaccines and antimicrobial drugs), particularly if a pandemic strain–specific vaccine is unavailable or inaccessible to isolated, crowded, or medically underserved populations. [emphasis supplied] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.11.188 (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, but does not belong in this article. What does belong in this article is the similar finding that in swine, the severity of illness is determined by "secondary organisms" ie bacteria. --Una Smith (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

I'd like to make some changes to the structure of the article. One, that I mentioned earlier, would be to move most swine and pig-related topics under a new section as the term "Swine flu" is now commonly understood as referring to the "human" flu. I'd assume that very few readers who end up in this article are looking for information specifically about swine and its own virus, so having multiple sub-sections, - many still empty - focused on pigs and swine is not of real benefit and may improperly put the seriousness of human vs. the swine's illnesses on equal levels. Most people are probably interested in human illnesses (medical) as opposed to farm-animal illnesses (veterinary) even though their closely related.

Another suggestion would be to simplify terminology and reduce medical jargon, and instead rely on links for those few needing more scientific explanations. IMO, scientists, medical professionals, and other researchers, will have more focused journals they'd prefer instead of a general-reader encyclopedia. In March, this article got an average of 8 readers a day; yesterday it got 1,300,000! My thought is that toning down the language to more user-friendly form is important. For example, I just read that in 2006 Harvard did a survey and found that only 41% of Americans knew what the term "pandemic flu" meant. Hence, a paragraph like the one below put in the 2nd paragraph of the lead, will not be helping that many visitors, and should be simplified using more of the KISS principle.

Of the three genera of human flu, two are endemic also in swine: Influenzavirus A is common and Influenzavirus C is rare.[2] Influenzavirus B has not been reported in swine. Within Influenzavirus A and Influenzavirus C, the strains endemic to swine and humans are largely distinct.

I doubt if many readers would know what the terms "genera," "endemic," or virus "strain" meant. And it's unfair to have people click on medical links to Influenzavirus A, B, and C to get past the 2nd paragraph in a lead. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you rewrite that 2nd paragraph? Also, aren't you basically proposing to split the article but keep the part about swine influenza in humans under the same page name just because its page view stats are high? --Una Smith (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
swine influenza in humans = 2009 swine flu outbreak (already complete article). Yug (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. swine influenza in humans includes earlier outbreaks, and a history of isolated transmissions. --Una Smith (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Now, how to prevent the 1.4 millions visitors a day to add and add again Mexican-flu relate data. Maybe 20th century swine flus in human may be better for the some next days/week. Yug (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is actually a problem, Yug. The 2009 section of the article has hardly changed today. Rmhermen (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for underlining it, that's true, you are right: the last 24h have be fine ;) Without piranha effect expanding too much this section. Encouraging ! Yug (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the audience?

I used the 2nd paragraph (which has since been merged) as just an example of what I feel is an overly complex lead. That's not to say the lead was overly complex a few weeks ago when this article was only getting about eight visitors a day, since they were probably mostly professionals in the farm animal veterinary field. But due to an accident of nature, the DNA from a pig's virus, along with some others, have mutated, gotten people sick, and somewhat logically got called "swine flu." Should this article care?

IMO, that depends on who we're writing for, or who we should be writing for. Those are open questions. As it reads now, the article is still aimed at those eight visitors wanting more details about pig illnesses. As for the other million-plus average folk wanting to figure out what the news stories are referring to, and hoping for some simple explanations, I'd say they're out of luck. The tag at the top of the article makes it clear: This article is about influenza in swine, i.e. "STOP: If you are not an animal scientist looking for advanced genetic information about swine influenza in swine, you are in the wrong place."

It looks like Google agrees. Now, when you search for "swine flu," you get directed to the general news sites, few of which talk about much more than minute-by-minute changes or what % Jose in Guadelupe has lost in the way of his restaurant customers, with a few gratuitious symptoms thrown in to be at least minimally informative. This article, which really should be a number one source, is being demoted since fewer other sites are linking to it. Which is another way of saying that if my uncle called and asked "hey, what's all this stuff about the swine flu about?", the last place I'd suggest he learn about it would be here.

So the question is who is or should this article be written for? Should the article be revised to reach them, and if so, why? Anyone remember what network CEO Jensen said to newscaster Howard Beale when Beale finally asked him, "But why me?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rename

This virus is no longer called the "swine flu". The WHO has renamed it to "Influenza A (H1N1)". The WHO site currently contains the news "30 April 2009 -- From today, WHO will refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A(H1N1)". The main title of this article should be changed to refer to the correct name of the virus, and "swine flu" and "swine influenza" should both redirect to the new article. I do not know enough about Wikipedia editing to set up the new article and redirects myself. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Disregard my previous comment. I did not realize that this article linked to another one specific to the new strain. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} The new name for Swine influenza is influenza A (H1N1)

We have an article on that subtype - Influenza A virus subtype H1N1, which is still a much broader topic, covering several past outbreak strains. How about 2009 influenza H1N1 as a title specific to this particular strain (the 2009 H1N1 isolates)? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Won't a section in 2009 swine flu outbreak suffice? If this new strain needs an article of its own, then how about H1N1 (2009)? That plays off H1N1, which is a redirect to Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Another model would be Fujian flu. --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not convinced we need an article just on the 2009 strain of virus yet, particularly since so little is known about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Medical Treatment from A Doctor According To Reports In California, Don't treat yourself

News reports say if symptoms occur, seek medical help, do not take medication, in California, and other areas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmember805 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which symptoms image should we have?

First one. (1).
New one. (2)

It seems we have two symptoms images to choose between now, which gives us the advantage to use the one we think fits best. See Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak#Which symptoms image should we have.3F for discussion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unhappy with the inclusion of diarrhea, which is quite a rare symptom of influenza in adults. However, I can see the argument that it should be there for completeness. Of the images, I prefer the first. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHO continues to state the symptoms associated with the current outbreak strain "in some patients" include diarrhoea and vomiting. That does not appear to be true of other "swine flu" strains in humans, so may not belong in this article except where it discusses A/California/2009 (H1N1). Another suggestion is to remove the image from this article and instead direct readers (again) to Influenza-like illness (which needs its own version a symptoms image). --Una Smith (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For pete's sake, remove diarrhea. It only shows in children. put a pediatric picture if you want to include diarrhea. You know, if we include every rare symptom in images, you'll have way too many things to list. Include only common symptoms. diarrhea is not common in adults. Now, you could easily have another intestinal infection at the same time as having the flu - but it is so freaking unlikely to have the flu cause diarrhea.

Some Order and Organisation

This is among the most frequently viewed article on Wikipedia at the moment, well ahead of the article on the 2009 outbreak. This means, of course, that the article has come under sustained pressures from drive-bu edits. I have created two archives for the talk page, the second of which is designed as a repository for the allcaps "swine flu is gnarly" variety. I ask editors to move such comments into the archive for the sake of keeping this page navigable and comprehensible.

As for the ongoing discussion, I agree with the editors above who note the importance of NOT making this article all about the current event; to wit newspaper sources and other such from-the-headlines references should be discouraged. That kind of stuff can go into the 2009 outbreak article.

I just went ahead and made these changes. I hope this strikes regular editors as reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How does the archiving work? --Una Smith (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just cut and paste to one of the archives. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page and scope

I am trying to make sense of the articles place and scope, but I can see the problem the article is being read by new users as an article covering all aspects of the current outbreak, Influenza pandemics and influenze in general. I am currently leaning towards the notion of a stripped down article focusing on influenza in pigs, with maybe a few smaller sections summarizing and linking to the more specific articles, there is no need for example in the Prevention of spread in humans, which is covered in more detail in the other articles.

My first concrete suggestion to improve the situation is to create swine flu as a disambiguation page akin to Bird flu, I am presuming this is the search phrase most people will be typing in for outbreaks in humans, so we can craft an article that will give direction to the various articles we now have.L∴V 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading link -- anyone want to check or edit it?

Somebody slipped a link to a fan site into the Swine flu page.

external links "Swine Flu Resource" goes to: A fan site for American Idol's finalist, Adam Lambert." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twfeline (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that - I see the link has been removed. L∴V 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution template

or

This article is about swine-borne strains of influenza in general. For the 2009 outbreak in humans, see 2009 flu pandemic.

This is a god thing ! This being is for the 1.4 millions visitors / days, new on wikipedia, and as such need to be all visible, short and complete, noticing that this article is:

1. not about the current outbreak in Mexico, and
2. also include quick/general data about swine-to-human transmission.

Rewording are welcome. Yug (talk)

Infobox

The infobox is empty, so I am parking it here for now. --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine influenza

What happened to the reference to Smithfield Farms and it's relation to Granja Carrillo in Mexico. It was noted a few days ago that this is location of the contamination of swine flu? Why hide the truth that the responsible company is in the United States! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.147.80 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 2009 swine flu outbreak in Mexico. --Una Smith (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - anyway... create it go faster ;). Yug (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A/California/2009 (H1N1)

As I hope the current reorg of this article makes clear, A/California/2009 (H1N1) has not been reported in swine and may well not belong on this article at all. --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The World Health Organization has stated that symptoms may be less severe than normal seasonal influenza symptoms."

Source? Can't find anything myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked too, same result. --Una Smith (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu zombie hoax story?

Would this be considered part of this article, or would it go somewhere else? Source: [3] Decimator1 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not notable or important. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since 1) the site has no information about its authors, and 2) it's an obvious hoax page, it's probably the least reliable source possible. [4] [5] --Underpants 20:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got no Google hits, so it's a hoax!--86.29.245.29 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead In - "However, swine flu can very rarely pass from humans to human."

is this the general rule with respect to transmission of swine flu? the next paragraph mentions the transmission of the 2009 outbreak among humans is easy. This information on its face seems contradictory. My question is whether most mutations of strains do not result in further transmission after the first jump from pig to human - this fact would make sense of the sentence. If this is the case I think it could be presented more clearly in the intro - perhaps adding "generally" etc. Also, "humans to human"? should it read human to human? or among/between humans? LazyMapleSunday (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 2009 is the exception. Usually, swine flu may, in very rare cases only, pass to an heavily exposed human.
Today, the 2009 swine flu have the special ability of human-to-human transmission. That's why the situation is, in this very case, epidemic. Yug (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note: The article should be improve to be more clear on this point, but I really have to go to sleep. 2:00 a.m. here ô.o ) Yug (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most cases of transmission from swine to human do not result in so-called community infection. In other words, people catch the flu from pigs but do not pass it on to other people. The 2009 outbreak strain is a major exception ... but it has yet to be shown that this strain was transmitted from swine to human. It is a reassortment, and it has several genes from swine influenza viruses, but the reassortment did not necessarily occur in swine. --Una Smith (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this statement may be misleading to less careful readers. People coming to this page for info about the swine flu might get confused into believing that the current outbreak isn't contagious. The following paragraph in the lead mentions that the current outbreak is easily passed from person to person, but it's buried in a bunch of confusing and easily-glossed-over information. --Bando26 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to "Rarely, these strains of swine flu..." Tim Vickers (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention -- Tamiflu resistance may be slowed if Relenza is used first -- Harvard study

Hedging against Antiviral Resistance during the Next Influenza Pandemic Using Small Stockpiles of an Alternative Chemotherapy PLoS Medicine, AUTHOR-APPROVED VERSION OF THE COPY-EDITED MANUSCRIPT is available at http://www.plosmedicine.org/

"Many countries are investing in large stockpiles of a single drug, oseltamivir (Tamiflu). But influenza viruses can become resistant to antiviral drugs, and the widespread use of a single drug is likely to increase the risk that a resistant strain will emerge. If such a strain were to spread widely, the effectiveness of antiviral drugs in treating infected patients, as well as their ability to slow the spread of a pandemic, would be greatly reduced."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2009-releases/in-a-flu-pandemic-first-using-small-stockpile-of-secondary-drug-could-delay-resistance-to-primary-stockpiled-medication.html

If the swine flu continues to spread, it will probably lead to “unprecedented levels of use” of Tamiflu, the antiviral drug most developed countries have stockpiled, said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. That is likely to lead to the emergence of a new strain of the H1N1 flu virus that is resistant to Tamiflu, he said in a conference call today with reporters.
“Ideally we’d like to delay the appearance of those resistant strains as long as we can,” he said during the call. “If a country has a second drug and could use it for as little as 1 percent to 1.5 percent of cases, it could make a major difference.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=adAvvB1lod_s&refer=home

This is content for 2009 swine flu outbreak, not this article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend adding it to influenza treatment myself, since this is a general point that isn't linked to any one outbreak. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is relevant in the context of selected strains, so if it goes into Influenza treatment then it should be preceded by a discussion of the variation in resistance among strains. --Una Smith (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing the spead of the virus is the critical, to stop it futher mutating and become a stong more powerful virus. http://safetyinknowing.blogspot.com/ [4]

New article for humans?

Looking back over the last week, and seeing the changes to this article, I'd vote with Una to create a separate article for just humans. And maybe the most logical titles would be "Swine influenza in humans" and another " --- in swine. We can worry about name issues later. But I'm a bit concerned with potential conflict of interest issues since many of the editors will be human and might slant the POV. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough material for such an article. Moreover, wouldn't it be largely redundant with human influenza? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that article I don't see there will be that much overlap since it's highly technical. Maybe I'll put together a proposed outline and we can then compare all the relevant articles to see if it could stand alone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Influenza pandemic is very well written and a lot of it can be understood by the average person. Comparing the lead and much of the body of that one with human influenza, they seem dramatically different to me. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

I deleted this from the intro:

"that was produced by reassortment from one strain of human influenza virus, one strain of avian influenza virus, and two separate strains of swine influenza."

There is no evidence to support this. Of the 8 genes, all had been found in swine for at least a decade, although one was originally of avian orgin (PB2) and one human (PB1). This does not mean the new virus was a mixture of strains from different species, as the genes could all have come from pigs. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the finding of the very first analyses of the sequences, as reported in reliable sources. But now there is a newer analysis that gets a different result. I have added it to the relevant section. The outbreak no longer is top of the news so this level of detail does not need to be in the lead. --Una Smith (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article for another week, the signal-to-noise ratio of the IP edits seemed too low. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. update

78 are ill in the U.K. now, including victims in Gloucestershire, Merseyside, Dulwich, Reddich and Oxfordshire. --86.29.243.221 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I direct you to the article about the outbreak? 2009 swine flu outbreak Graham Colm Talk 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SIV

I don't like the use of the abbreviation SIV in the article. It is usually reserved for Simian immunodeficiency virus. Actually the swine 'flu virus should be called porcine influenza virus which is the correct adjective, but this might confuse readers. I welcome comments on this. Graham Colm Talk 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but sadly this abbreviation is sometimes used in the literature (eg PMID 19081490). Personally, I'd cut it from the text, but mention it in the lead as one possible abbreviation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, we can fix this minor problem when the situation calms down. Most readers will not know about SIV. Graham Colm Talk 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, although I suppose it is close enough to HIV to raise the idea in people's minds that the two might be related. Certainly a term to avoid. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and Symptoms

Can someone fix the large block of space under the In Humans subheading? I tried, but can't seem to. Thanks. TheLou75 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't visible for me. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor to me.Graham Colm Talk 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced-out human is now cured.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That whole first paragraph has nothing to do with signs and symptoms and should be removed (I can't edit it) or moved. (I still have the huge space, btw)

"Swine Influenza" or "Swine Flu" (A/H1N1-2009)

Its a MUTATION of the euro-asiatic influenza virus already knew years ago... i mean the virus scientifically named as "Influenza A virus subtype H1N1", responsible for the 1918 flu pandemic, that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide (A/H1N1-1918).--. 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OyashiroSama (talk • contribs)

New section on predicting severity needed -- Butler's article in Nature a good starting place

This article from Nature is a good starting place:

How severe will the flu outbreak be? Epidemiologists race to pin numbers on the global H1N1 spread.


Published online 5 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/459014a http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090505/full/459014a.html

North American Flu?

There appears to be no mention of the push to avoid the name Swine Flu. Now admittedly if Swine Flu is inaccurate because swine do not generally transmit the virus to humans then the alternative term is also inaccurate as North Americans are also not generally transmitting the virus to humans. How about Central America/Mexican Flu? Geographically more accurate but ... 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News Declan Butler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.241 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freezing

A note about freezing as a means of preserving virus. Freezing used to preserve viruses requires careful conditions, particularly use of preservatives, and deep freezing without thawing. Freeze/thaw cycles such as occur outdoors in winter (eg, day/night cycles) rapidly destroy influenza virus. --Una Smith (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts think birds shitting in permafrost and/or Siberian lakes might provide a reservoir of Influenzavirus A. However, I'm unaware of any proof of this possibility being an actual problem. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly unlikely to be a problem. Apparently, recovering the genome of the 1918 strain was very difficult and required piecing together sequence fragments. Nothing close to intact virus. Also, permafrost is below the ground surface. Some bodies from the 1918 epidemic were buried in permafrost or sealed in crypts dug in permafrost. In northern North America it used to be a common practice for larger community cemeteries to build in-ground crypts for storing bodies until conditions were more favorable for burial. --Una Smith (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

The image of the H1N1 vius is described as an electon microscope image, the technical term is electron micrograph but are we leaving this in an easy-read format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.76.42 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although that isn't as precise as it could be, it is more understandable to the general public. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, Electron micrograph is a redirect to Micrograph, where Micrograph#Electron micrograph merely refers the reader to Electron microscope. --Una Smith (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Would map. This is great and updated daily. Please, add this. Lvisko (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A map of the infected countries of the H1N1 flu of 2009.
  confirmed death and infections
  confirmed infections
  unconfirmed infections
Great map, but concerns the new A(H1N1) outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do not see them. Sorry for the inconvenience. Greetings from Poland.
Lvisko (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt gose nuts

Some clerics blame "God's vengeance on the infidels" (or whatever people mean when they say things like that) for swine flu.

[[6]] --86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Government to ensure Wikipedia is "correct and up to date"?

A junior member of the British Government has suggested that Britain's public servants should ensure Wikipedia promotes the British Government's advice on dealing with Swine Flue. Tom Watson MP writes:

"An absolutely fascinating piece on swine ‘flu by Robin Goad. UK internet searches for swine flu increased by 58 fold last week. Now here’s the question. As a very large number of click throughs for swine flu went to the wikipedia page, should public health officials spend time ensuring that the page is accurate and up to date? If not, should our content editors at DirectGov and NHS Direct be working with Wikipedians to make sure that wikipedia is providing the very best health care advice on how do deal with the H1N1 virus? Your views greatly appreciated."

Source: Watson, Tom (2009). "What is swine 'flu?". Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: year (link) -- GrahamSmith (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on that blog, thank you Graham. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too - we need experts and the more eyes reviewing the better, but maintaining the official position is not wikipedia's role and concerted effort to "spin" would be seen I think as meatpuppetry - so they are more than welcome to comment on talk pages, but direct participation per WP:COI needs be done with great care. David Ruben Talk 19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the most authoritative national statistics are published by governmental organisations such as the CDC or NHS, the official position is what we are already reporting. For example, if the Daily Mirror contradicted the Mexican government, I know which source I'd give most weight to. I don't think flu statistics and medical advice are something that the UK government would "spin". Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VACCINE

An article in the Korea Herald claims Researcher claims world's first swine flu vaccine.

A veterinary research team in South Korea said it had succeeded in developing a human vaccine against Influenza A (H1N1). This vaccine was developed by researchers from the college of veterinary medicine at Chungnam National University in South Korea. The team is led by professor Seo Sang-heui and says 'It is not toxic and can be mass-produced'.

The vaccine is expected to be available on the market sometime in September after basic clinical safety-related tests are completed, the team said.

The research team has named the virus strain CNUK-RG A/CA/4xPR/8 (H1N1) after the initials of the team's university. The team had notified the CDC and at time of contact, no human vaccine had yet been developed, according to Seo. The team is 'willing to offer the vaccine free of charge without conditions to research institutions and pharmacuetical firms around the world should they make a request - for the sake of the health of humankind'

The research team notified the CDC of its success and the CDC called it a 'very crucial development' Seo added. Gene7664 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I currect in stating this started in pigs?

See above86.40.160.150 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the United States is trying to do

I wanted to start a new section about what the United States is tryhng to do to fill and fix the pandemic. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsolis (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Batch of Influenza A(H1N1) Vaccine

On June 12 2009, Novartis claimed that they had completed the production of the first batch of influenza A(H1N1) vaccine[5]. - unsigned

It is just marketing hype. First, it is an experimental cell culture created vaccine paid for by the US gov't and covered at Flu research. Second, their marketing/news release says it is a H1N1 vaccine and Novartis does not claim it is a vaccine for the pandemic strain, meaning it is a potential vaccine for a seasonal H1N1 strain. Third, it has not even started clinical trials yet nor does this method yet have gov't approval for use in humans (and can't until the clinical trials are done). WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

swine flu vaccine

WASHINGTON — Inching closer to a swine flu vaccine, the government is beginning to analyze two candidates for the key ingredient to brew one.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hopes to deliver one or both to vaccine manufacturers in june 2009 so scientists can begin the months-long process of producing shots the government set aside $1 billion for crucial testing of the first pilot doses and stockpiling of key vaccine ingredients — in case world health authorities decide that people indeed need to be vaccinated starting sometime fall 2009. The stockpile will allow for quick production of shots to protect health workers and other people at high-risk from swine flu infection. DC scientists unveiled the most detailed genetic examination yet of the novel virus, finding that the new swine flu may have been circulating undetected in pigs for years…

The research represents a breakthrough that will be "critically important for our global health response," said Nancy Cox, director of the influenza division for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It could help ease creation of a vaccine to fight the novel strain and to prevent future mutations that could create more lethal flu infections.

"If we can determine the origin, we can take measures to make sure the virus doesn't re-emerge in a slightly different form," Cox told reporters.

That report, in the journal Science, still faill to solve the bigger mystery of when and where the virus made the jump to people and what genetic change allowed it to start spreading so rapidly. The virus was first detected may 2009, and at least 42 countries now have confirmed it in more than 11,000 people. At least 85 people have died from it.

The confirmed cases don’t represent anywhere near the full scope of the outbreak: For every reported case of swine flu, there may be 20 people sickened with it, said CDC’s Dr. Anne Schuchat — more than 100,000 people in the U.S. There are signs that it is declining in parts of the country, although school-related outbreaks in New York City and elsewhere have led to the closings of about 60 schools affecting 42,000 students, Schuchat said.

The candidate vaccine viruses the CDC has begun analyzing contain a mix of genes from the new swine flu virus itself with components of other viruses that allow them to grow better in the eggs that manufacturers use to produce vaccine. If one or both prove usable, manufacturers could begin producing pilot lots for testing summer 2009 to see if the shots are safe, trigger immune protection and require one dose or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahaida (talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu

i have a question please. can people get infected with swine flu and heal without taking medications. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadam (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As long as a person has an active immune system it may be possible to recover successfully from any infection of anything (including Swine flu) without the aid of medications. This is not meant as medical advice. If you are sick or wish health advice, see your doctor or governmental health service.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "Swine Flu" and not "Pig Flu"?

Why so much emphasis on usuage of the word "Swine"? I have no answers except that "Swine" is reffered to female pig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.5.18 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pig is an old neologism that specifically refers to domestic pigs. 'Swine' is a more encompassing term that includes wild boars, hogs and other porcines, more also, swine is more scientific term. The media has probably latched onto it for the latter reason. If you look at the swine influenza article you will find that swine influenza can also be referred to as pig flu or hog flu.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Music

I have added the following. I think it is appropriate. "Swine flu is a track on the eponymous 1991 [album Tumor Circus. Lyrics include "My childhood was bad. And this is my revenge. You'll never hear the end of swine flu".[6] [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think it is appropriate at all. 24.88.237.234 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in comparison to a global pandemic I can't think of anything less important. I'll remove this unless anybody else objects. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's next. a list of jew jokes in the holocaust section. the music addition has no purpose and is tasteless.24.88.237.234 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"causes of death" section is useful to keep

dear TimVickers: you merged the section "causes of death" into the previous section "Signs and symptoms". i believe that causes of death is important and should be seprate. browsing the internet, many people, if not most, are confused as to what leads the patients with swine influenza to die. i'm working on adding references to the section and will add them later. what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libyansamarkand (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to follow the medical Manual of Style, I also removed the section about cytokine storms as this probably doesn't apply to the 2009 H1N1, and is still of questionable relevance to the 1918 pamdenic strain. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing this article

Hi Wikipedians, there are some places were this article might benefit from copy editing to improve readability without changing the sense of the existing text. I'd like to take a crack at this, but can't because the article is semi-protected. Craig Hicks (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim! Craig Hicks (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

Why is it titled Swine Influenza instead of Swine flu? I assume its policy on medical articles? Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the disease currently spreading in humans is often called "swine flu" the disease in pigs is usually called "swine influenza", the more accurate title is probably the best choice on an article that talks about both. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, you know more about microbiology than I do; so perhaps you know the answer to this: Why is "influenza" more accurate than "flu" ? (Just curious.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the name of the disease is influenza, while 'flu is a shortened form of the full name. I might use "flu" in a informal piece of writing, but in an article about the medical and scientific aspects of the disease, then I'd tend to use the more formal full name. I suppose it is more a matter of style than accuracy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but Policy dictates the common name be used. Let me check though. WP:COMMONNAME. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There we are, exception for medical articles. [7] "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (unscientific, and/or slang name}" You guys are good. Keep up the good work. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms

Aside from general influenza (flu) symptoms. The claim that swine flu affects the bones or bone marrow in humans or swine is totally unfounded and untrue. Muscle joints aches headaches and general discomfort are general influenza symptoms and are also carried into swine flu.(Jack2384 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In which section of the article is this claim made? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else taking the drug Azathioprine, whilst starting to take Tammiflu ? (Shedbrewer (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

swine flu.?

what really mean by this swine flu? and what are the various causes responsible for it ..?












14:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.83.15 (talk)

Strange redirect

Swine flu redirects to 2009 flu pandemic and not to this article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. It may be necessary to keep an eye on the incoming links to 2009 flu pandemic, for further unsuitable redirects. --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange indeed!

Apparently, some editors of this article, as valuable as it may be for the topic of Swine flu infections in swine, are mis-directing and thereby misleading the majority of readers. The recent redirects of "Swine flu" to this article have been made without discussion or any reason given. I hate to do this, but here are the first two paragraphs from the lead of this article:

Swine influenza (also called H1N1 flu, swine flu, hog flu, and pig flu) is an infection by any one of several types of swine influenza virus. Swine influenza virus (SIV) is any strain of the influenza family of viruses that is endemic in pigs.[2] As of 2009, the known SIV strains include influenza C and the subtypes of influenza A known as H1N1, H1N2, H3N1, H3N2, and H2N3.
Swine influenza virus is common throughout pig populations worldwide. Transmission of the virus from pigs to humans is not common and does not always lead to human influenza, often resulting only in the production of antibodies in the blood. If transmission does cause human influenza, it is called zoonotic swine flu. People with regular exposure to pigs are at increased risk of swine flu infection. The meat of an infected animal poses no risk of infection when properly cooked.

Does this read like information that will be of interest to the majority of the population looking for "Swine flu" informaton? If you still think so, consider some facts: Up until the Swine flu became an epidemic affecting "humans," - not pigs, this article was averaging about 10 visitors per day. Within days after the mass media began reporting the epidemic as disovered by the CDC and WHO, this article's readership rose to 640,000! After tapering off, it has remained consistently high with about 25,000 readers per day.

Yet some, or most, of the editors of this article actually believe that 24,990 of those average readers looking for information about Swine flu actually want to read about Swine flu sickness in the pig population, not in humans. The human-related details about symptoms, prevention, treatment, vaccines, etc. that are covered in this article are miniscule compared to the 2009 flu pandemic coverage of those topics (I added much of that to this article.) So I request that those editors who obviously feel that the explosion of readership to this article was mere coincidence with the outbreak in humans, and that 99.99% of those new readers really are interested in the virus endemic in pigs, not people, please show your evidence, because IMO, your redirects have become an embarrassment. This topic has also been discussed on the Talk page of the 2009 flu pandemic article. What is the logic behind your redirects? Who do you think your readers are? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwatcher1, I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. "Swine flu" is an abbreviation of "Swine influenza". Hence this is the appropriate redirect. If a reader arrives at "Swine influenza" while actually seeking "2009 flu pandemic", he will easily and quickly find an appropriate link. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above and in other discussions, up until this outbreak→ epidemic→ pandemic, "swine flu" did refer to the virus endemic in pigs, namely "swine influenza." But now when anyone uses the term "swine flu," they are referring to the human pandemic. The meaning of "swine flu" has changed. "Google" used to be just a noun - now it's mostly a verb. Meanings change. Just Google "swine flu" and you won't find much about the influenza virus or even pigs today. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ayurvedic medicine

    for the prevention from swine flu,you should have REAL MEDICINE, which Ayurveda is not.

remove diarrhea

please see discussion at image subheading above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abortions?

Perhaps they meant miscarriages? Or maybe this is vandalism? Perhaps not but either way, citation needed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.112.83 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza prevention

This is not really about this article but it is a call for help on a related article, influenza prevention. My hope is to eventually have this article put into the "In the News" section, but it does not yet have appropriate content nor is it of high enough quality. I would like a consensus for this article and experienced editors to improve it. Any helpful edits to this article are greatly beneficial. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is S-OIV?

Several sources have identified "S-OIV" as an actual synonym for H1N1. Indeed, typing "S-OIV" in the wikipedia text entry field as a direct lookup redirects to Swine Influenza article. Yet the WikiPedia entry on this entity does not even list "S-OIV" in the document. (It isn't obvious and I don't see it when I do a ctrl-F find for that string.)

I would propose the following: 1) That someone who could enlighten me enlighten the world by including the answer to my question (or why H1N1 is called S-OIV and what it stands for at least). 2) That the official, verbose disambiguation section include it as a redirection from line.

Thank you in advance. Hope I did this right. (My first New Section in a discussion tab from an article!)

BCH

  1. ^ "Among the swine flu mysteries: Why only deaths in Mexico?", CNN Health.com, April 28, 2009
  2. ^ http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?Swine_flu_kills_23-month-old_in_first_death_outside_Mexico&in_article_id=640121&in_page_id=64 "Swine flu kills toddler in first death outside Mexico", Metro.co.uk, April 28, 2009
  3. ^ http://bouncewith.me.uk/europe/8027043.htm
  4. ^ http://safetyinknowing.blogspot.com/
  5. ^ http://hugin.info/134323/R/1322241/309865.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.superlyrics.net/lrc_lyrics/160/swine_flu_C99.htm
  7. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VumwZsjmpM
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swine_influenza&oldid=314435947"