Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2009 swine flu pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article's name discussion

from '2009 Mexico and U.S. swine influenza outbreak' to '2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak'

This article's name will be outdated the moment a case is reported in a third country. I suggest that once the strain is given a name by the CDC, that name be integrated into this article's title. Resurr Section (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What about : "2009 H1N1 flu outbreak" ? Yug 12:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.120.5 (talk)

Agreed. --Artman40 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Double agreed. Jolly Ω Janner 13:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed even more. Alphabet55 (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The current name, 2009 Mexico and U.S. swine influenza outbreak, violates Wikipedia's WP:NOR no original research.

1) This is because I haven't seen a single reliable source that call it this.
2) The introductory paragraph starts with "The", not "A" This means that it is a proper name, violating 1)
3) It's also inaccurate because there is reference in the news for it to be Mexican but not U.S. (even though there are 8 U.S. deaths).

The solution is:

1) Temporarily, to remove "The"
2) Follow the original suggestion to use the CDC name when it is coined.
User F203 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

just a correction... there are 8 US infections and 0 US deaths as of yet. --68.209.2.187 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For other rename, see Talk:2009_H1N1_influenza_outbreak#Rename proposal move to "2009 swine flu outbreak"

Edit conflicts

It seems like Wikipedia does pretty well merging edits, even if the diff from "Show changes" shows reverts. —Centrx→talk • 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

NY towns

[1] Let's leave the names in for now, please. They are so few (thankfully so far) that they are notable enough for a one-off mention, if the California counties are. rootology (C)(T) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything other than a general mention of these cases should be left out because they are identified speculatively by a single non-medical source, whereas the California counties are identified definitely as the same H1N1 by all medical authorities involved.

It is probable that one or both of the schools mentioned by the Daily News do not have the H1N1 swine flu. School outbreaks of various diseases happen all the time. A cursory search ([2]) reveals numerous major high-school flu outbreaks for many years.

Specifically, the virus at the Chappaqua high school was identified by the Westchester Health Department in this article specifically as norovirus, not influenza.

—Centrx→talk • 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This article suggests the Amityville case may have been influenza A, though still not necessarily this new H1N1 swine strain. —Centrx→talk • 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

However, this later article identifies the illness as a common form of influenza, not an unsubtypeable form that would have been sent to the CDC for special identification. —Centrx→talk • 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful flu-specific forum

The Swine Influenza Outbreak Forum at FluTrackers.com is a useful news aggregator, and also has some expert discussion that may be interesting.

FluTrackers is a very good link. Anyone object to listing this in the article under Outside Links?Nosimplehiway (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also added links under that section to the appropriate CDC and WHO pages. —Centrx→talk • 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also interesting are these comments at the BBC, which are reviewed and selected by the BBC but may be unreliable. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

Keep an eye on this;

You know how it goes-- this will start to spread fast from news sources, if even 0.1% true. rootology (C)(T) 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline breakdown found

See here. If anyone has access to local news sources that tie into the listed events and details, this article can be significantly expanded. It goes all the way back to March 30th. rootology (C)(T) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Maybe we can get together a list of sources like this, that are outside the Times's and the CDC's of the world. —Centrx→talk • 19:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Beginning this article

"There was a 2009 Mexico and U.S. flu outbreak of a new swine flu strain of Influenza A virus subtype H1N1.[1]"

This is the first sentence. It is strangely worded, not to mention when you dumb it down slightly, it is basically saying "There was a flu outbreak of a new flu strain of influenza". Too many flu's, and wrong tense since it's a current event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.46.85 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it up. For information on how you can edit, visit Wikipedia:Introduction. —Centrx→talk • 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kansas

I heard there were two cases in Kansas. Can anyone find a reference? 24.144.116.147 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[3] rootology (C)(T) 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspected cases

This article says that there are cases of this outbreak in Massachusetts and Minnesota, but don't approximate any type of figures. Should I wait to insert them into the table until a number is provided? — Σ xplicit 22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is another (3rd?) suspected case in Canada, per the media.[4] I would not mention it in the article, because now that this strain is on the "radar", in some places any influenza-like illness will be counted as a possible case involving this virus. --Una Smith (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deaths from possible cases

If we get a citation for the figure of 14 deaths from confirmed cases, will that then be subtracted from the 68 deaths from possible cases? Someone will have to keep an eye on making sure the numbers match up properly. --π! 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the way it was before, except renaming "Deaths from possible cases" to "Deaths from all cases". That column was apparently added as a "placeholder"--with empty and so incorrect values. Someone tried to correct it by adding values close to correct, and so it was all botched. —Centrx→talk • 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 44 of the deaths are still being investigated, we may have to lower that number eventually. --π! 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, though if Mexico is following its standard MO and informal reports are correct, such as BBC comments by the Mexico City doctor and another resident, the number will be higher. —Centrx→talk • 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

unusually virulent

None of the confirmed cases in the US were "unusually virulent"; either the phrase needs to be removed from this article, or it needs to be qualified with a source that establishes the virus in Mexico is in fact "unusually virulent". --Una Smith (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be supposed to be in reference to the fact that this severe swine flu spread by human-to-human transmission, not the usual direct contact with animals. —Centrx→talk • 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Virulence is the ability of a pathogen to cause disease (morbidity) or death (mortality). This new strain is notably low in its virulence, at least in California: there, out of the 50 cases that triggered investigation due to severity, 0 were this new strain. --Una Smith (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is too little data to draw conclusions about properties of the virus. It responds well to antiviral treatment. The fact that out of seven cases, none of them got deathly ill, doesn't say much. --π! 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The low virulence is demonstrated by the fact that although the new strain is circulating in California, none of the severe cases of influenza-like illness were due to the new strain. Anyway, low and high are relative; how about we just remove any subjective descriptions of the new strain, at least for the time being? --Una Smith (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm not seeing is the evidence that it is "circulating" in California. --π! 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Circulating is a tangent; do we need to discuss it? The difference in apparent virulence between the US cases and the central Mexico cases may be not in this new influenza virus, but in the secondary infection that causes the pneumonia that is the immediate cause of the deaths there. --Una Smith (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a difference in apparent virulence? Given numbers reported here recently on the news, 1600 cases in Mexico, of which 68 were fatal, vs. 8 cases in the US, split between California and Texas, how many deaths would we expect given the death rate in Mexico? Running the numbers, we'd expect 0.34 deaths, which is exactly what we have, rounded to the nearest integer (you can't have a fractional number of deaths). Victor Engel (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of colons. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just thinking through the epidemiology of this. The two things that we know is that 7 people were infected in California, and that nobody else demonstrating severe flu symptoms has proven to have H1N1. We cannot make any conclusions based on this. The seven probably had been to Mexico, heard about the outbreak, ran to the doctor as soon as they started to show symptoms, and have been on antivirals ever sense. You're assuming that other people have been infected and simply don't have severe symptoms, but we don't have evidence anyone else has even been exposed. --π! 01:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We all are thinking it through... None of the confirmed US cases had severe symptoms (eg, pneumonia); all were self-limiting. So far, it appears only one confirmed US case was even hospitalized,[5] and most (all the rest?) of the cases required no medical treatment at all. That's one approach to the question. The other approach is to consider what is know from surveillance of severe cases. The US has a large influenza surveillance program that preferentially checks the virus type in severe cases of ILI. In the US, so far no severe case of influenza due to this strain has been detected. See 2008-2009 Influenza Season Week 15 ending April 18, 2009 --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "we don't have evidence anyone else has even been exposed": the fact that all but 2 of the confirmed cases in the US are unlinked is strong evidence that this strain already has spread, undetected, among other people in the US. Re "The seven probably had been to Mexico, heard about the outbreak, ran to the doctor as soon as they started to show symptoms, and have been on antivirals ever sense." No, all 7 were detected by the influenza surveillance program, from samples collected days or weeks prior to the first public report. Also, the official reports about most of the confirmed cases state that the symptoms are mild and required no medical treatment. --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Myriad government denials as "responses"

Are we really going to add an entry for every single country in the world that denies any flu exists in their country, which will probably be every single country in the world that does not have any suspected cases? —Centrx→talk • 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted Denmark and Ireland, whose only response is the non-notable and ubiquitous statement that "we don't have it; we monitor developments and take all reasonable steps; wash your hands". Kept Peru because "maximum air and sea alert" sounds big and military, but it is possible Peru should be deleted too as it seems that phrase may just mean the same ordinary precautions every country takes. —Centrx→talk • 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the countries listed are appropriate as having a significant level of involvement, connection or action regarding the virus. I am positive we are not going to include every country, nor would I support such an endeavor. Cordovao (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree the entry on Peru is debatable in whether we should have it, but I personally think the governor's actions are quite notable in the current climate (emphasize on current, could be not notable later). Oh, and I agree with the removal of Denmark and Ireland. Cordovao (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, the Australian response can be found at this ABC report. The current Argentina section seems similar — does anyone else think it should be removed? --Zigger «º» 08:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Argentina section, as they were just following the global WHO advice. Ref was http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2648252220090426 . --Zigger «º» 08:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar 1

Any references to Madagascar should be considered highly suspect, and should probably be removed immediately absent solid citations.

For those unfamiliar, there is a popular flash game called Pandemic II, the object of which is to create a virus which kills off the entire world population. It is a nearly impossible game to win because at the slightest hint of ill health anywhere in the world, the President of Madagascar orders all ports into the country closed, thus preventing infection of his populace.

It has become a prevalent internet meme, and references to it have already been removed from this article at least twice. Wine Guy Talk 23:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps semi protect is necessary on account of this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that all Madagascar information should not be considered good faith, we should try to keep the rest of the page as easy to update as possible. For now, the vandalism is relatively contained and I don't think the whole page should suffer as a result. Ijwofawx (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Outbreak vs. Epidemic

I'm not suggesting we change the title of the page, I'm just curious — what would be the criteria to start calling this a "flu epidemic" as opposed to a "flu outbreak"? --π! 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This already qualifies as an epidemic AFAIK. GTNz (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably once we all agree it meets the technical definition. What about global pandemic? Same idea. rootology (C)(T) 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I hereby declare this to be the place to discuss the classification, once it becomes an issue. --π! 01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My amateur view is that the comparative epidemic label would be too ambiguous here as to the specificity(?) of the disease. Currently, it's too small for an "influenza epidemic", large enough for a "swine flu epidemic", but unique as a new strain. --Zigger «º» 10:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Doctor: Deaths far greater then reported?

Obviously they can not be confirmed, but should this be mentioned in the article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/8018428.stm --Vessol (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added it. If anyone feels that it does not meet WP:RS, please feel free to remove it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove this. It's misleading in regard to the vaccine (presumably for other types of flu) and the status of the deaths (lab-confirmed vs suspected). --Zigger «º» 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I cited the BBC article, which is an interesting source, but quoting one reader comment here goes too far. The BBC "Have your say" format does not stake the network's credibility on the veracity of each individual comment printed. However, we can assume that these comments taken as a whole are not altogether unrepresentative of the feeling of the Mexican readership. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I think I know where this came from. I'm pretty sure it's a copy/paste from 4chan's /x/ board, where all they really talk about is how the controversial issue of the moment is either a government conspiracy, a zombie apocalypse, or both. They've demonstrated a distinct tendency to incite panic just to get cheap laughs, so I wouldn't trust anything they say. Belgium EO (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

3 confirmed in Texas

I guess it is official now that there are 3 infected in Texas?? [6]--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Cases of this strain of influenza by country or state.' box

It would be nice if there was a 'last updated' note for this. 72.200.101.17 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Protect this page

I think that this page should be protected, as it's a matter of public health concern. False info could cause panic, etc. Thomasmallen (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protection won't ensure that only accurate information appears on the page, but will ensure that several major contributors to the article no longer can contribute. They are using anon accounts, perhaps because they are on travel and using insecure computers so do not wish to risk exposing their password to hackers. Better would be for more editors to watchlist the page and examine diffs. --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there are a few major contributors on the page using anon accounts here. Naughtyzzz (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Precautionary treatments

What I'd like to put in the article more than anything else is information about medical precautionary treatments that might help the flu, but it is essential to avoid speculation and stick to good sources. Still, I'd be grateful if the myriad editors working on this article watch for interesting reports:

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine - recommendations for these vaccinations have left many adults unvaccinated, but with the flu reported to have killed young adults in Mexico largely by pneumonia, will that change?

The 2008 seasonal flu vaccine - the CDC has said that it is "unlikely" to be effective. We should be seeing more solid data about this as this outbreak continues.

Nutrition and supplements - while these issues tend to raise controversy, there continue to be reports that nutritional deficiency contributes to the risk of illness.[7] This issue may be quite important to the world's poor.

New technology would also be nice, but our time to wrestle with the virus or the bureaucracy may have run out. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I did come across an article [8] earlier today which says that Baxter International has begun working on a vaccine. I considered adding this to the article, perhaps under the WHO response heading, but decided against it until more information becomes available.

If anyone thinks this should go in now, feel free to add it. Wine Guy Talk 06:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

United States section

Officials in the United States said that eight people were infected with swine flu in California and Texas and all have recovered.^[1]

In Kansas, two cases have been confirmed: a couple resident in Dickinson County. The husband traveled to Mexico in mid April for a professional conference and became ill after he returned home. The wife became ill later. They were not hospitalized and state health officials describe their illnesses as mild.^[2]

In New York, eight children in one school in New York City are believed to be infected after a school trip to Mexico. The New York case has been confirmed as Influenza A Virus, which meets the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or CDC) definition of a probable case of swine flu. Tests are still underway to determine if this flu virus is the new strain of H1N1.

Comments on United States section

The United States section seems a bit short. The above text might help improve it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

10 cases confirmed in New Zealand

10 cases have been confirmed here according to Television news, unfortunately theres no internet content to reference yet --119.224.40.127 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation has been found and added. Please note, that while these are now probable cases, they are not yet confirmed. Wine Guy Talk 08:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If a health official says it's likely, that means it's probably 99% likely. This is critical information and people interested in this subject are going to want to appreciate the international scope of this flu.--24.87.88.162 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, 99% would have a description such as "almost certainly". For the criticality and scope a link to the 1918 flu pandemic should be sufficient. If 5% of the world population dies, 10 students will matter little. People especially in NZ may well be interested, but wikipedia is not a news service. Let's focus on referenced facts for now rather than trying to spin an interesting lead. --Zigger «º» 09:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A health official saying it is likely means (1) influenza-like illness (ILI) and (2) some reason other than timing to link the ILI to this outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama's visit

From Bloomberg:

The first case was seen in Mexico on April 13. The outbreak coincided with the President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico City on April 16. Obama was received at Mexico’s anthropology museum in Mexico City by Felipe Solis, a distinguished archeologist who died the following day from symptoms similar to flu, Reforma newspaper reported. The newspaper didn’t confirm if Solis had swine flu or not.

JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/world/americas/26mexico.html?em -- it currently seems to be a "non-story". --Zigger «º» 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia says he died of a heart attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Solis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.66.223 (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard from a news source that it was pneumonia, not swine flu. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the deaths in Mexico seem to occur due to pneumonia resulting from a secondary/co infection. We do of course need reliable sources saying he died from swine flu and given that sadly the number of deaths is quite high, we'd need a good reason to mention this one specific person (he met Obama is not a good reason) Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar 2

(or over 9000?) :)

Someone just edited that Madagascar had it's posrts closed. I'm 100% sure it's someone from 4chan. --190.225.9.100 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it on the news, legit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.47.117 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/president-madagascar---shut-down-everything --80.162.43.158 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above under the exact same heading. Any addition of the Madagascar meme should be considered vandalism. As it seems to be very persistent I am on the verge of calling a semi protect of the article on account of this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this is a meme rather than legitimate news? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's a meme after all. But what if it actually happens at some point? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well thats easy to spot as there should be a reliable source cited to prove it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, I have not seen any reports of Madagascar actually doing anything. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection, regretfully. --Zigger «º» 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the best, in my opinion, Zigger. Thank you for requesting. Cordovao (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

France

Rumour mill says those cases turned out not to be swine flu afterall, but haven't seen a RS for that yet. 92.7.31.210 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section. News Limited's Daily Telegraph is not exactly famous for breaking French news, and openly shows the story's source as the vague "correspondents in Paris". --Zigger «º» 14:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the France section again (earlier) with a better source. --Zigger «º» 18:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one case now : http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/04/26/01011-20090426FILWWW00189-grippe-porcine-plus-qu-un-cas-en-france.php (french source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.220.231 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing style

Folks, please read Wikipedia:Recentism and try to write in an encyclopedic style with an eye on the future. Most of the article needs to be rewritten right now. It might be a good idea to look at other articles on outbreaks and learn from those. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have already read that wide-ranging essay, as well as historical articles on similar topics, but it may be more immediately helpful if you could make some specific suggestions or criticisms here. They will be welcomed. --Zigger «º»

In popular culture

I added an "in popular culture" section, and added a song that has been written about the disease, it appeared in Mexico's two biggest newspapers, reforma, and excelsior, and was properly cited, however, someone removed it since it adds nothing to the article. Anyone agree with keeping it? Agrupación Cariño wrote a song called Cumbia de la influenza.^[3]^[4]

IMHO, it really depends on how influential the song or the artist are in popular culture. Has this song charted in Mexico, either in CD sales or downloads (like how Don McLean's hit song American Pie references the death of Buddy Holly and company)? Has it become a semi-theme song for the event, used by news outlets and popular radio stations (like how Laura Branigan's song Gloria became associated with Hurr. Gloria)? Has the flu been featured on a major fictional television show or movie (like the Titanic being portrayed in a movie)? Some guy somewhere writing a song and it being mentioned in a newspaper or two hardly qualifies as a mass, pop culture phenomenon. Keep on eye on it, though. If it charts well, or is by a major artist, then I would support it's inclusion. Nosimplehiway (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin is harming the world, needs to be unlocked

This article is deadly serious. Minutes ago an administrator placed a lock on it preventing some people from writing. This needs to end.

If there is vandalism, then a special policy could be enacted for this article (due to the seriousness of the subject): any vandalism and no warnings, but immediate blocking.

Nohars (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The protection was needed to keep uncited and incorrect information out of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jojhutton. For the sake of seriousness then a lock might be needed, as it seems a lot of juveniles insist on adding false information to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience of such articles, particularly 7 July 2005 London bombings, non registered editors are invaluable in the early stages of development. While a target for vandals this article has the potential to draw in new editors and for them to supply up to date information. There is also significant input from other editors, more than enough to cope with any vandalism. I would appreciate if other admins could review this protection as I feel it unnecessary. |→ Spaully^₪† 15:20, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

This article is moving so quickly already. Lot of bad info out there and potential vandals - and this is so serious. Keep the block on - not difficult to get one anyway. Dinkytown 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are other admins required to review? The issue for me was that joke and data vandalism edits and corrections were impeding editing for all editors, and for readers the article was often in a vandalised state. The semi-protection is temporary, and I expect it will be lifted a few hours early anyway due to high interest in the topic. Swine influenza had already been semi-protected for 24h. --Zigger «º» 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection is fine, for this. rootology (C)(T) 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, consensus seems to support it. I suggested other admins had a look as I imagine they generally have more experience on block decisions than most users. Thanks, |→ Spaully^₪† 17:44, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

It has become difficult to submit an edit here due to edit conflict notices, and vandalism worsens the problem. Edit summaries tend to be missed or omitted under these circumstances. (I really wish Wikipedia offered a way for people to annotate edits after getting past the edit conflict checkpoint) People close to the action may log in to Wikipedia for the first time and submit interesting content, but even so it is only likely to run into "original research" policies or other obstacles. I hope that these people will find their way to the Talk page and submit information here, where experienced editors can try to pursue it and find solid sources, but they may not be aware that semi-protection only applies to the main article page.

Wikipedia does have a process called "WP:article probation" if necessary, but hopefully things won't come to that. Mike Serfas (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

as an anonymous contributor support the protection approach for now, this is a serious developing situation that needs accuracy and authoritative sourcing, feel like the people who are editing are doing a good job - once the immediacy fades then can remove protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.179 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

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

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

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

Ireland

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

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

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

Switzerland

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

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

pork end

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

The UAE was a major pork consumer before all this, eh? [[9]] Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saint Francis Prep

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

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

Separate section for Taiwan and China

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

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

Table ordering and placement guidelines for this article

I suggest we enforce this way:

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

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

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

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

Confirmed cases section

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no such lack of media coverage in Mexico. The only thing you can read or hear in the national media is regarding the flu outbreak. However all the information is hardly translated, therefore the availability of such in english is limited. I’ll try to expand the information regarding Mexico in its own article, because there is a lot of critical information missing.Konegistiger 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New (lower) figures for Mexico?

Since the 1400 figure is mentioned on the front page I thought I would bring it up here. It seems Mexican President Felipe Calderon has stated that only 400 of the claimed 1300 are still being diagnosed, while the other 900 has been declared healthy (see here and it has its own story here). It seems to be in conflict with the earlier reports. Any Spanish languaged editor that has a more substantial source on this speech than the short mention in the Reuters article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish readers would have to verify it. rootology (C)(T) 21:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is rather expected that there are more people infected with the virus, because we have a mortality rate with 1,400 infections and 86 deaths of 6.1 percent. According to Michael Osterholm, the mortality rate of the 1918 flu pandemic was only 2.5 percent, some other sources claim 2.5 to 5 percent. 400 infections to 86 deaths would mean a mortality rate of 21.5 percent. Even if you calculate with 400 infections to 20 (confirmed) deaths, the mortality rate is 5 percent. For example, the usual flu epidemic mortality rate is 0.1%.^[5]^[6] If the figures are reliable, it would be a highly deathly virus. -- Grochim (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

^ "Human Swine Influenza Investigation". US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
^ "Kansas Couple Contracts Swine Flu State Describes Illnesses As 'Mild'". Associated Press (via Kansas City News). April 25, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2009. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |title= at position 34 (help)
^ "Hasta que la Influenza nos alcanze". Excelsior. Retrieved 2009-04-26.
^ "La Cumbia de la Influenza". Reforma.com. Retrieved 2009-04-26.
^ Taubenberger, J (2006). "1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics". Emerg Infect Dis. 12 (1): 15–22. PMID 16494711. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Knobler S, Mack A, Mahmoud A, Lemon S (ed.). "1: The Story of Influenza". The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary (2005). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 60–61. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

That makes sense. But apparently Calderon is also disputing the casualty figure, claiming that only 20 of the 86 has been diagnosed with the swine flu. (Unfortunately I only have a Danish language source for that one here. It does seem likely that these statements should mostly be taken as panic control. But it would be nice to hear from Spanish languaged editors exactly what he said, and whether it can be backed by any reliable evidence. --

The Confirmed (Unconfirmed) convention is misleading. As is, it appears like there are 20 confirmed deaths and 103 unconfirmed deaths, totaling 123 deaths, although there are only 103 total. We should either call it Confirmed (Total) or show 83 unconfirmed deaths alongside 20 confirmed ones.SpecialK12 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

School Closures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

victim box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the above article which states-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant figures

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

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

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

Confirmed cases and death

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand suspected Cases

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

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

Doezens suspected to have the Swine flu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Spread Map

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

NZ cases now confirmed

Swine Flu A Wrong Name

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

Reported by Reuters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspected cases in Italy and the Netherlands

According to Veratect. [10] JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Lead

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

Re: Swine influenza

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

Cases and responses by nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama near infected person?

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

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

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

so I found a ref already, [[11]]... apparently a museum curator who hosted a reception for the visit, has later died of flu-like symptoms, but it has not been confirmed as swine flu yet. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Also of note, pneumonia has been noted as a secondary effect in some of the Mexican fatalities, so this would actually fit one possible outcome of what little we know so far of this form of the H1N1. aremisasling (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED Simpler Tracking Table

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

Therefore I propose that we re-do the numbers box, listing case numbers, total dead, etc to list the numbers from just one source, the World Health Organisation.[[12]] WHO is generally regarded as being the coordinating body for this outbreak, and if the time comes to call it a pandemic, they will be the ones making that call. Their numbers may be slightly older, but they will, on the whole be more carefully evaluated and more accurate.

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

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

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

I strongly disagree. WHO are currently reporting a grand total of 20 cases [13]. It seems there are enough editors willing and able to produce a more up-to-date table, and I see no reason to discourage them. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 dead in the United States of swine flu?

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

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

More UK suspected cases

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

regarding the maps of outbreaks

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

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

BBC News reporting more US cases and Mexican deaths

BBC News reporting this

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

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

Diagnostics section

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

Confirmed in the United Kingdom

source [14]. 82.23.106.229 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request for the tracking table, see here

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

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

New case in Ohio

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

Confirmed cases in the UK

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

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

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

Let the proper Authorities figure out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belgium

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

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

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

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

Israel

Shouldn't "Mexican flu" be mentioned as an alternate name? According to Israel, it should be called that, because "swine" is unclean... [15][16][17] 76.66.196.218 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)