This is an archive of past discussions about 2009 swine flu pandemic by country summary. 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.

South Korea

The victim is only "probable" not "laboratory confirmed". So it is either 17 suspected, or 1 probable and 16 suspected. Kadrun (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So s/he would be in the "suspected" category. Any cases not laboratory confirmed would be placed in that column. -Xavier Fung (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

THE SOUTH COREA GOVERNMENT HAS A LAB CONFIRMED CASE. CAN ANYONE CHANGE THE MAIN PAGE ABOUT THAT? I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DO SO. for more info see: http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/10393923 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.106.86 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also founded in Google Maps: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=108544464229376653670.00046882ec31a0adcb220 and another from swivel http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/33115823 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbirik (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of display

This is one of the greatest templates ever made on WP. It has a lot of press attention, it is a running heartbeat monitor of the spread of the flu. To that end, can it be more stable and consistent? Every time the formatting changes, it's a new chart which I have to re-adjust and re-learn and re-visualize. Stability and consistency is important in the ongoing usability of this chart. I watch it daily and every time it changes it's really a pain - for example, I have the old chart up on my screen, I hit the page-reload button and expect the same chart to show up again with new numbers so I can compare how the flu has grown since I last checked. There is no perfect or right way to display the data, just pick one method and stick to it is the important thing. Green Cardamom (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. The table has changed a number of times a day so far. I had started a discussion to get consensus on a stable format below. Not had much input as yet though. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:31, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

Consistency of display

This is one of the greatest templates ever made on WP. It has a lot of press attention, it is a running heartbeat monitor of the spread of the flu. To that end, can it be more stable and consistent? Every time the formatting changes, it's a new chart which I have to re-adjust and re-learn and re-visualize. Stability and consistency is important in the ongoing usability of this chart. I watch it daily and every time it changes it's really a pain - for example, I have the old chart up on my screen, I hit the page-reload button and expect the same chart to show up again with new numbers so I can compare how the flu has grown since I last checked. There is no perfect or right way to display the data, just pick one method and stick to it is the important thing. Green Cardamom (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. The table has changed a number of times a day so far. I had started a discussion to get consensus on a stable format below. Not had much input as yet though. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:31, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

Change name = confusion

Here's an example of why changing the name away from swine flu is not a good idea. Take my source from Hong Kong. It only says influenza A H1N1 confirmed. There are other types of H1N1, but I guess it refers to swine flu? [1] F (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO has changed the disease name, so every country would follow.-Xavier Fung (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Previous flu pandemics have all been named for their country of origin. It should be Mexican Influenza to match this convention. The new name is worse than the old. Hawthorn (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that this is not a matter to be discussed here in Wikipedia.-Xavier Fung (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't make up a name ourselves, if that's what you mean. But people editing this table need to be aware that some reports may now be ambiguous. What should we do with such reports? Ignore them unless the context makes it clear? Hopefully it will be in most cases. -- Avenue (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question is valid, as I also find that media reports are somehow "mixing" with different names when the pandemic progresses. From news reports here in Hong Kong, the officials said the name "swine flu" would still be chosen as most people would be more familiar with this name instead of the actual name of the virus strain, but in one of the newspapers (MingPao) here they report as North American flu.-Xavier Fung (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Flags

YOU GUYS ARE SERIOUSLY ARGUING ABOUT FLAGS__? ITS NOT IMPORTANT IN BOTH SIDES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.177.2 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I've removed all of the {{flag}} icons from the template. While they may be pretty, they really add nothing but clutter in such a tight space. --auburnpilot talk 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, again. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) - making things 'pretty' is not a reason to add flag icons. --auburnpilot talk 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they are of no practical use. Please discuss here before anyone adds them again. And do be careful if you do - the edit conflict dialogue is to stop deleting information. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:31, 27 April 2009 (GMT)

Removed once more. Talk here first if you think they should be added. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:23, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

Hey, this is not very important issue, but I just love these genius people reverting everything, including my editation - I propose adding flagicons to each country - it looks better than just grey boxes with text, and with flags, it is much easier to find the country you're looking for. Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted the first time by AuburnPilot above for the reasons he describes. Once that happened you added them again twice when the usual course of action would be to discuss it here to get consensus.

I agree it looks better with flags, but as AuburnPilot says they should not be added for that reason alone, I don't think it makes it significantly easier to read the table and it does take up space at the top of the main article.

Maybe try again, on talk, once this has died down a bit. The table probably wont be at the top of the article forever and then space wont be so important. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:50, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

I added them only once! I didn't see any problems with that, but obviously some people can always think of some. So my reason is - why NOT? As I said, it is much easier to find country with a flag, it is way better than just chaotic grey "jungle" with boring black text. --Novis-M (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the table takes up a large amount of space in narrower (but still common) window sizes. Adding extra stuff just for the heck of it increases the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, add the flags because it makes the table more attractive to see... I don't find any problem in that as the flags should be quite small as well as the text, or otherwise make 2 columns if the space is what your fighting for... The purpose here is to make an agreement with everybody so everyone may have what they what. --AMM1995 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the æsthetics of the table is a relatively minor (but not irrelevant) point. Personally I prefer them for reasons of Web accessibility — I find it much easier to parse the table with flags there. I do understand, though, that consensus is prolly against us flag-loving types here. Is it worth a poll? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspected deaths ?

A few hours back I read a news article that Mexico no longer plans to release suspected death statistics, after all the initial confusion they caused. Unfortunately I cannot locate that reference again now, but if someone can verify the information - I suggest that we remove the suspected death statistic from ourt table since the data is, (1) suspect (no pun intended), and (2) already is, and will increasingly be more, outdated. Any comments ? Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that late last night. They are also stopping updating suspect cases. However, I would suggest leaving the figures in until they stop being reported by the media. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I still can't find the source I refer to above, but note that this recent news report (<20 minutes old) contains no suspected death numbers. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this using google: [2]: Mexico's health secretary Cordova "says Mexico has 260 confirmed swine flu cases, including 12 deaths. But he says he'll stop updating his count of suspected cases and deaths, which had stood at about 2,500 and 168." Since no other country is reporting suspected deaths, I think we too will eventually stop doing so; as for suspected cases, we need to at least add a note that the Mexican number was last updated at dd-mm. Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to say the Mexican suspected cases are no longer being officially updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Limits for Confirming Cases

The US Centers for Disease Control have issued a recommendation, which is followed by hospitals, and which states that only patients are tested who show full flu symptoms and have a connection to Mexico or another known case. This is bound to leave an increasing number of real cases untested. As the endemic goes global, the Mexico connection becomes increasingly irrelevant. Further, the recommendation is based on limited testing capacities, which implies that testing facilities will soon be overwhelmed. In the US, the number of confirmed cases has more than doubled every two days since the beginning of this week. CuriousOliver (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDC has distributed testing kits to NewYork and Califonia, other states are intended to recieve kits monday. This will keep states from having to overnight samples to Atlanta for testing. Without a source I can not tell you if the Testing recomendation pretains to all medical facilities or if it is only a temporary stop gap until monday. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and Unreliable Information

The information presented in the Table on the number of Possible or Probable Cases and Deaths of H1N1 flu victims suffers from the inclusion of dozens of unreliable and unverifiable information which makes is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on this subject and has gotten out of hand.

Re: Reliable Sources for Medicine-Related Articles

Many of the referenced sources are popular news articles that are passing along rumor and unverified information. What got me started trying to raise the flag about inaccurate information stemmed from several articles from non-popular, local news outlets that were simply reporting hearsay and random emails about someone possibly being sick, and then later retracting the information. The popular press is playing fast and loose with any facts they present, which makes the listing of possible and probable cases as something that is fluid, un-scientific, and unencyclopedic. The information from those sources would never make it into any journal article or respected publication due to these problems.

It is irresponsible for wikipedians to be spreading such information on a medically-related wikipedia article, at the top of the page, that distorts the information being distributed by government sources and medically-oriented sources and publications about the outbreak. The table sensationalizes the issue, and portrays inaccurate numbers that are meaningless. Whereas some popular news articles publish updated WHO, CDC, and other medically-related bodies, that is okay as they are reporting verifiable facts.

Years of medical school have taught me that for medicine, you need to look at your level of evidence...and Wikipedia is no different, especially when it comes to presenting information about medicine-related topics. We should be listing information from reliable sources, and only including breaking-information from those sources where an popular-press author has provided that information ahead of the reliable source's publications. Including popular-press scare-mongering information that is designed to grab headlines is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article that is supposed to be presenting a NPOV.

I would like people to discuss this issue regarding the removal of unreliable information from the table. I tried adding a tag to the table sub-article, but was quickly banned by some authors that wanted to mute any discussion about reliable sources in inaccuracies. We are all trying to ensure that Wikipedia provides a balanced, and accurate representation. Flipper9 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. That's particularly pertinent warning in the light of Operation Baa Ram Ewe, [3] a culture-jamming group which is currently inciting the idea to astrotruf bogus swine flu reports:

Raid www.wikipedia.org - Using provided logins or your own, give false reports on the flu causing massive shitstorm for wiki readers. Wikipedia will be a large provider of information for the flu for everyone, get this right and the raid will be a success.

with some kind of anti-media agenda. 86.150.51.112 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You copied this from Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Sensationalism where you had a large number of responses. Let's not do it all again here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is newly typed, and not copied from the #Sensationalism topic. And it was suggested that I move the discussion here for appropriate discussion. It sounds like you are attempting to build a case to ban people that disagree with you. Very unwelcoming. Flipper9 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That kind of personal attack will get you nowhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither will your's nor will the other person's. Flipper9 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Flipper, if you can let us know which specific sources you think are "simply reporting hearsay and random emails about someone possibly being sick", then we can review them. As far as I can see most sources are citing national or state health authorities with regards to confirmed and suspected cases, which is perfectly appropriate - but there may be exceptions, and those sources should and will be removed. (also for future reference, please see WP:TLDR :) ). Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the content guideline link I posted for medically-related wikipedia articles? Popular press articles are not reliable sources for this type of article. Reliable Sources (medicine-related articles) I will work to compile a list of popular press articles that do not provide accurate information. Flipper9 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WPMED applies to sections that discuss symptoms, treatement, and precautions against infection. It does not apply to statisitcal data that is cites reliable sources. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I look forward to your list.

PS Most regular editors here are very familiar with WP:MEDRS, which is relevant when talking about characteristics of the disease and its treatment etc. Mainstream news sources are perfectly acceptable for citing how many cases/deaths have been discovered and where. If you have questions about such wider wikipolicy issues, I would suggest that you post them at WP:RSN. Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:MEDRS is mentioned that the content guideline only refers to characteristics of the disease and its treatment. The table is part of the article, as far as the reader is concerned, and is presenting medically-related content to the general public. I don't see why WP:MEdRS does not apply. Flipper9 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you have specific objections to specific sources, please raise them here. If you wish to better understand, or dispute, the application of WP:MEDRS, take it to WP:RSN. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For starters, the main table references wikipedia articles (which is a no-no) as a reference, re: reference #6 and 8. Diving down randomly into the large number reported for Mexico from a popular news article that gives the number 2498 with no information about where that information came from, and then reports making it look like the Mexico Health Secretary said there were 2000 possible infections. The information is not clearly presented, and the article itself unsourced. Finding others. Flipper9 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Refs 6 and 8 are not referencing wikipedia articles. They are notes that tell the reader where to find the detailed sourced information.
The Time's article is using data from Mexico Health department and Jose Cordova, Mexico’s Health Secretary. You can verify this by reading this report, which is just one of many sources verifying the information.

Do you have any sources, that you think "simply reporting hearsay and random emails about someone possibly being sick", or are you just venting here ? Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They are referencing totals gleaned from a wikipedia article. That borders on original work. If you want to reference it correctly, include all references that make up the total, and not another wikipedia page. Flipper9 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Florida table yesterday (many edits ago) that removed the quote you are reffering to. I am looking up other specific sources and not venting. Why the accusation? Flipper9 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference #29 (Minnesota) that makes up part of the total on this world-wide table from the self-refernced wikipedia article reports 50 possible cases, but the referenced article doesn't even exist at the website anymore. The popular press articles are posted and retracted all the time. Not reliable sources of information for such an important and high profile wikipedia article. Flipper9 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the MN article was no longer online and is outdated information anyway. I have removed it from the corresponding table. General note: there is a difference between a newspaper updating a story and redacting (withdrawing) it. Currently your overblown hyperbole, is just hurting your credibility. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Flipper9, this is intended as friendly advice, but attack me if you must. This is the last comment I will make on this subject... I just looked through your edit history and it is pretty clear to me that you really, really want the "unencyclopedic" tag on the Swine Flu articles. I have no idea why, but it is clear you want the tag to the exclusion of anything else. You have made no recent edits to try and improve the article and have failed to provide a single example of what you are talking about. Furthermore, every time someone points out that your reasoning for the tag is invalid you change your reasoning, but not you instance on this specific tag.

At this point, it should be clear that your view is not going to prevail. You are welcome to think everyone else is wrong, but you are just wasting your time arguing about it. I suggest you move on the something else, try to actually improve the article, or (probably the best option) take a wikibreak until you calm down.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Rather than attacking the person raising the issue, why not discuss the issue? I know the knee jerk reaction is to work to ban editors that the majority disagrees with, but why all the hostility? I am trying to improve the article by pointing out the unencylopedic content of the article. If that is not trying to improve the article, I don't know what is. Go ahead and report me for discussing about improving the article, go ahead and collapse the argument here if you disagree with it. Not sure if that is constructive use of the discussion page. Flipper9 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note dropped on ANI asking for more eyes on this discussion. rootology (C)(T) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Second posting, same subject: Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#Unverifiable_Information_Must_Be_Removed Where I asked the editor to keep the discussion on the main page. Ikip (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by an editor that had me banned before to move the discussion here, re: Abecedare. Flipper9 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the forces that be wish that there be no discussion about the legitimacy of sources and the unencyclopedic content of this and related articles. I hearby remove my contention with this article hence I be banned for life from editing Wikipedia for speaking up. Flipper9 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss all you want. You haven't discussed anything flipper. You have merely accused. And then failed to provide instances to back up your accusation.Hawthorn (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can stop attacking me for challenging the information presented in the article. A different user below has brought up the same issue with more information. Go attack him instead. Flipper9 (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How long would it be for countries with 0 cases to display?

Just want to know how long should we keep those countries on the table which have reports of case clearance (either 0 suspected case or confirmed case). I have made 2 edits before which removes the countries of zero cases (sorry guys), and they are restored. This is understandable but wanna know so that other editors could be coordinated. Thanks! -Xavier Fung (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what they do here, but over on the US template if a state has 1 probable case that gets tested and comes back negative, we put a '0' followed by a source. This updates people and keeps us from adding the case back in if someone sends us an old news report. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to removing them entirely is to comment them out, so that when an editor goes to re-add them (based on old info) they see the comment and realize the ir info is out of date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, try commenting them out if you like. The problem with that is that they could be reinserted anywhere in the table, so that editor might not notice it. But maybe it will work. -- Avenue (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please update

This was just released roughly 20 minutes ago. It as an official WHO report. I tried to update it myself, but the template was pretty confusing. [4]Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I am updating the image. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Bolivia? There's a report about a suspected case. Anyone willing to add this to the template? Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uptaded. Bolivia has no suspected cases whatsoever. [5]. I'd added that info before, and taken it out when got that confirmation. Alhen ♐... 13:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change mexican confirmed infections to 358: Mexican Health ministry

Done--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just use the template I gave. Case Switzerland.

As of May first Switzerland has reported the following:

http://www.bag.admin.ch/influenza/06411/index.html?lang=de

That is the Swiss Health Ministry.

1 confirmed, 17 suspect.

The link to the 24 suspect in the table comes from a report based on April 29.

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/panorama/schweinegrippe_schweiz_information_bag_1.2473319.html

I just want to highlight that the Health Ministries worldwide have taken this issue seriously and are updating accordingly. Also, that suspected cases get CLEARED. They get proven not to be A/H1N1 virus.

Please update accordingly, based on the most recent information of each countries Health Ministries.

GaussianCopula (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, most countries aren't "officially" tallying suspect cases. Other than that, of course we should use the official page whenever it is up to date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland should be updated. We are using a media report based on April 29. There is already a report (2nd page)dated May 1st from the Swiss Health Ministry stating that there are only 17 suspected cases. This should be updated.

http://www.bag.admin.ch/influenza/06411/index.html?lang=de

GaussianCopula (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the link. Abecedare (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect most countries are 'officially' tallying suspect cases, or rather ILI cases since it's one of the figures the WHO wants them to report. Of course it may not be something they are reporting publicly, but it doesn't mean they aren't tallying them Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Countries with confirmed human-to-human infection" note

I have doubts about the usefulness and esp. the reliability of this recently added note, but would like to hear other opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We tried a similar "in-state transmission" classification on the US Template. It was generally agreed to be to cumbersome, not equally verifiable to states, and largely dependent on OR. It was agreed that on the most notable cases, where valid sources existed, we would make a mention in the article text. Furthermore all of the cases are "human-to-human" except for the first one; the kid that touched the pig. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

'all of the cases are "human-to-human"' - that's what I was thinking (well maybe not 100% but certainly a vast majority). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also unsourced. I've added a {{fact}} tag. -- Avenue (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed these superscripts, which are unsourced and no relevance has been established. the 2009 swine flu outbreak article is currently been visited by around half-million readers/day; so leaving unconfirmed data up for even 1 additional minute potentially misleads 300 readers! We should be aggressive about removing unsourced and dubious information from the template and the page. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see the superscripts go, but can appreciate that they are a product of WP:SYNTHESIS (not WP:OR). Their relevance is the difference between a limited outbreak and an epidemic. In most countries, the cases are linked to travel to Mexico and there is no evidence that the virus is circulating in those countries. So, even though we are unable to contain the virus in North America, its basic reproduction number (R0) appears to be low enough that it may die out on its own. --Una Smith (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the superscripts are very relevant to the main article. I don't agree they represent an improper synthesis (which would be a form of WP:OR), or at least not if they are sourced to appropriate sources like this one: Two swine flu cases in Europe transmitted person-to-person, Irish Times, 2 May 2009. I think they can and should come back if they are properly sourced. -- Avenue (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>
I have no objections to including this data again, either, as long as:

We establish the relevance of the metric for the reader, i.e., provide a source that says that within country person-to-person transmission represents the "difference between a limited outbreak and an epidemic."
Source the inclusion of each country.

Personally, I think presenting the above two necessary bits of information will be done better in the article text, rather than the table - but that is a matter of presentation style, that is of secondary importance and can be discussed once the sources are avaialble. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree the info is important, I just don't think it belongs in the table. It belongs in the text only. There are too many subtleties to handle it with a simple footnote, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico suspected symbol use: † or other

As explained in my second edit (and last on this issue) the symbol † means a dead subject in biological shorthand. This is why I've been avoiding it so far despite normally being the first used. I don't mind what other symbol is used but strongly suggest this one is inappropriate. |→ Spaully^₪† 08:14, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

I agree with this. Hdstubbs (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I usually use ‡. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First probable case in Puerto Rico

http://www.elnuevodia.com/primercasoprobabledegripeporcina-564318.html A 5 year-old boy from Texas traveled to Puerto Rico on April 28th and he is infected with Type A influenza, next Tuesday it will be confirmed is he has the H1N1 strain. Please, if some can, add the information... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.202.195 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico case is already considered in the US-table 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilmarwoy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases

Does anyone else feel that we need another confirmed case, or perhaps the loss of one so we don't have 666 total? I'm sure I'm not the only one to calculate the figure to make sure it ain't vandalism :-P Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you voluenteering to be sneezed on? Go ride the subway with Joe Biden. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Probable vs suspected cases

I think we should reverse the order of suspected and probable cases in the main table (in analogy to the list of countries with no confirmed case). The more important figure is "probable cases", and more and more health ministries only report numbers probable cases. My suggestion is to reverse it and list probable cases (with suspected cases in brackets). Hilmarwoy 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsorted discussions

TPM's 2,500 plus... Hey, let's take a break here...

I will highlight all the news sources I can find to try and find the claim of TPM's 2,500 about number...

Why we change the information regarding the table that there are now 2,500 or so cases in Mexico based on a blog, really confuses me.

Nothing that I have found in all the recent news items says anything about 2,500 or so cases in Mexico.

Absolutely nothing.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN3051669120090501

http://www.proceso.com.mx/noticias_articulo.php?articulo=68444

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/05/01/um/m-01909232.htm

http://portal.salud.gob.mx/contenidos/noticias/influenza/estadisticas.html

http://news.google.com.mx/news?hl=es&q=Jose%20Angel%20Cordova&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

http://news.google.com.mx/news?um=1&ned=es_mx&hl=es&q=casos+sospechosos+h1n1

So I can only add, why are we using the blog site TPM which states .... "But he says he'll stop updating his count of suspected cases and deaths, which had stood at about 2,500 and 168."?

Where is this information coming from? Where is the statement that said 2,500 suspected cases?

STOP using media articles that are fighting for headlines. Please stop.

That 2,500 from TPM is so pulled from that blogger website's azz that it is ridiculous.

GaussianCopula (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2498 has been everywhere for days. The "new" 2500± (that is plus or minus, NOT plus) simply reflects the fact that the number is no longer being updated. P.S. I saw this exact same "approximately 2500" statement in several articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See Google and pick your favorite source if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) See [6], [7] etc for the 2498 number. And please be calmer in your posts. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to let the issue regarding the unreliable numbers and sources be allowed to be discussed rather than trying to squelch criticism of the article based on its merits, telling people to take a break, or to calm down. Several people have brought up this issue. Flipper9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Look flipper9, all I am saying is that the quoted sources from TPM, which is a blogger site, refer to information on 2 news items.

One of them is the April 29 news article by the TimesOnline which headline says: "Mexico confirms swine flu toll rises to 159" one reads the first sentence to find that "The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159", I don't think that is a reliable article to quote.

The second one is from kxmc, also from April 29, which states:" MEXICO CITY (AP) Mexico's' Health Department says the number of suspected swine flu deaths has risen to 159, with the virus confirmed as the cause of death in 26 of those cases.

Health Secretary Jose Cordova says 2,498 suspected cases of swine flu have been reported, with 1,311 of the patients still in the hospital."

My only commment about this is the supposedly one-upmanship of newspapers trying to get the best headline possible and that we are ignoring the facts being provided by the health ministries of each country that is affected.

You want to have 2,500 as a number in suspected cases for Mexico? Go right ahead. You can add 10,000 if you want. The fact of the matter remains that you can add 2 million to the number of affected mexicans because of the H1N1 virus and you will only rely on bloggers, TimesOnline or some local station to provide you with the number. As to why you ignore the information provided by official sources, well that is up to you to decide.

If this sickness is about how high we can have the table go, then of course, it is nothing but a game. Why we would want to do that, I personally don't know.

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment was directed at ThaddeusB and Abecedare. I was supporting you. Flipper9 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Flipper. Still, maybe you can comment on my argument. Sorry, to bring you into this. To be honest, I really mean the fact that sources can be used to say that Mexico has 2,500 or 2 million or 2 billion infected. I just don't understand why nobody takes a moment to realize what the source is and if it makes any sense compared to the official news.

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If the figure for suspected cases is no longer being updated then it is by most normal meanings of the word, "unsourced"; in effect, the Mexican government has disowned it. It should be removed, and not merely given a small footnote near the bottom of the table. And since the figure comprises over half of the total, it lends one to question the total itself -- and perhaps the very idea of reporting whatever "suspected" figure the media or medical authorities choose to pull out of their ass. I'd also like to voice a little support for both Flipper9 and GaussianCopula, in their efforts to remove the stain of mainstream media references from this template/article. I've mentioned this before during similar media clusterfucks: the mainstream media is not Wikipedia's friend. They aren't even in the same game. It is an absolute disgrace current Wikipedia policy places these yahoo's on a pedestal of respectability. Wikipedia can, and should, do better. mdf (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They haven't "disowned" it - merely stopped updating it. It is the best figure we have and should stay until the time that the whole column become obsolete which clearly isn't the case at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete? Why write an article/table that is pre-determined to be obsolete with information that is incomplete and misleading? The only information in that table that will stand the test of time is Confirmed Cases and Confirmed Deaths. The other information in that column is purely news, which should be on WikiNews and not an encyclopedia article. Flipper9 (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments mdf. I think we are caught in a bit of a bind at least until May 5th in regards to Mexico. They normally have Labor Day on May 1st and Cinco de Mayo, May 5th, as a holiday. In any regards, I will be monitoring the data from their official website of the Health Ministry, which they did update today, to see how it goes during this holiday period. The suspected cases though are a bit tricky since I have not found an official source for that and we are using currently the information from a blogger based on a deficient TimesOnline report as well as a local news kxcm news report.

But I don't think it matters much since soon enough we will have an official source of that information, either after or before cinco de Mayo.

It is what it is.

GaussianCopula (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the reference to the original AP story that TPM copied. Of course it is word for word identical. Please stop complaining that it is something "some blogger pulled out of his ass" now. Unless you think the AP is worthless too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's calm down. I don't consider the blogger TPM an accurate source and I did not make a big fuss about it. I know you as well as I want to find the most accurate sources of information regarding this serious situation. No need to go overboard and I apologize for the you know what comment. Peace. BTW, I have found some more information regarding the virus which I will post shortly.

GaussianCopula (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the Problem with using media reports for suspected cases/deaths is that the information has a certain lifespan, uncertainty, and is unstable. The information changes from hour to hour, differs between sources, and sometimes differs within the same article. The sheer number of sources floods the article with 100+ different sources, which increases the uncertainty in the believability in the table. If you want to report this information, use a single source that is well respected that gathers this information. The table is dangerously close, if not already there, an original work. Flipper9 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The template currently has 54 citations (not 100+), to cover 62 numbers (1, 2 or 3 figures from each of 41 countries) and two definitions or caveats. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

I don't see any original research in Wikipedia's sense of the term. The numbers here are published facts. Or do you think there is an unsourced position being advanced here? (If so, what is it?) -- Avenue (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to count again. This table contains references to other wikipedia articles, and those totals are made up of dozens of article references that arrive at the country-specific and world-wide totals. The USA totals are made up of over 50 references. Go through all of the wikipedia article references, and the total will be well over 100. Flipper9 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The main 200 swine flu article combines calculated values from all of the sub-pages, synthesizing information gleaned from a bunch of other references and articles. If we had calculated numbers from a news source, it would be better rather than referencing wikipedia articles that are gathering the information. The table on this page is a synthesis of other wikipedia articles. Flipper9 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer that all 58 references for the US chart also be linked form this table? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The question I was pursuing is not whether this table is simply a synthesis of something else—most things on Wikipedia are a synthesis, at least in the weak sense of collating information from various sources. The question is whether it's an improper synthesis, i.e. whether it is original research, trying to advance a novel position not attributable to these sources. I asked Flipper what novel position, if any, is being advanced here, and Flipper's response doesn't address that. -- Avenue (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the total on this page is a calculated value from another wikipedia page. It's a reference to another article that has already synthesized the information. It just goes back to my original point that the suspected information on wikipedia is an incomplete synthesis of information, which lacks any kind of statistical significance or controls, and is therefore misleading. Especially when it is alarmist, dominates the top of the article, and doesn't pertain to the long-term development of the article. Flipper9 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify; I have no problem using any reliable source (news included that is quoting officials) that tally up confirmed cases. A confirmed case is a confirmed case, end of story...not likely to change. The problem is with all of the unconfirmed tallys that add nothing to the article, and are misleading. Flipper9 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Flipper9 is basically on point here: the problem is an unknown mixture of the quality of reportage, and, even assuming the mainstream media is 100% perfect, whether the disparate sources are doing the same thing, in a manner than warrants (say) adding the numbers of suspected cases up. Analogy: from A to B to C is a certain distance. If source 1 reports A->B distance as "1", and source 2 says B->C says "26", then you can't blindly add these figures up to get the distance from A->C unless you can apply known, and trivial, corrections due to differing units of measurement. In the situation here, the N countries now have absolutely different criteria for "suspected". The massive one is that Mexico says it isn't even counting anymore, but differences in the "units of measurement" prior to that point are sufficient cause for concern. In any case, Wikipedia's insistence doing the sum anyways is a novel synthesis, as it is making a either a non-trivial, or worse, unique assumption. I would add to this that Wikipedia's use of both uncertainty ("+-") and rounding in the total probably falls into this same class of original research. Where did you get those error bars? Why aren't they presented?

I think the current state of this table even agrees to some extent with this assessment, since it has a disclaimer(!) about the fact the suspected cases are not based on "epidemiological data". Well, if the "suspected" figures are backed up by iron-clad references, and there is solid ground to do the sum, then why would this disclaimer have to exist at all? Indeed, would not the usual WP:NOR argument regarding "trivial inferences" apply in this case too: if a collection of this kind had value, and the sum had meaning, surely someone else would would be doing it in a manner that would fit Wikipedia's citation policies. mdf (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(After my edit conflict with Flipper9 due to his clarification): It is further instructive to notice that, the notoriously fickle nature of mainstream media sources notwithstanding, none of these problems are present in the "confirmed" cases. mdf (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, using media reports from several days ago for suspected cases is wrong. The test results would have been back by now, but the public media won't necessarily update the figures on the article linked or even report updated numbers unless it helps with the sensationalism of the story or is "newsworthy". This is why we should be using health organization numbers as those numbers or more stable, and and are updated regularly (and fixed). Flipper9 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Less regularly than the media stories, though. For example, the CDC only updates once a day and has TWICE left an inaccurate number up until the next day's update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What source are you using that says the CDC's numbers are inaccurate? Wikipedia? Flipper9 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

see, for example, this story. The same thing happened the day prior where Michigan was "double counted" to have two cases instead of the 1 case they actually had at the time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

While the CDC might make clerical errors from time to time, there is no way to know that synthesized information on Wikipedia from news sources is any more accurate. The CDC is challenged with keeping accurate numbers, and responsible for updating them on a regular basis rather than the direction of what is the news of the day. I would say that the news sources are not challenged with any higher level of fact checking; it's not their area of expertise with no mantra to correct errors or provide updated follow up articles. Flipper9 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Flipper is saying here. If we know that there are resources being updated on a timely basis, may it be daily or twice a day, due to the seriousness of the issue and the governments proactive involvement where it pertains, I do not agree with using Press Reports to supersede what one finds in the official government data. I will add to this that, if a government site does fall a day behind in updating the data, that we could use another source, BUT the moment the government data is updated, we should use that as the most accurate source of information to date.

This section I made has the government sources of updated data that I believe we should use when updated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#We_should_start_homologizing_the_source_of_the_information.

I will try to keep it uptodate as possible, but I do believe we should consider these sources as official information regarding cases and then defer to other sources of Press Information in case they fall behind for more than 24 hours.

GaussianCopula (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In a real time environment on a fast-changing public event like this 24 hours is an ENORMOUS time lag. I agree that official sources are the best for confirmed cases. But this event is as much about the media and public perception of the spread as it is about the actual virus itself. This the outbreak altogether and right now the outbreak has a lot to do with suspected cases that have not yet been confirmed. If we were to just use government sources we would not be presenting the information in a thorough and comprehensive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A few things to consider are:

1. Mexico stopped reporting "suspected" cases 72(?) hours ago, suggesting you have a problem whose size is at least tree times "enormous" and growing. Maybe 3/2 times enormous, since Mexico "only" makes up one half of the total...

2. The media are just filtering the government and other reliable sources through their prisms of profit, audience management, and other corporate prisms. Exactly how is adding their style of anti-information ("noise") going to improve the situation?

3. You say "it's not the subject that matters, but also the response!". I say "if the media response is an important subject, someone else should have commented on it at this point, and instead of pulling new arguments out of our ass, we should just follow those source(s)".

Basically, Wikipedia is not on the frontlines of the news. It does not need to participate in the media clusterfuck (aka "fog of war"). Nor does it need to be an (in)accurate simulation of such. As I have mentioned before, the direct use of media references in articles here is an acute embarrassment. That they are given Righteous Support from Official Policy just adds to the infamy. Instead of just being the "copy" end of the copy-and-paste, the media should only serve as the hook an editor uses to locate and cite a much better source, as per Flipper9 and GaussianCopula. If this means being (gasp!) more than 24 hours behind the media, then so be it. What, exactly, is the rush? mdf (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've gathered so far, this is wikipedia...not an encyclopedia. The goal is not for accuracy, but consensus amongst groups of regular folk trying to be experts on a subject or trying to push their own personal agendas. I'm in the medical field, but my arguments bear no more weight than some editor who is a worker at McDonald's or a computer programmer. Flipper9 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1.) True, but do you have another figure? We should use the most recent, most accurate figure that we have.

2.) It is not for Wikipedia to decide that the media is just noise. If you have a reason to believe that a story is inaccurate then that piece of media information should not be used in favor of some more accurate information. Governments and world agencies also have agendas.

3.) I don't understand your argument here, but part of the outbreak is the suspected cases as reported by the media. Just because you have a suspicion that the media is noise doesn't mean that they aren't a part of the article. Hdstubbs (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no other figure. The Mexican government won't update it. That makes the 2500 figure inaccurate, completely. It could be higher or lower, nobody knows. Therefore it must be removed. Flipper9 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is up to Wikipedia authors to use the best information available. If that information is outdated and incorrect, it must be removed. Just because you have a source doesn't mean the information is accurate anymore. Sure, write about the media's response in the main article. This table is trying to combine various health agency numbers into an easy to read place. It should not contain inaccurate information just because the media is getting it wrong. Flipper9 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But we can't just assume they're getting it wrong because you think they are. Also, a friendly note on style when you make suggestions on talk pages: Instead of writing 'it must be removed', think about re-phrasing to have a slightly less aggressive tone. Hdstubbs (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning is that there is no current source that says that the 2500 value is correct. It is unsourced information, because these values are so transient and nobody knows what the updated values are because they will not be updated. The better sources of information, the WHO, the CDC in the USA, the Mexican counterparts...they don't compile that information because it's not accurate. All incorrect information or unsourced information in wikipedia must be removed, aggressively. Flipper9 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We should start homologizing the source of the information.

I would ask all of you to help me track down the sources of official government health ministries in order to start homologizing the data with regards to the swine flu outbreak table.

The use of press reports is completely unreliable as news sources continue to compete with headlines declaring one thing and the information within the report being different. That makes the entire article unreliable and considering the seriousness of this situation we should not use it, if an official source is to be found. I would only like to use 3 examples of what I am stating:

Headline declares: "Pupil Becomes Eleventh Swine Flu Victim In UK", in the first sentence we find "A Gloucestershire school pupil has reportedly become the eleventh swine flu victim in the UK"

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Swine-Flu-South-Gloucestershire-Pupil-Becomes-Eleventh-Swine-Flu-Victim-In-UK/Article/200905115273445?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15273445_Swine_Flu%3A_South_Gloucestershire_Pupil_Becomes_Eleventh_Swine_Flu_Victim_In_UK

Headline declares: "Mexico confirms swine flu toll rises to 159", in the first sentence we find "The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece

Other cases include unsourced conclusions : China's Ministry of Health (MOH) is developing a diagnostic reagent for use in testing for swine flu, which has killed more than 100 people in Mexico, an MOH spokesman said Monday.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/28/content_11269424.htm

What I am getting at is that we do have access to the Health Ministries of most infected nations and we can follow the official information through there in order to be more accurate.

Since my language skills are capped at English, German and Spanish, I will provide the following information which I hope others can expand on.

For US up to date information:

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

226 confirmed cases, 1 death

For UK information:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListDate/Page/1231252394302?p=1231252394302

18 confirmed cases, 716 suspect, no deaths

For Germany information:

http://www.rki.de/cln_116/nn_1403594/DE/Home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true

8 confirmed cases, no deaths

Note that in Germany the Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit refers to the Robert Koch-Instituts for updates on the virus spread.

For Austria information:

http://bmg.gv.at/cms/site/presse.html?channel=CH0616

4 suspect cases of which 2 have proven negative, leaving 2 suspect cases, 0 confirmed and no deaths.

For Switzerland information:

http://www.bag.admin.ch/influenza/06411/index.html?lang=de

1 confirmed, 23 suspect

For Spain information:

http://www.msc.es/servCiudadanos/alertas/comunicadosNuevaGripe.jsp

44 confirmed, 67 suspect, no deaths

For Mexico information:

http://portal.salud.gob.mx/contenidos/noticias/influenza/estadisticas.html

(Newly created by Mexican government) http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/

506 confirmed, 19 deaths

There are of course many others who can help in adding the official sources link to follow the spread of the virus. I encourage you all to help and also change the information where it is relevant to adapt to the official sources. There are cases where the suspected cases are not mentioned, so I understand this is not perfect, but it is significantly more realiable than the current media sources which are competing for headlines rather than factual information.

GaussianCopula (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For Australia:

http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/updates

76 suspect cases, 0 confirmed

GaussianCopula (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For New Zealand:

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/mexican-swine-influenza-update-270409#mediareleases

4 confirmed, 89 suspect, 13 probable

GaussianCopula (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For Canada:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/swine-porcine/surveillance-eng.php

85 confirmed

GaussianCopula (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For France:

http://www.invs.sante.fr/

36 suspect, 10 probable, 2 confirmed, no deaths

GaussianCopula (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For Guatemala:

http://portal.mspas.gob.gt/noticias.html

One suspected case has been cleared. No other cases.

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For Argentina:

http://www.msal.gov.ar/htm/site/default.asp

13 suspected, none confirmed, no deaths

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I already brought this to the major editors attention for this and related articles, and they work vehemently to stop you from calling the news sources unreliable. Flipper9 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Flipper9, I want to thank you nonetheless. I guess skynews and the xinhua news agency are more authorative sources than each countries health ministries. Hopefully, this will help others who want to get a real source of news regarding this virus spread and use the linked sources I gave.

GaussianCopula (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, please feel free to change the data I have on the list. I will do my best to keep it updated daily. Hopefully, will other help in adding non English, German, French and Spanish resources to simply update the numbers based on official data of other countries.

GaussianCopula (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your link for New Zealand's Ministry of Health is correct, but their press releases often lag several hours behind the information they provide in their media conference. (They do provide recordings of the media conference on their website, but these often have a considerable lag too.) As a result, the major local news media usually cover the latest figures a few hours before the corresponding MoH press release comes out. The reporting in these outlets was sometimes a bit unclear early on, but now they seem to report the numbers of different types of cases clearly. I am not convinced that we need to wait for the "official" press release to update the table. -- Avenue (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the sources listed in one place. I agree that government and official sources are best, but I don't think we have to use them to the exclusive of media reports. For instance, if there is a conflict of numbers without a time lag then we should definitely go with the government sources. Your examples at the top of the page make the good point that we must read and understand the articles we are using. Hdstubbs (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree government sources (and WHO) are more trustworthy, and we should use their figures directly when time lag isn't a problem. But it often is, at least for now. -- Avenue (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting piece here: Why swine flu numbers differ, SF Chronicle, May 1, 2009. It points out some difficulties getting consistency between various government numbers in the US context, due to the routes information takes between the jurisdictions involved and the inherent time lags. This shows that simply using government sources will not solve all these problems. -- Avenue (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I think I have all the US numbers there are for today; I'm starting to build a SwineFlu SourceTracker to track what Primary sources are current. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

19 countries

The number of countries are 19, no 18. 83.49.224.108 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please bring back the Last Update Time at the top of the table.

It made it easier to check for updates. Otherwise they will pass unnoticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.247.217 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is unreliable. That is why it was removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC confirms 2 cases in El Salvador

The CDC has confirmed two cases of influenza A (H1N1)in El Salvador, making the country the second one in Central America to confirm cases, only after Costa Rica. There are also 3 more suspected cases that have not yet been confirmed. SO THERE ARE ONLY 2 CONFIRMED AND 3 SUSPECTED.

http://www.laprensagrafica.com/el-salvador/social/31243-oms-donara-28-mil-medicamentos-para-virus-h1n1-a-el-salvador-.html

Asaber2 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done - chart update, thanks for the tip. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC confirms 2 cases in El Salvador

The CDC has confirmed two cases of influenza A (H1N1)in El Salvador, making the country the second one in Central America to confirm cases, only after Costa Rica. There are also 3 more suspected cases that have not yet been confirmed. SO THERE ARE ONLY 2 CONFIRMED AND 3 SUSPECTED.

http://www.laprensagrafica.com/el-salvador/social/31243-oms-donara-28-mil-medicamentos-para-virus-h1n1-a-el-salvador-.html

Asaber2 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done - chart update, thanks for the tip. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Italy

There are 2 other cases confirmed by National Institute of Health; we have 4 total cases.

see http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_maggio_04/influenza_a_nuovi_casi_d997f604-389e-11de-a257-00144f02aabc.shtml (in Italian)

--PaoVac (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Update needed for France

Would it be possible to update the number of confirmed cases for France: http://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRPAE54303720090504 .

Now there are 4 confirmed cases.

Thanks!

Updating the suspected cases in Mexico

According to this articled dated Friday May 1 published at 20:00 local Mexican time, the Mexican Health Minister is quoted as saying that there are around 1,000 cases of suspected H1N1 infections, registered in Mexican hospitals at the moment. This article should supersede the previous AFP report dated April 30, which indicated a number around 2,500.

The confirmed cases have already been revised upwards.

"Los casos positivos y confirmados son 397, pero hay alrededor de 1,000 personas hospitalizadas en México, aunque no todos van a corresponder a influenza humana"

http://www.cnnexpansion.com/actualidad/2009/05/01/ssa-reporta-16-muertos-por-el-virus-h1n1

GaussianCopula (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure not every suspected case is in the hospital currently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thaddeus. I would disagree with that assesment. Considering the response not only from Mexico but from the entire world community to the seriousness of this issue, why would the Mexican government not have a suspected H1N1 carrier in the hospital? Where else would they be gathering the data with regards to suspected cases other than from the people whom they have in the hospital and monitoring? Unless you believe that a suspected case by the Mexican government is sent home to possibly infect others is what is not being registered in the number that the Mexican Health Minister gave, then you are correct. But I do disagree.

If you consider the AFP article dated April 30th to be more accurate than this article, you can leave it as is. I just don't believe that the data related to suspected and probable should be static, but should take into account the most recent statements, specially those related to government officials of each country.

GaussianCopula (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To take New Zealand as an example, ~~I believe~~ the last information I read on this said that none of the over 100 suspected cases there are in hospital. (Nor are the confirmed cases.) They are in home isolation instead. -- Avenue (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that and it seems that we will leave the 2,500 number as is. I would just like to add that we need to pay close attention to what the government officials are saying with regards to updating any information. As you have said, you believe that none of the suspected cases are in the hospital. Thaddeus is sure that not all of the suspected cases are in the hospital. I myself believe that what the Health Minister said is in regards to suspected cases. So, all in all, hopefully we will get a better picture in the next few days of what is happening. If I do find another source of information regarding this, I will post it here.

(Small note, Avenue changed the "I believe" to confirming the note so my comment might not make sense as is, but I will leave the original comment on my behalf. But thanks for clarifying that Avenue.)

GaussianCopula (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's better not to post a stale number since nobody knows what the true value of suspected cases are in Mexico. If Mexico is no longer counting, the number has no relative meaning anymore especially since many of those may have been ruled out as 2009 H1N1 or have been added to the confirmed tally. The suspected numbers have a very finite lifetime. Flipper9 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Flipper. Due to the nonreliability of earlier data which I believe proved to be more a competition for headlines by major news sources, using such data as accurate is extremely misleading. While I do agree, that the number could not only be lower but actually higher, the fact remains that there is no source of real data on the number at this current moment in time. Using it, specifically in regards to a mutable number like suspected cases, after a 2 or 3 day period is quite useless and I would consider it misleading.

GaussianCopula (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to remove the outdated suspected/probable info for Mexico since it is now several days old and meaningless? Any objections? Flipper9 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree-- the number for Mexico is way out of date, and skews the world-wide total greatly. Flipper9 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the 2500 figure is becoming less relevant, and I think we should remove it at some point, it's not clear to me what alternative you are envisaging. Do we try to find an alternative number somewhere, or just leave that cell blank, with a note explaining why? If the latter, what do we do with the total suspected cases number? -- Avenue (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it could be done two ways I guess. For those countries where we don't know if there are unknown cases or not, the value is already set at zero. We could also just put "---", remove it from the world-wide total, and put a note. Either way, there is no official and no unofficial information. If the information is wrong or inaccurate, then it shouldn't be there doubling the world-wide total. Flipper9 (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting a dash, with a note, seems much better than putting down zero. If all our readers read footnotes, I'd be happy what that approach. But I suspect most don't. If they don't, the total may be just as misleading as now, or more. However, seeing a big "—" may prompt more of them to read the footnote. On that basis, and given that the figure seems at least 3 days old, I think we should probably remove it. But I'd like to hear from some of the other active editors here too. -- Avenue (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think the number should stay. The Mexican number represents about half the total and while it is a few days old (and thus somewhat inaccurate), it surely is more accurate than 0 or "unknown" (which would be treated as zero when calculating a total). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to include a number that is known to be out of date, and the official governmental body that calculates refuses to release updates? An unknown variable in the world-wide total makes it meaningless...and I would suggest bordering on an unsourced since the old source is known to have incorrect values since it is so old and will never be updated for the forseable future. Just look at the panic going on in the USA with people flooding ER rooms because of the panic over this flu outbreak. Is reporting information, however inaccurate, really a good thing to do, especially when it inflates the world-wide total so much? Flipper9 (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no panic. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

'Walking well' flood hospitals with -- or without -- flu symptoms (CNN)

People needlesly over-crowding hospitals is diffrent than actual 'panic'. Panic usually involves a tickle-me elmo, and a loss of orderly conduct. CNN over playing a story after over playing a story, What next? Next week the story will be "People Avioiding Hospitals!!! Fear of Catching Flu!" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Accurate and sourced information is what Wikipedia is about, and posting unverifiable information in a table that sensationalizes the issue leads to such things. Flipper9 (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is both accurate and sourced. Furthermore, it is no older than several of the other references. Be patient - the number will resolve itself it time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The number is not accurate for Mexico because the government stopped putting out updates. Suspected cases have a finite lifetime for accuracy, and at this point the 2500 number is no longer valid. It could be 1500, it could be 5500, at this point 2500 is merely a guess...nobody knows what the value is now. Without a current source, it must be removed. Flipper9 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many of the people crowding the ER for flu read wikipedia --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've had patients that use the web extensively, and believe the inaccurate information that non-health-profession editors spew forth on Wikipedia as fact. You may not realize it, but you have an effect on what people think about health care. I'm here to bring some sanity and science to what is going on here. Flipper9 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote:

Please vote on whether we should keep the old 2500 figure last reported by the Mexican health authorities (and will not be updated) or should we remove the information from the table since it is no longer accurate, source, and is meaningless.

Agree-- the number for Mexico is way out of date, and skews the world-wide total greatly. Flipper9 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree I think the Mexico number should be removed eventually, but lets leave it a while longer. If our true goal is accuracy, a number of 2500 is much more accurate than a number of 0 or blank. If the number is not updated within two or three days (and I think it will be - either if the flu is not spreading in Mexico and the numbers are decreasing, or if the flu is spreading and the numbers are increasing then the Mexican government will give an update of some sort), then I think we should take some sort of action but for now taking out the 2500 would be far more inaccurate. All evidence points to the fact that this flu is not very dangerous which would suggest that many MORE people have it than reported it. Therefore, it would be far less accurate to decrease the total number of cases. Also, it is not Wikipedia's job to stop people from foolishly panicking. It is our job to report things as accurately as possible. Hdstubbs (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think it should have been removed a day ago. A figure from April 28 (see below) is too old. -- Avenue (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note, we don't VOTE at Wikipedia. That said, I do disagree with making any change at this time, as I have stated several times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That number will have to be eventually removed if the government is not providing updated information. The number is not meant to be static. I recommend a dash with a footnote stating what the number was at the time the government stopped providing updates and an indication that there are no further updates from the mexican government with regards to suspected cases. It is what it is.

GaussianCopula (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is new information regarding the update of the suspected cases in Mexico. The Mexican Health Minister has been giving daily updates on the situation and as of a report dated May 3, 1:42 local Mexican time there is the following information regarding suspected, confirmed and deaths as of the evening of May 2.

They have tested a total of 1498 samples of which 1280 have been considered "valid" or analyzed. The results of which are 506 confirmed cases and 19 deaths.

Therefore, the table for suspected cases in Mexico should be updated to 218 suspect cases. Not the 2,500 that is currently reflected there. As long as the Mexican government keeps on providing daily updates of the situation in Mexico, there is no reason not to use these numbers.

I will reiterate once more that the suspected cases number should not remain static as can be seen here. The tests are being made and the results are being classified as either positive or negative.

"Para la noche del sábado 02 de mayo se han realizado 1498 pruebas tipo A de las cuales 1280 son válidas, de estas 506 son positivas, 487 son pacientes vivos y en tratamiento y se reportan 19 lamentables defunciones. Hasta la mañana del día de hoy se reportan 23 estados de la república con casos positivos."

http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/2009/05/mexico-actuo-rapido-y-a-tiempo-ssa/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaussianCopula (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GaussianCopula (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you are misunderstanding the report. They have already analyzed 1498 cases of which 218 were thrown out as invalid samples. "Suspect" cases are generally untested cases which exhibit flu like symptoms. The report does not indicate how many samples remain untested. Tested cases will normally either be "confirmed," "probable," or "negative." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thaddeus. If that be the case, doesn't the report highlight the inaccuracy of the 2,500 number in the first place. If they have analyzed 1280 and determined 506 to be positive, this clearly reflects that 1280 cases have been resolved one way or the other.

Although I am not quite in full agreement with your reading on whether ~~1,480~~ 1,498 vs. 1,280 indicates the number of suspected which have been tested and determined, I am willing to defer my understanding of it in your favor and have others chime in as well. But I do believe that the 2,500 plus or minus based on a report dated April 30 is really outdated and should be removed and referenced somewhere if need be.

GaussianCopula (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I would much prefer the 2500 number be updated as well. I just can't justify removing it entirely and have nothing to update it with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I analyzed the previous news conference by the Mexican Health Minister and it looks like the standard format they are going to be using is X number of cases analyzed, X number of samples considered valid, X number of cases confirmed and X number of fatalities. One can only wait to see if he slips out a number during these press conferences where he plainly says X number of suspected cases. After all, it is not as if 10 years from now, we will have in this article the number of suspected cases at 2,500 since that was the last update given. That would be pretty amusing. I am willing to give it more time to see if they finally update it and am fine with leaving that number there for now. GaussianCopula (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2,498 figure dates back to April 28, at least; see e.g. these two news stories: [8], [9]. I have also come across a figure of 2,955 reported on May 1 here, attributed to unnamed "government officials". I'm not sure if that is any better though; it's still very out of date, and the vagueness of the attribution bothers me. -- Avenue (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the table using that figure, but I really think it should be removed from the table. -- Avenue (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Just wanted to add a section for Spain.

The health ministry has been providing quite consistent data on the their H1N1 cases.

As it currently stands they have 20 confirmed, 99 suspect.

http://www.msc.es/servCiudadanos/alertas/comunicadosNuevaGripe.jsp

Thanks

GaussianCopula (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Spain has updated official information based on May 3.

Confirmed 44, suspected 67.

http://www.msc.es/gabinetePrensa/notaPrensa/desarrolloNotaPrensa.jsp?id=1491

GaussianCopula (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

First probable case in Puerto Rico

http://www.elnuevodia.com/primercasoprobabledegripeporcina-564318.html A 5 year-old boy from Texas traveled to Puerto Rico on April 28th and he is infected with Type A influenza, next Tuesday it will be confirmed is he has the H1N1 strain. Please, if some can, add the information... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.202.195 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This case is included in the US total. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Please recheck the information regarding Australia.

A Skynews report has been cited dated May 2nd for 121 suspected cases. http://www.skynews.com.au/health/article.aspx?id=327983

Yet the most recent data dated on May 3, 2009 at 6:00 am local time from the Department of Health and Ageing of Australia says that there are only 80 suspected cases.

I would encourage you to use the official resources and not the Press Reports when updating the information, specially if the official reports are current.

http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/A3EEB1E88063A232CA2575A800210181/$File/Swine%20Flu%20update%20as%20at%206am%203%20May.pdf

http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/updates

GaussianCopula (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia has just revised lower its official suspect cases as of May 3 1200 Australian EST.

76 suspect, 0 confirmed

http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/A3EEB1E88063A232CA2575A800210181/$File/Swine%20Flu%20update%20as%20at%2012%20noon%203%20May.pdf

GaussianCopula (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Canada

New case count was raised to 95 today, although it hasn't been mentioned in any article yet... [10] Ericleb01 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: El Salvador has 4 suspected cases.

The last report from El Salvador's Ministry of Health indicates that there are only 4 suspected cases, not 2 probable and 3 suspected as the table says. The information about the confirmed cases is correct: there are only 2 laboratory confirmed cases. http://www.laprensagrafica.com/el-salvador/social/31401-un-nuevo-caso-sospechoso-de-h1n1-en-el-salvador.html --Asaber2 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

The Philippines now has 2 suspected cases. One is from a man who had been to Europe, and another is from a Mexican man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.250.226 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? --Hdstubbs (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as of 21:05, local time, the Philippine Department of Health has recorded five (5) suspected cases of A (H1N1) virus. --Matthewprc (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC +8)

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090506-203455/5-under-observation-for-swine-fluDOH-chief

Done - article is now up to date --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: 3 probable and 2 suspected cases in El Salvador

El Salvador's Ministry of Health has informed Tuesday that there are 3 probable and 2 suspected cases, besides the 2 confirmed by the CDC. http://www.laprensagrafica.com/el-salvador/social/31543-salud-reporta-a-una-quinta-persona-sospechosa-de-tener-h1n1.html

--Asaber2 (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the source. -- Avenue (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

Synthesis

I think we are at a point where there should be an "Official Numbers" table rather than the original research gleaned from a synthesis of new and old news reports and numbers. Right now, as it stands, the official WHO numbers as reported by CNN show the world-wide cases at 787, but wikipedia is putting forth the unsourced number of 898 cases world-wide at the writing of this comment. There is no source that backs up the total of 898 cases, nor for any of the "total" amounts listed at the top of the table. Maybe add a new line showing the WHO's official numbers to make it clear to the reader what is reality vs. wikipedia totals. 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to CNN Article Flipper9 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: No Original Research or Synthesis Flipper9 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while simple addition is allowed, the information is in such flux right now, there is no way to know from the hundreds of articles used to arrive at these numbers that they are in any way better or more accurate than the world-wide body (WHO) designated as the official source of such information. The simple addition exception wouldn't apply here as the total does not correctly reflect an exhaustive and timely application of the data. Especially in the light that the WHO has already gathered and published this information more recently. Flipper9 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone in favor of or opposed to the inclusion of a {Synthesis} tag to this table? Flipper9 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Every single confirmation is sourced. If confirmations are weak or they are from improperly read articles then feel free to read every source and find the confirmations that are not sourced or weak in your opinion and discuss them on the talk pages for a consensus. 898 might be too high, but please prove it.

--Hdstubbs (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The totals are not sourced at the top, and disagree with current WHO totals as of less than 2 hours ago. The totals are an incorrect synthesis of information, and are an original work and conclusion that cannot be backed up by a source. Show me a source anywhere in the world, other than wikipedia itself, that agrees with those numbers. There is no source that has come to the conclusion that there are 909 laboratory confirmed cases in the world...none. Flipper9 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree adding numbers is not synthesis. Also the WHO report is NOT the primary source, it is a secondary source relying on official numbers from various gov't agencies. Thus, it disagreeing with a particular number does not mean that number is wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read WP:SYNTHESIS, you will note that adding information from multiple sources is indeed synthesis of information, putting forth the unsourced conclusion that there are 909 world-wide cases at the moment. Flipper9 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding the numbers together is not original reasearch. From WP:SYNTHESIS: "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Read down further to the section on 'routine calculations'. While it is acceptable to do simple arithmetic, as being shown in this table, the assertion that there are 909 confirmed cases world-wide is not backed up by any of the sources. Many of the referenced articles (hundreds of them) are days out of date. Not one source confirms the 909 total. The WHO has published a total, and it shows a number hundreds less from the latest available information. Wikipedia is generating the 909 total, not a source that can be tagged to that value. Flipper9 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that all references have to have the same date. Also "hundreds of them" can't be out of date since there are only 51 references in total. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. You will notice that some of the references for this template are to wikipedia articles, and those wikipedia articles are made up of a synthesis of dozens of more articles. The total number of articles that have synthesized the 909 value number well over 100. Flipper9 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also there are no rules for dates, yes. But you can not logically conclude that articles that are 3+ days old can be accurate in the face of WHO numbers that are updated every day. Flipper9 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

and "you can not logically conclude that" the WHO numbers that rely solely on what they are told by official agencies, which by the way in no way obligated to update their report to WHO daily, is anything but a secondary that will always be "out of date" even when it is only 1 minute old. The reason is that their publication is based on the information they officially received at some point (not necessarily with the last 24 hours even) and not even the most up to date official information, let alone the most up to date actual reliable information out there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is from wiki synthesis: "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers,provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." So, if we have sources that add to 909 then we are allowed to add them together. And we're back at the same issue we have been discussing repeatedly, Flipper9, which is that you disagree with the sources we're using. We know, you've made it abundantly clear, and in a week, maybe I'll agree with you that official sources are the best, but right now (for all the reasons that everyone was stated, many times), I think we should continue to use the numbers we're using. If you disagree with the sources or think they are 'days out of date' then do the work to find them, and check that they are incorrectly confirmed.--Hdstubbs (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to go no further than the WHO totals, which ARE up to date and disagree with the conclusion put forth by Wikipedia. The 909 number is comprised of over a hundred synthesized numbers, so up to date, some not. It still comes down to the fact that there is no source, anywhere, other than the WHO totals that can be used to compare the values. This also goes for the other columns as well, which are even more inaccurate such as probable/suspected cases. The best source is the WHOs values, which supersede all of the hard work that the editors here have done (while good intentioned, are susceptible to much error). I also don't agree that the arithmetic correctly reflects all of the information gathered because they are all out of sequence and subject to cumulative error. How can over 100 sources that vary in dates so much be anywhere near as accurate as a published, world-body source tasked with collecting this information? Flipper9 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop beating this DEADHORSE please. Flipper, your position is abundantly clear - you want WHO numbers and don't accept that other normal reliable sources are, in fact, reliable. We get that; really we do. The majority of us, however, disagree with your position and no amount of arguing is going to change that.

Furthermore, if a particular user wants to know only the WHO numbers, there are hundreds of places they can get that information. Wikipedia is NOT the WHO, nor are we obligated to use them as our sole source.

Every other editor on this page is making an overt attempt to improve the page. However, as near as I can tell, you are more interested in getting your way than actually improving the page. (I do realize you think your way is an improvement, but that is beside the point.) This endless argument about how we shouldn't use what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources is pointless. At this point, your argument is a SNOWBALL case and continuing this "debate" is just wasting your time and everyone else's who is kind enough to continue to reply. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the point that several editors have raised similar issues with the sources and numbers used in the table, not just me, and I am not trying to "get my way" but trying to make the numbers in this table as accurate and well sourced as the rest of you. But I'll wait for further comment if that'll make you and the other editors happy. Flipper9 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the other editors have at least made attempts to improve it by providing better sources or similar, while you have just argued. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am making a good-faith effort to ensure that the numbers here are accurate by putting forth suggestions on the best sources to use. If you have a personal issue to make with me, you are free to add it to my talk page. Otherwise, I suggest you stick to discussing the issues and coming to a consensus. Flipper9 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a "personal issue" with you, but rather with your insistence on bring up (essentially) the same topic over and over again in an apparent attempt to get you way even though the consensus is very clearly that all RS are acceptable. If you are really acting in good faith, then I strongly suggest you keep creating NEW sections to say we should only use X sources. Doing so at least makes it look like you are trying to distort debate by creating a new section every time things aren't going your way in the old section. (You have probably noticed that fewer and fewer people are responding to you, likely because they are tired of the same old debate, not because they have changed their minds.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I note the lastest WHO update ([11]) has a total of 898 confirmed cases. This at least shows the table is not wildly diverging from the offical figures, but rather seems to be on the same track only more up-to-date. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: NORN report. Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

break

Well, it seems I'm rather late in this debate, but I'd like to add a suggestion: why does this table need to reflect the most up-to-date information (see WP:RECENTISM)? Wouldn't a template that shows, for example, current WHO statistics (and is titled and intended as such) be useful to readers? Here's the problem with doing a summation of multiple sources (as I've noticed in doing ref cleanup at the US template): adding those numbers up is not a trivial matter from a WP:SYN perspective. For example, in some states, the numbers on one source actively disagree with the numbers in another source, but one is used to source one column, while the next another. It seems to me that this is very much a recentism issue, and is leading the editors who are active contributors to these articles down a very bad path. Wikinews is the right place for such up-to-date information, and it may be best to have a template with this exact purpose kept there, with one less recentist on Wikipeida. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO releases only the confirmed cases. --Nutriveg (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the issue here. While it's true that the WHO are only reporting confirmed cases, that doesn't mean we can't have a chart which only shows the cases the WHO are reporting (i.e., a table titled "Confirmed cases as reported by the WHO"). While, yes, that doesn't provide the whole picture, it also doesn't fall prey to the problems spelled out in WP:RECENTISM. Consider the "ten-year test" mentioned on that essay- in ten years, are people going to care about unconfirmed cases? Perhaps if in a particular instance, there was vast overreporting of unconfirmed or suspected cases that turned out to be phony. To put it bluntly, these unconfirmed and suspected cases do not provide a long-term historical perspective. Up-to-the-minute information does belong on Wikinews- and honestly, they could probably use the help covering the swine flu outbreak. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that if we apply the "ten-year test", the current chart or even the main article would exhibit some sort of recentism, but we also need to consider the recentness of this pandemic and the explosion of information every hour it goes. As long as the chart is in its own namespace which would not directly affect the main article, and the consensus that this chart would be further changed to WHO figures once the pandemic has damped down and more figures from various health authorities are published, such recentism may not look bad to the chart per se.

I read WP:Recentism and I don't think the concept of recentism can justify the reason why WHO confirmed cases are in more importance than the coverage of other media. As long as the reports are from valid sources they have a need to consolidate, regardless of it is from WHO, CDC, or any media which reports the figures from local health ministries. We tend not to judge from which source is more reliable, and to minimize the obvious fact that WHO needs more time to process the cases submitted by each affected country.

It's been wrestling for too long on various guidelines. It doesn't mean that we don't need to observe them, but it's true that there would be some deviations when the information is still in flux and developing. Why not finding more reliable sources and improve the article, and revisit for further improvements when more things are set? Some sort of consensus have to be made for everyone here to move on instead of wasting time chasing behind guidelines.-Xavier Fung (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I think the most important guideline at play here is WP:COMMON. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my argument. The problem is at least in part that this is a developing issue, and as such there will be a bias towards the most recent developments. However, we can feel pretty assured that the sources we're constantly swapping in and out for this article will be replaced within a day or two. The thought process here, especially on this template, is not towards long-term historical perspective, but towards short-term accuracy. It seems very likely however that the WHO numbers aren't going to rapidly change, and will provide a stable and reliable source.

And while we're on it, we should look at what a reliable source is. Yes, a newspaper article is frequently used as a reliable source. However, our guidelines on the subject say that reliability depends greatly on context. In the context of epidemiology, is a mass-market newspaper a reliable source? Maybe for the statement that people are panicked or have officially been declared to have a disease, but for doing global-scale statistics? No way. In any article with a historical perspective available, this would be removed as blatant original synthesis. What's happening here is no different than what a ratings aggregator website does when it performs a weighted average of movie or game reviews; we're taking a bunch of sources and synthesizing a perspective from them. While this is acceptable if the math is simple, or we're just summarizing the contents, this is taking it to a much larger scale.

I don't understand your rationale for how this template is separate from the article. The only reason it's in the template namespace is for brevity and ease of editing of the main article. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the main article.

We absolutely need to look at what our sources are and judge how reliable they are. WP:RS says the authors of a reliable source "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". News agencies are not so. The WHO, CDC and other local agencies are (arguably) reliable. Wikinews is the right place for up-to-the-minute coverage, not here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And in response to ThaddeusB above, I believe WP:COMMON (neither policy nor guideline, I might add), applies equally well to my argument. Does it make sense to use individual news outlets' figures as to whether a case was confirmed, suspected or probable, or to use those of national and international agencies which exist to document and research public health matters? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The common sense part being that if people are willing and able to keep the information up to date, there is no reason for them not to. Just b/c wikipedia "isn't news" doesn't mean it can't be very up to date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, mean that we should not make a point of aggregating news-like information; rather we should keep that information at Wikinews. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it isn't a traditional paper encyclopedia, it's a lot closer to that than a newspaper or newspaper summary service. See WP:NOTNEWS- a valid rationale for a TfD of this page. You've also managed to ignore my point of how WP:COMMON applies to my argument. And my argument in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"You've also managed to ignore my point" -> That's b/c, I was explaining my argument, not rebutting yours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think that a news story is inherently non-reliable, it's okay to use them as a source quoting new information from official sources, the use of 140 of them and then synthesizing that information to come to a conclusion inside of wikipedia is the major issue here. If we somehow had, for example, updated daily quotes from all 50 states of the USA, each province in Canada, and from all of the countries listed in the table (whether it came from an official health organization website or from the popular news quoting the same information), I could see how a simple synthesis or addition of the values would be acceptable. But, if the information is tabulated from references that span numbers of days (and this information is temporarily unstable), then it can't be as a group any more reliable than a daily update from the WHO.

Assuming all 140 of the news sources are `00%correct, you also have to ensure that they were all interpreted correctly by every wikipedia editor that is updating the synthesized information. Just today, I had to correct the entry for New Zealand from 360 suspected cases to 89 because of a clerical error on the part of a well-intentioned wikipedia editor (note: this is in response to a tip from an IP user in the main article's discussion page) and so have so many other editors as well in similar circumstances. The sheer number of sources makes for a daunting task to keep accurate and updated. Flipper9 (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent on this; I still think it's better to use information from reliable scientific sources for the purposes of this sort of article. I also think there's already the support for this sort of change. Prior to yesterday (when I removed it per WP:NDA), there had been a disclaimer on the chart for over 2 days saying that the information was "not epidemiological". I agree, however, that I don't see a problem with going from more or less "official" case tracker sites for cases on which those sites would be considered reliable (i.e., the California website for an updated California total, but not Nevada, and a CDC total where the same).

There is still the problem of the US total in this template being referenced to a Wikipedia article, which is a direct violation of WP:SPS ( part of WP:V). Per that policy, the reference and information should be removed at once. Or it should be supported with appropriate references. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As this event progresses I am beginning to lean more towards official sources as they are able to catch up as the outbreak comes under control. When available we should use official sources because they have a higher area of expertise. However, I am still not willing to concede that news articles are not useful. The arguments you are all making is that current articles have been either misread or are not reliable. But if they are then select one, say why it is unreliable and then it will be deleted. But none of the reasons you have set forward are a blanket indictment against the table itself. When CNN reports, six hours before WHO acknowledges it, that a biochemical lab in Switzerland has confirmed the first Swiss case then I see no reason why that might not be used. However, when an editor misreads Univision 7, the local news station from Paraguay's update from three days ago then I can see why that case should not be considered. Just because they are both news articles does not mean they are equal. --62.69.130.82 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another point, all your arguments mainly center on the confirmed numbers. Although the WHO numbers lag behind our table I am not aware of any confirmed cases that they have not acknowledged. Are there any? If there are they should be removed. --62.69.130.82 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be an ongoing debate as this article and issue develops. At the moment there are two charges - recentism and OR.

Having read through WP:RECENTISM I notice it largely praises this kind of article on several levels :

It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time

Wikipedia received positive coverage on the American National Public Radio program On the Media about its quick response to the London bombings in July 2005.

It also praises the ability for these articles to draw in new editors. Most of the ways it suggests to combat it are to do with letting the furore die down and changing the slant of the article to a more appropriate long term view.

This seems central to me - this article is serving one purpose now and will change later. Currently people view it as a good up to date summary of the current outbreak and developments, essential to this is a regular indication of the evolving picture, including up to date numbers. Later the focus will change to a more encyclopaedic feel.

This table has always been on the fringe of original research. I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't as I think this is an important part of this article, and as long as correct, reliable, recent sources are used and as such should remain but with some limitations.

I worked on the July 2005 London bombing as it developed and it followed little WP guidance to begin with. But it evolved from a source of information for the concerned/panicked - including help line numbers - to a more sanguine description and then to the good article it is today.

Finally, this debate raises important points that could and should be changed:

For "suspected" cases no old sources should be used, there are some over 5 days old which must by now be out of date.
If possible national government counts should be used.
On the US count, the link to the country article was always a compromise to reduce the sources used to justify the number shown. This needs more debate, should we be more concerned about WP articles contradicting each other?

Right, that's enough debate for a while... |→ Spaully^₪† 10:42, 4 May 2009 (GMT)

I think it's the sheer number of references that make-up the totals that is an issue here as well as OR. Approximately 140 sources are number-crunched into three wikipedia-generated number results, that even some editors have suggested is better than what the WHO can do (see comments about WHO mistakes), which leads us down the path as wikipedia as a forum for original thought. It confuses the reader because:
1. most readers don't under levels of evidence to generate the numbers at the top of a very high-profile page, or even bother to read all of the *-symbols and subscripts (or even understand them),
2. the discussion pages about the tables is effectively hidden from most users (heck, I've been around wikipedia somewhat over the past couple years and had to figure out how to drill down here) and the calculations of multiple articles, and
3. I would suggest that it's impossible for any editor to wade through 140 references before something gets updated; nobody has that kind of time.
:Look, I think what the other editors is doing is well-intentioned (and pretty cool from a technical prospective), but it belongs on other wiki sites such as Wikinews. A link from this article to a kick-ass, dynamically updated table on Wikinews. Flipper9 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Spaully Here! Here! "This seems central to me - this article is serving one purpose now and will change later. Currently people view it as a good up to date summary of the current outbreak and developments, essential to this is a regular indication of the evolving picture, including up to date numbers. Later the focus will change to a more encyclopaedic feel.

This table has always been on the fringe of original research. I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't as I think this is an important part of this article, and as long as correct, reliable, recent sources are used and as such should remain but with some limitations."

I don't even need to respond I think this answers all the questions that everyone has been arguing about. For, now, this is necessary. Give it five days and then we can make a long-term table with an eye towards history. --Hdstubbs (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some rule that new articles shouldn't follow the practices and guidelines of Wikipedia? I would understand that if it was a new article written by newbie-editors that didn't understand Wikipedia, but is that appropriate for seasoned-editors to side-step Wikipedia guidelines? Flipper9 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you feel it's really necessary to stir up another non-related issue and make more sparkles? My friendly reminder to you is that your ego and attitude have made many people upset here, and renders your arguments weak. Please consider everyone here as good faith and focus on topics rather than the editors. -Xavier Fung (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I have attacked no one, and have been the subject of direct attacks by various editors here that are upset because I am pointing out issues with verifiability, no original research, and following Wikipedia guidelines. When I do, I am told that I am causing trouble or I'm some sort of vandal. Two editors have used administrative rules once to have me banned, and then a second time (unsuccessfully) to accuse me of forum shopping so that I couldn't participate in Wikipedia. I have found the editors here to violate the tenants of Wikipedia linked at the top of every discussion page (Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming). The only reason I stay here and continue bringing up points as necessary is to help make Wikipedia a better place, more accurate, more encyclopedic. Apologies to everyone for this comment as it's not about the article, but I have to respond at some point to all of the bitter attacks flying at me. See also WP:WIKIHOUNDING Flipper9 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You seriously need to calm down. First of all, you were blocked (not banned) for violating WP:3RR (which you clearly did violate, despite warnings) not for your views. Second, no one even asked you be blocked for forum shopping and I apologized twice for using the term. Finally, the reason several have directed strong wording your way (I've seen no personal attacks), is because it very strongly looks like you are NOT acting in good faith. You have raised the same issue over and over and over again each time acting like it was a completely fresh conversation. Everyone treated you completely nicely and fairly the first few times you raised the same issue. However, we are humans and have our limits. Many people aren't going to continue responding with no frustration when you say for the 6th or 7th time "blah blah MUST be removed," even though you know full well that consensus is aganst your personal opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're all throwing policies around, Note per WP:HA#NOT "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

compromise

Let me suggest a compromise. How about we add a line above our totals showing the most recent totals reported by the WHO? This would at least expose the fact that they differ. -- Avenue (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if a new column of WHO figures are displayed together too, provided that there are footnotes for brief description to the discrepancies, and a more detailed account on the template page.

In another way round, we can simply follow this to resolve the discrepancies in a much neutral way. Ideas? -Xavier Fung (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think a separate line showing values reported by a world-wide body that collects those statistics would be a good idea, whether it's the WHO or whomever we can properly source. However, I still have issues with the unsourced total values at the top that put forth a novel conclusion (see WP:NOR, the totals put forth a conclusion that Wikipedia maintains and generates its own up-to-date conclusions about the epidemic) that cannot be backed-up by any cite-able source, and that some sources reference Wikipedia itself. Flipper9 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I've added a extra total row citing the WHO as source. This doesn't address everyone's concerns but it is at least a small step in the right direction. -- Avenue (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I made it an actual separate row for better formatting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a separate row originally. Someone changed it in the meantime. I agree a separate row is better. -- Avenue (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarified source of second row "Totals" to "Wikipedia Totals" so the reader knows the total is generated by the table below as opposed to the WHO reported value above. Not exactly sure how to source the numbers in the Wikipedia Totals row, though I guess the reader can infer that from the rows below. Might need note explaining how the total is calculated. Flipper9 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed back to "Total" and removed bolding on WHO, this leads the reader to the correct conclusion from the data. I think people realise that total means the sum of below figures. Going to change US figure to one reference as linking to another article is not ideal. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:07, 6 May 2009 (GMT)

Actually another reader on the main page (see discussion page), that displays this table, suddenly realized that the "wikipedia-generated" total was a conclusion from Wikipedia itself once it was labeled as from Wikipedia and brought up the issue of WP:NOR. People will assume that the total numbers have a source attached to them, which they do not (if there is a source that says those are the totals, then they need references). Nowhere can it be found a source that backs up those numbers, so they need to be labeled as a "Total" generated by Wikipedia. I will add a footnote to make that clear since this appears to be more of a disagreement about labeling. Flipper9 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is factually inaccurate to call them "Wikipedia totals" - all we did is add, which is different than what gov't agencies and (to a lesser extent) the WHO do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a disclaimer to say the total is generated by adding together the individual numbers?? Surely our readers our intelligent enough to figure that out on their own? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name a single source that you can cite (except for Wikipedia or someone who is citing Wikipedia. Even pick one that is on the fringe of reliability) that can confirm that that is an accurate total. Flipper9 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt to be clear, especially since the WHO heading also includes the word total. -- Avenue (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd already removed a disclaimer some days ago per WP:NDA and WP:SELFREF, but this one isn't nearly as bad. I agree however that the title "Wikipedia totals" should be changed as it very much implies OR. I'd suggest "Total reported" instead. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see this as an explanatory note, not a disclaimer. It certainly doesn't seem to fall within any of the five types of disclaimers covered by our guideline: Wikipedia:NDA#What_are_disclaimers? -- Avenue (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: LA Times Reference

The 1500 suspected cases quote was from LA Times Tracking spread of H1N1 flu. The article was mainly meant as a historical piece, talking about the timeline of the epidemic. "Fears about the strain began to rise April 24, the first full day after Mexican officials ordered the capital city’s schools shut. Concern about the strain appeared to peak last week as Mexican officials reported more than 1,500 suspected flu cases. Later that week..." was talking about that on April 24, 2009 officials had reported 1500+ suspected cases. Hope you don't mind, but I reverted the change to avoid confusion. Flipper9 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times story of today, May 7th does not say that on April 24 the suspected cases were 1500plus. On the contrary, it says that last week, the week of April 27 to May 2, the suspected cases in Mexico have peaked at 1500+.

Why is this not relevant versus a story that is a week old? GaussianCopula (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, nobody knows what the value is today. The story on the 5th for the current Mexico number of Suspected cases is the only reference anyone can come up with. The LA Times is referring to last week (Apr 26-May2), which pre-dates the story on the 5th. However, I don't believe that there is any reliable figure at this point. I agree with your statement above (in the prior heading) that we shouldn't keep old data, but the consensus by the other editors is that the data will stay. You are free to remove the Mexico total completely, but it might end up getting reverted too as mine have. Flipper9 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we can come to an agreement on this, Flipper. First, I fixed the date on the WSJ article since it incorrectly stated it was a May 5th article and it is a May 1st article. The LA Times story of May 7th uses a time frame of last week (Apr 26-May 2) for its article. Would you agree that the LA Times of May 7th supersedes the WSJ article of May 1st? GaussianCopula (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am incorrect (and I apologize), please feel free to change it back. I just thought it was a misreading of a historical article, and that it was referring to cases before the May 5th (or May 1st) article. I honestly don't think either source has really revealed how they obtained the information since the Mexican government isn't releasing such figures anymore, so I don't know which or what to believe about the actual #. Flipper9 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank Flipper. I agree with you that I don't understand why we can't come to a consensus with regards to stale data that is not being provided. It seems that some believe (mistakenly) that it means dropping the number to 0 when in reality it means that the number is not being provided anymore. I would like to do that change based on what I wrote on the previous thread, but I am hoping more people provide feedback and support for that change. GaussianCopula (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times piece a bit confusing/poorly written. However, it does appear to be a legit update on the suspected cases in Mexico. Someone has changed the table to reflect this number and I support that change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

'The LA Times piece a bit confusing/poorly written.' yes that does indeed sum up the LA times. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica needs to be in black

Costa Rica has now confirmed its first death with swine flu. [12]--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

With only one confirmed laboratory case. That means a mortality rate of 50%. Pretty possible that some countries do conceal cases. -- Grochim (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense if each country is counted like this. We may consider the general mortality for the whole world (say based upon CFR) to be more credible. But IMHO the present detection and reporting mechanism are flawed and backlogged for "some" countries, so the whole picture can only be seen when this "wave" dampens. Even a mere 0.1% increase in the mortality rate would affect more people. -Xavier Fung (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That or random chance - by probability some country with few cases is bond to have a death (assuming enough such countries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the way the map works at present. Whether it "makes sense" to do it this way is another question. The best map I've seen so far is this dynamic bubble plot from the NY Times, but something like that would probably take quite a bit of work to produce. -- Avenue (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are now 8 confirmed cases in Costa Rica, from now and on, CR will have a laboratory from the CDC, meaning that they wont send the cases to Atlanta, and it's not just for Costa Rica, all the contries in CA can now send their cases there, such as Honduras, El Salvador etc. Anyway, the mortality rate in Costa Rica would be around 13% and not 50% --Vrysxy

¡Californication! 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Case Thailand

There has been an update based on the following report:

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/11/national/national_30102352.php

The following report does not clear any case of H1N1. It states: "which proves that what the person most likely had was the common human flu, Public Health Minister Wittaya Kaewparadai said yesterday."

As well it says: "Lab results due here on Wednesday from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention will verify that the unidentified person was not suffering from the swine flu, he said.

"By then, Thailand will be free of the disease, and so far there's been only one suspicious case, pending CDC confirmation indicating that it is only ordinary flu infecting the person," he said."

That is no reason to affirm that the Thai case is negative. As such, I will revert the edit. GaussianCopula (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador: update

According to the last report from The Ministry of Health of El Salvador there are now 4 confirmed, 2 probable and 5 suspected cases. http://www.laprensagrafica.com/el-salvador/social/32318-salud-confirma-dos-casos-mas-de-gripe-a-h1n1-.html --66.201.170.6 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated GaussianCopula (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

China is confirmed

Just saw it off from CCTV... Let me see if I could find updates on a English website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakbonsa (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reiters: China reports first confirmed H1N1 case [13]Игорь277 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest links to both indexes of reports and latest reports combined

A number of countries have a stable flu website with links to frequent situation reports, and the situation reports themselves which are constantly being added to. It seems useful to give BOTH of these sites as references for figures; this allows the reader to go to the index page to check for possible later updates and general information, and also to link straight to the update which was latest when the article was updated. I've done this for Argentina; in case this has been changed since the time of writing, the template after my update for Argentina is here. If this idea is popular, others may care to do a similar job for other countries. I will insert the reference here^[1] both to demonstrate it and so that it can be edited, copied, and pasted for other countries. As usual, subsequent references^[1] use the reference name.

References

^ ^a ^b Ministry of Health of Argentina H1N1 flu site with links to regularly updated situation reports (in Spanish) (this link is unlikely to change) The daily updates give the current number of cases confirmed and under investigation, with additional details, and are linked from this page.
Ministry of Health of Argentina situation report on H1N1 flu (in Spanish) No. 12, 10 May 2009 (this link will be updated to reference the latest HPA update)

Pol098 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Should suspect cases (sub)column be dropped?

Note: This refers only to the cases column, not the deaths one (which should definitely stay)
Note: Please do not make any (format) changes to the table until this discussion has run at least 24 hours AND has a CLEAR consensus for change.

We are, perhaps, at the point where the suspected cases column is being meaningless. The primary reason I say this is because the Mexican gov't has chosen not to make their # public anymore and they account for more than half the total. Per this story "The latest figures from Mexico suggest the virus may be less lethal and infectious than originally feared. Only 38 percent of suspected cases have turned out to be swine flu..." If you do the math, that means they have tested roughly 2500 cases, so only "new" suspect cases remain to be tested. Of course, we have no idea what that number is, but it is definitely not zero. Thus blanking just Mexico's suspect cases is not a good option.

Also, some of the countries that have only "suspect cases" might never have a clear story that all cases have been cleared.

On the other hand, eliminating suspect cases would remove ~20 countries from the chart with could have very dramatic and unexpected effects. Perhaps we could put a blurb like "Other countries with suspected, but no confirmed cases include: blah, blah, blah."

Thus, I have no strong opinion about what is the best way to proceed. The one thing I do feel very strongly about is that this would be a major change and absolutely should not be done without CLEAR consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My 2c:

The distinction between probable and suspected cases for the swine flu is defined by CDC, and it is not clear that the other countries (and non-US media) are following the US-guideline for using these terms (why would they ?!). So I think we should, anyway, not make a possibly OR distinction between these numbers and just relabel the column "probable or suspected cases". For countries for which the usage of the terminology is clear, we can of course continue to use these sub-categories in text and in the sub-articles.
Instead of using "-" to signify an unknown (but non-zero) number of probable/suspect cases, why not simply use "?" ? This is a more universally understood notation, and is not confusable with the "minus" sign (even though I have been following this article and discussions more closesly than 99% of our readers, I admit to being perplexed for a moment when I saw the "-(2500±)^§[3]" entry earlier today. )

Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree "?" is a much better notation than "-" for unknown values. Does anyone object to changing this straightaway?

Canada has also not been reporting suspected cases since April. Neither Mexico nor Canada have published a count of probable cases, as far as I know, although they're required to report this to the WHO. I'm not sure if this last column should be deleted completely, but we should at least relegate the most dubious entries (Mexico, Canada) to a footnote where we can explain the problem briefly. -- Avenue (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the main article discussion, this was already talked about. It was suggested that "-" was improper and that another symbol or group of symbols be used. I'd agree with "?". However, from a statistical standpoint and reliable sources standpoint, the column should be removed as these statistics are not universally reported or updated, there is confusion over definitions, and the numbers have a finite lifetime that would require extreme vigilance to maintain any accuracy or relevance with daily updates for every country. If we just want to list those probable cases, that would be okay...but at least the "Total" summation value at the top should be removed due to these issues. Flipper9 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "-" to "??" as I do not consider that a major change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better! Flipper9 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I changed ?? to ?. The former drew too much attention and disturbed the flow. hmwith τ 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is my opinion: We should drop the suspected cases column, but only in countries with confirmed cases. We should keep the suspected cases in countries that do not have a confirmed case. The reason for the table is to track not just the size of the outbreak but also the spread. However, it seems that once countries have significant numbers of suspected cases the number becomes less meaningful. Also, why is there a confirmed death column in the countries with no confirmed cases? If they have a confirmed death isn't that automatically a confirmed case? --62.69.130.82 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should remove the suspected cases column but we should adapt it to the reality of the information that is being provided. Mexico and Canada for example, should have their numbers removed with a note saying that these countries are not providing this data any longer. The ones which are providing the data should be updated accordingly. I personally don't understand the need to use stale data when the situation is clearly evolving. Mexico and Canada would not have 0 cases, there would be a footnote to indicate that the number is not being provided any longer. GaussianCopula (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems be some consensus that the figures for Mexico and Canada should be removed, so I will go ahead with this. (The update to Mexico's figure is not really an update; it comes from a retrospective piece, and may even refer to an earlier period than the figure it replaced. So that doesn't improve the situation.) -- Avenue (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not sure I agree, but I'm sure I disagree either. It's a complicated decision because removing Mexico does have a dramatic effect on the total, which makes the number less realistic overall. That said, we don't have a good source of information so we don't have much leeway. Really this is Mexico's fault for being all "political" on us and refusing to make the info public.

In short, I don't object to the change but I'm not sure it is actually an improvement (although I do realie it definitely had to be done at some point). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should remove the "Total" calculation at the top as it is misleading the reader into thinking that we have sources to back up the idea that there are only that many suspected/probable cases world-wide. We can leave the individual suspected/probable cases for each individual country that we have numbers to reference, but the total serves no purpose at this time. Flipper9 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would drop the column because it can be misleading. "Suspected cases" doesn't mean that they are confirmed and by thus they don't give any information how spead the virus really is. Please remove to avoid confusion.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected cases column is confusing because not all countries have suspected cases but the footnotes are in parenthesis. So the footnotes look like suspected cases data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.154.235 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of the table

What is the criteria ordering the table? I think it started as number of cases, but now the US has more, and Costa Rica arrived in the middle... Should the table be ordered by confirmed cases? 195.217.138.194 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is ordered by number of deaths first, then confirmed cases, then suspect cases. This is done per previous consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to make the rows sortable or put the death row in the first position to avoid confusion. -- 77.176.77.180 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think putting the deaths column first makes sense. They are the most important, and it will help readers understand the sort order as discussed above. -- Avenue (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S.

A note should probably be added that some places in the U.S. have stopped testing probable cases and are only testing severe cases.[14] This affects comparability of the data between countries. Rmhermen (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I imagine similar decisions have been made elsewhere, when the number of cases was large enough to strain the testing facilities, but those places may be less ready to admit it. It doesn't just affect comparability between countries, but also the meaning of the numbers themselves. I agree we should include a suitable caveat in the table. -- Avenue (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC: H1N1 Flu Numbers Represent a "Very Great Underestimate"

Below is a footnote for insertion at an appropriate place in the article, to avoid creating the misleading impression that the reported cases indicate the actual cases. In fact, in the U.S. and Mexico, only spot testing is being done any more, unless the illness is severe enough to raise suspicions of a mutation.

(need to add ref & endref)

CDC: H1N1 Flu Numbers Represent a "Very Great Underestimate"

Emma Hitt, PhD

May 9, 2009 — The confirmed numbers of influenza A (H1N1) cases reported are likely to fall far short of the actual numbers occurring within the community, according to a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spokesperson.

"The individual numbers are likely a very great underestimate of how much virus is circulating or how many people are becoming ill from it," said Anne Schuchat, MD, the Director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, speaking at a media briefing today.

...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/702607</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.160 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC: H1N1 Flu Numbers Represent a "Very Great Underestimate"

Below is a footnote for insertion at an appropriate place in the article, to avoid creating the misleading impression that the reported cases indicate the actual cases. In fact, in the U.S. and Mexico, only spot testing is being done any more, unless the illness is severe enough to raise suspicions of a mutation.

(need to add ref & endref)

CDC: H1N1 Flu Numbers Represent a "Very Great Underestimate"

Emma Hitt, PhD

May 9, 2009 — The confirmed numbers of influenza A (H1N1) cases reported are likely to fall far short of the actual numbers occurring within the community, according to a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spokesperson.

"The individual numbers are likely a very great underestimate of how much virus is circulating or how many people are becoming ill from it," said Anne Schuchat, MD, the Director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, speaking at a media briefing today.

...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/702607</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.160 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Please update the number of confirmed cases to 727 and the number of confirmed deaths to 26. Secretaría de Salud - Estadísticas

Done Flipper9 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please update the number of confirmed cases to 866. Secretaría de Salud - Estadísticas Please add a note to the number of suspected cases saying: "Mexican health administration had stopped updating the number of suspected cases a couple of days ago."

- Confirmed cases updated; such a note already exists regarding suspect cases. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

confirmed cases on Secretaría de Salud - Estadísticas now 1204 and death 44. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekoer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the fatalities to 48 as they are reported in the ECDC source cited. --FHessel (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC) There is a new ECDC source (update 12: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/files/pdf/Health_topics/Situation_Report_090512_0800hrs.pdf) reporting 2059 confirmed cases and 56 fatalities. --FHessel (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany: update

Please update the confirmed cases for Germany to 12 (source may remain, because the source itself has been updated to 12) --FHessel (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Finland and Thailand

Finland has 2 confirmed cases. [15] Thailand confirms first H1N1 flu case. [16] Please update. Игорь277 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thailand has updated and your source from Reuters contradicts with the original reference here. It seems that the old reference points out that the 2nd "confirmed" case is not tested by the CDC, so the other case would only be "probable". -Xavier Fung (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Got this from Reuters and there are 2 cases now. -Xavier Fung (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected ==> under investigation

In most cases anybody with flu-like symptoms is tested for this strain, and in most countries the vast majority are found not to have it. Consequently a better term than "suspected" is "under investigation". Confirmed, probable, and under investigation make a reasonable set of categories. Pol098 (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected is a reserved definition by CDC standards (I don't know about WHO or anyone else). under investigation could mean anything. Changing defintions without authortative sourced reasons could lead to numbers that are based on differing editor intrepretations of media and government reports. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, but a term which has a precise definition in only one country is hardly appropriate. I don't know how many countries use this; if it's very widespread then it's obviously suitable. "Under investigation" is very precise, without need for a formal definition; it is a case that has been reported to a testing laboratory for investigation. "Suspected" implies a pre-judgment. Possibly countries with a great many cases (US) would tend to "suspect" that people with symptoms in an affected area were likely to be infected, while countries with few cases "investigate" a great many cases routinely. A form of words that has been used is "Cases under investigation have not yet been either confirmed or ruled out as being due to this strain of influenza by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out." Pol098 (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

References

It says on this page This reference list does not appear in the article but when I look at the main article the references are included. Is it just me or does this sentence need to be removed? Smartse (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is intended to indicate that the reference list doesn't appear next to the table. I agree it could be worded better. -- Avenue (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in Category_talk:Wikipedia_pages_with_broken_references#Template_cite_error_message and after all was said and done, nobody came up with something better and this is what we use nowadays through {{Templaterefsection}}. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Would this be any better?

== References ==

These notes will be transcluded as references in articles using this template, and can be displayed there by adding either <references/> or {{Reflist}} (if neither of these are already in place). They will not generally be displayed next to the other content generated by this template, as shown here.

It's a bit wordy, but I think it addresses the current ambiguity. -- Avenue (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit wordy?? Debresser (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template protected

This template is used only on three articles. I see no reason it should be protected any more than those articles. We do have a policy of not protecting without good cause. The cause cited was high visibility. In the guideline page it says that "permanent visibility" is required. Apart from that it is my humble opinion that this template should not be protected (even semi-protection) because we have to show that we are serious about allowing articles (including templates) to be edited by anyone. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The template was protected since April; 27. The initial protection is here. I reprotected it, because the software showed that log when editing, which is a little confusing. I could make the reason more in line with the original protection, but I have personally no objection to remove protection now. I would advise to keep the move-protection, as it's been moved a good number of times, it should keep in line with the article name, and this is a controversial subject. Cenarium (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the three pages using this template is still edit-protected. Still, I think this template is less at risk than those articles. In addition, I often see that a lot of vandalism is tolerated before the decision to protect is made. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you changed the protection level. Now we'll see. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico suspected

There is a May 6 report by the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5817a1.htm that gives the total number of suspected cases as of May 5 in Mexico to be 11,932.

That same report says probable cases in the US is 845. The CDC has been providing current updates to this number and it now stands at 433.

I don't agree with using a May 5 number for suspected cases in Mexico and would like further discussion about it before any changes are made. GaussianCopula (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this section. I feel that the number of deaths is misleading compared to the confirmed cases without this information. When I read the CDC article my first thought was that this table needs the information. This information gives it some context and adds to the table. The difference in US cases is understandable because the large backlog has been aggressively worked on in the US over the past few days but there is no indications that 50% of the suspected Mexican cases has been rejected in the same time period. I think it should stay but I too would like to see some more conversation on this subject and will understand of others disagree. Daveonwiki (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quick view of what is in the article -

As of May 5, using an updated case definition of fever plus cough or sore throat for a suspected case and real-time reverse transcription--polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) or viral culture for a laboratory-confirmed case, Mexico had identified 11,932 suspected cases and 949 cases of laboratory-confirmed novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection, including 42 patients who died.

The figure above shows the 822 confirmed and 11,356 suspected cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in Mexico with dates of onset from March 11 through May 3, 2009. Both confirmed and suspected cases rose sharply from April 19 to April 26, then decreased sharply.

This chart with caption may be of more value to the article than the number in the suspected cases column. Daveonwiki (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool little chart. It probably belongs on Wikipedia, but on 2009 swine flu outbreak in Mexico rather than the main page since it only deals with Mexico. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice chart, but not trivial to interpret due to lags in processing cases and assigning them dates. If it does get added somewhere, we should probably include caveats like those provided by PHAC with their similar graph here. -- Avenue (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well actually it is organized by the date of symptom onset, not the test date, so presumably lag isn't an issue except for the last few days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is precisely where it is misleading. The passage immediately following the chart may thus be a misinterpretation. Also, for anyone else reading this, the chart is now being discussed more fully at Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#CDC_-_Mexican_Cases. -- Avenue (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quote from a recent CDC media conference transcript:

"… our MMWRs this past week showed epidemic curves for the U.S. and Mexico, and I think that "New England Journal" article earlier this week also showed an epidemic curve for the U.S. It's important to say that those curves do not incorporate a lag time that additional cases may be happening, and are not yet showing on the curves, so we think that the trends that you see, a big peak and then a decline are not an accurate assessment of the ongoing occurrence of disease. We do think here in the U.S. it's possible that increased cases are occurring, and it's too soon for us to say whether it's some communities things are getting better. Our indicators suggest there are things still be accelerating, we're still seeing an increase in cases. The issue in Mexico, there's a little bit more data to suggest they may be in some parts of the country seeing a decline, in other parts perhaps not yet, ..."

(all in capitals in original)[17] -- Avenue (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GaussianCopula that the May 5 figure for suspected cases should not go in the table - it's just too old. -- Avenue (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the Suspected Cases per the FACTBOX Reuters Link

Looks like the Factbox provided by Reuters doesn't track suspected cases anymore. The reference to countries like Benin, Norway, Finland and others do not support the data any longer. I have tried to update all references I could to official government sites but I can only do that for German, English and Spanish. What do you all recommend we do with these others? GaussianCopula (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I will delete all data referencing suspected cases that refer to the Factbox by Reuters within 24hrs unless someone can provide sourced data. I think that is the only choice. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relinking them to the original reference (yesterday's fact box) will fix it. Doing it now... --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that outside of google cache. It was an up to date data list that used WHO/CDC/National Health Ministries sources, which we can now see, some have stopped simply providing the information. I am only hoping that some who know Finnish or Norwegian and so forth can start updating the data with regards to their government official information. But as far as this link is concerned, I believe it is dead. That means that in the next 12 hours that data must be removed. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I completely disagree with using a May 7 static data for suspected cases. It will never move. The current Factbox has done away with that data. I don't see the point. Although, to be honest, you proved me wrong with that google cache thing. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to indicate the divergence from that data on the 7th to current data on the 8th, just a day old. Country Factbox Current USA 845 224 Spain 49 40 Britain 390 426 France 0 28 NZ 107 62 El Salv 2 5 Colombia 141 162 Switzerl 19 8 CR 7 81 AUS 41 19 Venezue 9 1 Chile 7 3 Peru 7 0 South Af 2 1

I do disagree very much in using this table as a static suspected cases table for the countries which we don't have updated government data. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I respect Thaddeus decision to provide a source for the suspected cases and do want others to please comment. My position can be summarized as follows: The current FACTBOX numbers are not being updated anymore with suspected cases. The WHO, Factbox and several government health ministries are not providing suspected case information anymore. That makes a mutable number, like suspected cases, irrelevant for those countries without a source not linked to the outdated Factbox table.

I will make a move in 12h to remove that data but I would appreciate feedback beforehand. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll note how things happend on the US table and hope it gives you an example how things might be able to be done here. The CDC has never reported Probable or Suspect cases, only Confirmed though daily updates. Most state health departments have reported confrimed and probable cases. A few states continue to report suspected cases. Because of an easy to access media market (lots of news reports on cases) we intially had a lot of reports on suspected numbers. However, as the event has matured and states now update their reports daily, we began removing old suspect cases even if we didn't have a source stating "0 suspect cases" (my personal rule is 1 week). The logic is that because we have evidence of a robust and active testing enviroment, week old cases most likely have been tested by now.

The same logic applies to probable cases. As CDC testing kits have been distributed to states, some states have stopped reporting probable cases and now only report confirmed cases. My personal rule is if a state now only reports confirmed cases and has a significant jump in confirmed cases since the last 'probable statement', I can set probable cases to 0. I don't consider either of these to be OR, just logical thought given a unique reporting enviroment. Other editors have made similar edit summaries.

Note this may be a unique situation to the United States and may not be applicable to other nations where there are significant, recent media reports of suspected cases far in excess of any goverment statements, or infrequent government reporting --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait a until end of the week then to remove the information linked to that report. There is no rush in trying to remove countries from the list. I will see if I can get some government data from those countries. GaussianCopula (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We're really working outside of all normal Wikipedia policy here, since as far as the encyclopedia is concerned we could put up a table describing one particular day during the early outbreak and more than cover the topic. We're intentionally putting aside WP:NOTNEWS in favor of WP:IAR, because everyone does want to know the current situation, and also because the revision history of this chart will be a goldmine for people researching future articles. But because we're going beyond normal policy, we might need to be cautious about letting things get out of hand.

To begin with, I think that these numbers for "suspected" and "probable" cases should at least be added into a single figure for each country. The fact that 4 of 430 cases in the UK are "probable" rather than "suspected" at this moment is of very little significance. Once it is established that there is no reliable source for probable+suspected cases, we can replace this by N/A; and once most of the countries are N/A, we can abolish the column entirely in favor of a footnote. The figure for "probable deaths" in Mexico should also be relegated to a footnote.

Later in the outbreak, it is possible that some countries will stop providing data for confirmed cases and confirmed deaths, at which point we should provide estimated figures in parentheses for those countries. Mike Serfas (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I recommend all parties take a deep breath here. :) There is nothing wrong with a reference that is *gasp* 36 hours old - and no it isn't pointing to a Google cache. If there is no update in a week, obviously the numbers will be dropped. Second, while I agree that the suspected/probable cases column will eventually disappear, now is not the time to do so. Third, the suspected death reference is perfectly valid and normal - for an disease outbreak there will always be some cases that are suspected as being related to the disease but never actually confirmed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. most of our references are to "static data" that will never change. It is our job to replace things with more recent/up-to-date sources when needed, not our sources job to update themselves. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with combining suspected and probable figures. The NZ probable cases figure, for instance, has been relatively stable, with the few changes often reflecting a case shifting from probable to confirmed. The suspected cases figure, on the other hand, frequently goes up or down by 10 or 20 cases. The UK figures are unusual (Colombia is the only other country with a similar ratio of suspected to probable cases), so they don't seem like a good basis for a decision.

I agree with GaussianCopula that the Reuters factbox figures are very dated, given how variable the suspected cases figures are. But this also applies to other sources, such as those for Taiwan and the Czech Republic (from the 4th and 5th of May respectively). Given the lack of up to date information on suspected cases for many countries, I think we should remove this sub-column. I don't think we should wait any longer; these figures are embarrassingly old already. (This obviously does not apply to the 100 suspected deaths in Mexico, as that number is unlikely to change.) The lower part of the table (covering countries with no confirmed cases) could perhaps be replaced with a list of countries, rather than omitting them completely. -- Avenue (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Another two days have passed, with no action on this. Does anyone object to replacing the factbox figures for suspected cases from 7 May with a "?", on the basis that they are now too old to be meaningful? -- Avenue (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, have been thinking this for a while. Will change them now if no new sources. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:13, 13 May 2009 (GMT)

CDC numbers

Note per the CDC website, CDC, 4,298 is the number of confirmed and probable cases. The CDC changed their reporting method this morning, previously they only reported confirmed cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the probable/suspected count (which was now effectively unsourced), and added a footnote to warn readers that the US figure doesn't reflect the column heading. This has implications for the preceding discussion too - see my comment above. -- Avenue (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dropping the probable/suspected column

As the N/A's ramp up, as WHO, Reuters and individual countries stop providing suspected cases updates, this column is starting to stand out like a sore thumb. I am not saying that we need to drop it now but I think we should start having the discussion with regards to removing it. BTW, Seychelles and Benin are linked to a week old report. GaussianCopula (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll start the discussion with the following points. Almost half the cases on the upper graph are 0 or N/A. The lower graph has also half of it's information tracking one cases plus a 2 case. I don't see the relevance of this after the almost 3 week ordeal where we had all expected some sort of ramp up in the information. I am for removing the suspected cases since outside of the US, Costa Rica, UK and Colombia; the information is proving to be of minor relevance. GaussianCopula (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be responding to you, so here's my tuppenceworth. If you are suggesting that the table should only show laboratory-confirmed cases, I'm not sure that sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't it produce bias towards countries that are more zealous in their testing and/or who have a smaller head of population per laboratory, and against countries with less effective health services and/or whose laboratories are overstretched? I confess I haven't grasped the distinction between "probable" and "suspected". The reference in the column heading doesn't help - it defines "probable", but not "suspected". Whatever the distinction is, is it so significant? Couldn't we re-name the column "probable or suspected", and just take the larger of the two figures in each case (or, if the categories are mutually exclusive, the sum of them?) GrahamN (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC) GrahamN (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of biases here, and the suspected and probable cases are probably the worst affected by them. At some point, you have to judge whether the information is good enough to include. These figures are already quite misleading for the U.S. and some poorer countries. I feel the balance is now clearly against including the suspected figures, and the probable ones are borderline. -- Avenue (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As the epidemic ramps up, we are going to reach a stage where the extremely costly and difficult genetic analysis to confirm each individual case becomes impossible because there are simply too many cases. In the midst of a raging pandemic it does not make sense to genetically type each individual case of the flu. At that point we are going to have to start using probable numbers to track the course of the epidemic. My vote is to soldier on with this column because I think we are going to need it soon. Hawthorn (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't they have to do some genetic analysis to advance a case from "suspected" to "probable"? That would seem to refute your argument. I gather Mexico and the U.S. are only testing seriously ill cases now. Anyway, the problem (as GC said) is simply that many authorities are no longer providing this information. In particular, several large U.S. states are not, which makes the U.S. totals highly suspect. I think the column should be deleted, and the lower half of the table replaced by a simple list of countries where any suspected cases were reported (and these have not yet been reported as cleared). -- Avenue (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Probable cases are those with a clinical suspicion who have tested positive for Influenza A but not yet specifically this virus. The test for the specific virus was initially by PCR which is expensive and slow, I imagine the test for Influenza A is some kind of ELISA test which could be ubiquitous and fast. |→ Spaully^₪† 00:29, 14 May 2009 (GMT)

My 2c: The suspect/probable cases column is not particularly useful "for tracking the spread", however it does serve some purpose. Biases affect all the numbers, but do so in different ways. It is probably best to just put all the available data out there and let the reader decide for themselves what is/isn't significant. The probable/suspect numbers aren't even totaled at the top, so I don't see any reason to drop them just because they are admittedly less than ideal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDC now lumps probable cases in with confirmed cases in its figures, so a substantial portion of the cases that should go in this column now have to be included in the confirmed cases count. Should we do the same throughout? -- Avenue (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include probable with confirmed and drop suspected altogether. The CDC reports that greater than 99% of the probable cases it reports become confirmed cases when they are tested. As time goes on the Deaths will be the most reliable indicator of its spread but even it will have problems due to lack of reporting and differences in treatment between countries. I suspect that 10 years from now all that will remain is the total suspected, % of population impacted and estimated deaths. Daveonwiki (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as I would like to combine probable and confirmed cases, I think the data on probable cases is not complete enough to do a good job. We're missing Mexico and Canada, along with several others, and the WHO does not report probable case counts either. This is becoming a mess. -- Avenue (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC 50,000+ Cases in the US

CDC says that there are probably more than 100,000 cases of the flu in the US and over half are Swine Flu. Should these be added to the suspected cases? See http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20090515/cdc-100,000plus-in-us-have-swine-flu-half-swine-flu Daveonwiki (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the CDC source for the article: http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090515.htm Daveonwiki (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no since it is just an estimate based on how many people normally have the flu. "Suspected cases" means something more than just a estimate - it means cases with flu like symptoms that have a reasonable chance of being swine flu. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I only partially agree. This is not based upon how many people normally have the flu. It is based on how many people the CDC's monitoring system indicates currently have the flu. The CDC has said:

John Cohen: I did. You're saying there's increased activity from normal surveillance but it's confusing given that there's so much more surveillance, how do you factor out whether it's the increased surveillance that's leading to this abnormal activity when 50 percent of what you're seeing is seasonal flu?

Dan Jernigan: Right. I think it's a difference between the types of surveillance systems. So one of them is the -- what we call viral logic surveillance. It's where we actually collect the viruses and enumerate them, characterize them, et cetera. And so that's one that is completely dependent upon people sending in specimens where they can be appropriated tested and characterized. And that's where you see that tremendous increase at the end of this season. The other is an influenza illness network of 4,500 clinicians and other providers that tell us how many people are coming into their clinics for all causes and also tell us how many of those people are coming in with fever and influenza-like illness symptoms. And so that one is going to be less affected by media and by other factors and is not one that we stimulate through any kind of public health activity but would be in part, perhaps, reflective of some media interest. But even in the time that the interest has waned, we see that those folks are still coming in. And what we also see is that those upticks in certain regions are consistent with anecdotal reports and other reports we get of school closures and of increased illness in communities.

This is not simply based on the number of people who normally have the flu. Daveonwiki (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring back the logarithmic chart

It is a very good depiction indeed. The justification for deleting it, that it needs explanation in text, seems completely spurious to me as it is very clear. In any case this extremely useful graph is now unlinked. By all means move it elsewhere on the page but don't just delete it!!! Hawthorn (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Having updated the chart I have added it to the main article and added a link below the normal scale on the table. While more informative overall it is not immediately obvious, especially to those without a mathematics background, what it is depicting so I think the other chart should be the main image for the table.

Remember you can always add the image to articles yourself if you think it should go somewhere, be bold if you feel strongly about something. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:49, 13 May 2009 (GMT)

I disagree strongly that you would need to have a maths background to understand this chart. (Actually, isn't it a graph, not a chart?) It has large, clear numbers on its vertical axis, and you don't need to have heard of logarithms to read them. It is absolutely clear what it is depicting. I actually think this graph is easier to understand than the main one, which is confusing on first sight because of its two different y-axes. It gives more information, too. It's a shame that it's been relegated to an obscure little link, which people will only click on if (A) they happen to notice it, (B) they know what "semi-logarithmic means (what does semi-logarithmic mean, by the way?) and (C) they appreciate the advantages of these types of graphs. This is an excellent, very informative, easily understood graph. I think it should be given equal prominence to the main one, or, at the very least, put back into a collapsible section of the table. I'd like to hear some more opinions before being "bold" about this, though. GrahamN (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with including it until it is fixed. First, this chart or graph (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chart chart: 4. See graph) is not adequately portraying a true logarithmic progression. Here you can see courtesy of yahoo what a real logarithmic chart should look like (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=GM&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=yhoo&c=%5EGSPC). If you notice the scale, there is an actual natural progression which OUTSIZES the increases in comparison to the initial y-axis value progression. This is not being adequately represented on this chart.

I would also like to point out that I am against the main chart as well because the y-axis 2 has an non-proportionate representation in the chart in comparison to y-axis 1. Not only do death cases track confirmed cases up to almost 3/4 of the chart, they serve no purpose to represent them in such a way that fails to actually track how the number of suspected cases has increased significantly whereas the number of deaths has increased at a significantly slower pace.

I am for removing both graphs until a true logarithmic chart can be created. Otherwise, they are simply of a sensational nature. GaussianCopula (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It IS a logarithmic graph. I teach this stuff at university. GaussianCopula you are wrong. The whole OUTSIZES comment is just totally whack. You'd get marks off for that in my class for sure. The other chart you link to is bizarre. I don't know what sort of chart it is but it sure isn't a logarithmic graph. It seems to have some kind of distorted percentage on one axis. Percentages are not the kind of thing you should be plotting on a logarithmic graph. They are most useful when applied to unbounded quantities. Maybe in some weird corner of finance they call these things logarithmic graphs - but no mathematician would recognise them as such.

The logarithmic chart is now so superior to the ordinary graph that we should be using this one instead as the primary graph for the article. It shows what is going in in a way that the ordinary graph doesn't. The ordinary graph is nothing more than pretty wallpaper which tells you that the number of cases is going up - Duh! You can't see in what manner. You can't see anything much really. It also attempts to display a false relationship between the numbers of deaths and cases. On the logarithmic graph we would expect to see the number of cases and the number of deaths tending towards two parallel lines. The vertical separation will then tell us the fatality rate. In the early parts of the epidemic we don't see this - the lines are far from parallel, probably because of missing data, which means any attempt to measure the fatality rate on this part of the graph is premature. The fitted correspondence between deaths and cases in the ordinary graph is a false comparison. Notice that as time goes by it is looking more and more broken and sick, whereas on the logarithmic graph the lines for cases and deaths are getting closer and closer to parallel.Hawthorn (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorn, your argument is unpersuasive. The main thrust of it seems to be "I'm cleverer and better educated than you, so I'm right and you are wrong". I hope you are more reasonable with your students! Nonetheless, I think you are correct that there is nothing wrong with the graph. Powers of 2 are no less "true" than powers of 10. However, I'm strongly against replacing the existing graph with this one. To do that would be whatever the opposite of "sensationalist" is. We do need a simple graph that illustrates how the number of cases is rising, in real terms (i.e on a linear scale). You may say "duh", but that is all many people will be looking for from the graph. Maybe we could remove the deaths from the existing graph, or remove the cases, leaving only the deaths, or adjust the scale somehow, so it doesn't produce a misleading impression? GrahamN (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A few things to note - the log graph is currently present in the text of the article and linked from the table, I would be happy for it to feature more but not at the expense of the normal graph. There is also a trade-off to be had around the size of the table.

I agree with Hawthorn that the log graph is a far better graph and tells you a lot more, though I still think it is not as easy to interpret as the normal one. We are writing for lay people and the normal graph gives an immediate picture of the manner of the increase in cases; this is even true for the thumbnail. Perhaps the log graph should feature alongside the other, but not instead of it.

I do have issues with the double y-axes on the normal graph, it could be seen to suggest a close correlation of cases where that would be inappropriate. Though I am at a loss of how to better separate the plots without taking up too much space on separate graphs.

Finally, just to ask people to cool it a little. No need to argue over talk page semantics and please assume good faith. Speaking of semantics though, by semi-logarithmic I was referring to only one axis being a logarithm, is this correct? Please change it if I'm wrong. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:48, 13 May 2009 (GMT)

Semi-logarithmic is exactly right - I had just never heard the term before and was confused by it. I thought "what on earth is a semi-logarithm"? There was no entry on Wikipedia for the term. But in fact it refers to a chart half of which is logarithmic, not a chart of half a logarithm. The English language can be very ambiguous sometimes. On the basis that if I'm confused by the term then others are also likely to be, I just wrote a wee article at semi-logarithmic plot with a re-direct from semi-logarithmic. GrahamN (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument is pointless. Both graphs are good for different reasons. Keeping both is probably best; the linear y-axis is best for basic representation, however, logarithmic y-axis ar more practical and analytical (and sorry guys, but Hawthorn is right on this one, eventually the linear y-axis graph will need removing as the exponential trend leaves the earlier data values trailing along the x-axis and being meaningless). Let's just keep them up to date for now. Wuku (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Detected vs Reported

Saying "reported human cases by country" implies the figures are estimates (even if censored) of the numbers infected/dead. They are not. They are estimates of the numbers of people who have been detected to have swine flu or have died from swine flu. Detecting this swine flu is hard as its so like normal flu and the detections may be heavily biased (better detection in western countries for example). Some epidemiologists have estimated that greater than 10 times more actual cases exist in Mexico than have been detected.

Saying "detected human cases by country" might be taken as implying that countries aren't lying. Although non-reporting is a detection bias so....

I can't think of a sensible compromise. The former is seriously misleading and the latter only quite misleading so I've changed the title back to the former. Barnaby dawson (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree "detected" is better than "reported". -- Avenue (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Detected is better & wasn't that what it was for most of the template's history? A third alternative is "known" --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree... "known" is the best option i think... its clearest for the reader. Wuku (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

72 suspect cases in Nicaragua

Here is the reference [18] (in Spanish).--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 08:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When/How should 'confirmed human cases' section of table be shortened?

I noticed the table is getting a bit long, so I wondered:

Do we need to shorten the list (as was done by putting the 'suspected only' countries into their own list)? If so, how? and when?

I don't think we need to do it quite yet, but probably soon, and there are a couple of ways it could be done, so I thought maybe discussing them now beforehand would be a good idea.

--Since it is unusual for an influenza virus to manifest first in the americas, and some have already refered to it as American flu, then, we could break things out by continent:

North/Central/South America for one list, then either by 'rest of world' OR by 'continent/groups of continents'

--As people are also 'number watching' it might be a case for breaking it out be number totals:

'under 10', '10-50', '51-99', '100-999', 'over 1000' ... or some similar break down.

-- and my least liked option, alphabetical: 'a-e', 'f-j', 'k-o', 'p-t', 'u-z' ... or similar.

--Some other way that is logical and that I didn't think of.

Of course, the usual ordering would continue within the categories (death/confirm/suspect).

My preference is for continent or group of continents. Ideas? Input? --- Kavri (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're gonna do it, go with continent, no reason to scroll halfway down a page to find mexico. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

With continent or 'over 1000' Mexico would still be at the top of the page, with US and Canada following, since it would still be ordered by 'deaths/confirmed/suspect'. That would also be the case if North/Central/South America made up one group. Going with number categories would appeal to those that want to see which countries have the most/least cases...but if it wasn't a country with the very most or least, it might be more of a bother for someone that wanted to look at a specific country (ie randomly, would someone know offhand where to find Greece? and when Greece's numbers change one would have to look through the categories to find it again. Also, it would be more work to keep up to date. That said, though I still like continents/groups of continents best, there might be other/better ideas out there. By the way, do you think it should be done now? later? I don't know what the majority would consider 'too long' for a table. --- Kavri (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to group countries by degree of spread. Put countries with sustained community-level human-to-human transmission together (Mexico, the U.S., and Canada at present), then countries with isolated in-country transmission, then countries with confirmed imported cases, then counties with suspected cases only. I saw this done in one report a few days ago - can't remember where though. -- Avenue (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We could make a grouping of "Under 10" or whatever number, that might be easiest for now.

I like the suggestion of grouping by within country spread. This is becoming a more published figure, though will always be lacking in smaller Central American countries. It would be good if you could find the source as this would be our guide to reference. Any other suggestions? |→ Spaully^₪† 14:20, 13 May 2009 (GMT)

I've looked around a couple of times, and haven't found it again. Although I like the idea of using that classification, its probably to subjective too use without a good source. -- Avenue (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea as well. We could put "sustained" and "isolated" in-country into one category, then we have good references to distinguish the categories (see the ref.s in the swine flu article or the discussion above this one). And it would still be only some 10 countries.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll try this out soon. -- Avenue (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that you probably are going to have to find a single RS classifying this distinction to justify the split. Otherwise, it is fairly subjective. The easiest & least controversial way to split it would simply be to move the countries with below a certain number of cases (and no deaths) below the fold. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

cayman has two confirmed cases

http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=10382914 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.6.205 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[ArgentinaInfo-1] Ministry of Health of Argentina H1N1 flu site with links to regularly updated situation reports (in Spanish) (this link is unlikely to change) The daily updates give the current number of cases confirmed and under investigation, with additional details, and are linked from this page.
Ministry of Health of Argentina situation report on H1N1 flu (in Spanish) No. 12, 10 May 2009 (this link will be updated to reference the latest HPA update)

[1]