Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic by country summary/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Where is China and Ecuador

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

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

Numbers with multiple sources

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

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

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

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

Should we add country flags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argentina

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

Australia update

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

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

Current Situation

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

North America

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

United States

New York

Houston

New Mexico

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

Illinois

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

Asia Pacific Region

Australia

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

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

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

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

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

GUIDELINES:

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

Official Sources

Is there a reason why the UK gets a hidden comment about only using official sources, and everyone abides by it, but when I add a hidden comment recommending using an state ministry of health website for updates, it gets deleted within 24 hours, without any apparent attempt to use the official daily updates? -- CB...(ö) 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be chances that multiple edits by different editors would accidentally remove the hidden comment. My take for this approach is to use official source wherever possible. If there are media reports telling a higher number, adopt them first and change back to official figures when they are released. Do you think this handles better? - Xavier Fung (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that editors are using news sites, with complete disregard to the fact that official sites state the same numbers, and are the very source for the (often day-later) news numbers. I'll start commenting the official sites back in. CB...(ö) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see how frustrated it is, but somehow the media are easier to find then official sources and there would be chances that they update the figures in haste. We might need to keep fixing them. - Xavier Fung (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Where an official source updates regularly, like the daily UK updates, I think this should be used to the exclusion of higher media references. For more relaxed official reporting I agree that using interim media sources might be the best option, though perhaps people should be encouraged to comment out the official sources rather than delete them - it's a pain to have to trawl through old versions to find them.

If we can agree on general preferences on references then we could add a short guide on the template page. This would be more visible than the many in-text comments. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:17, 4 June 2009 (GMT)

Indicators column not needed

Not everything needs to be in the table. I think it's too much. That information can be included in prose. hmwithτ 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The swine flu statistics

I have been following the swine flu since may, because I understood it would spread, and I wanted to follow the development. And so I did. It was interesting in the beginning to see how a new disease transmitted from human to human was spreading.. both to see the ways it took and the speed it had.. Im sorry to say it is not as interesting anymore as there are so many dead people. But of course I knew it would happen.. But anyhow, it feels drastic and sad. In a larger scale it is maybe not a severe disease at this moment, and hopefully there will be vaccine in the autumn that will protect. And it will again be interesting to see how much impact this will have on the spread. At the moment it seems its only ECDC as an organization that is reporting the statistical data. And this wikipedia site is great. There are other countries that also try to report the full scale, but it is of course difficult. I will continue to follow the development, even I have stopped making my own diagrams. I live in south Sweden and I can see that the figures from SMI have not been followed for a week.. There have now been 464 cases in Sweden and sixty four of these have been contaminated inside the country. There is one man in intensive care. The link to SMI (Contamination Protection Institute) is:

http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/nyainfluensan/analys-av-nyainfluensan/

Information is of great importance. Urban Jonsson south-sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.169.223 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

YThanks a lot for your encouragement! I updated the Swedish numbers. But feel free to update the numbers yourself, too. Wikipedia encourages the users to make edits as necessary. If you need any help, just leave me a note. FHessel (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases column - countries which reduced their testing efforts

We have discussed this frequently. The confirmed cases are losing their meaning, when a country changes its strategy towards testing only a (smaller or bigger) fraction of suspect cases. The ECDC has marked all countries doing so in their reports (countries shaded with gray). I introduced this information into our table by putting the affected numbers in brackets.
Now I remember, that some other countries have also announced to reduce their testing. Please deal with these countries accordingly. FHessel (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alert! Wrong numbers on multiple sites. Possible vandalism.

I came across the US numbers (confirmed) and I wondered, where they came from. I checked a few and I found, that they have been randomly changed. The user, who changed those numbers has also changed multiple other sites within about three hours yesterday. As far as I can see with a quick look the changes affect in in almost all cases multiple numbers of confirmed cases. I have seen no ref anywhere. This has to be urgently checked! Affected sites:

• US
• Canada
• Australia
• Brazil
• Mexico
• Argentina
• Thailand
• i.a.

Sorry, I do not have time at the moment to solve this!
FHessel (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Including the number of estimated cases with brackets like we do so for suspected deaths

can't we include the number of estimated case with brackets like we do so for suspected deaths? A lot of countries are estimating cases.(For example:U.K,U.S.A)More and more countries will start estimating cases.Sampsonkwan (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was already happening on the table. Again, no doubt some sad person with nothing better to do is reverting it as it breeches something stupid :| Thenthornthing (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be really simpler if we could just split the tables...Cahethel (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added it back but someone deleted it!.Sampsonkwan (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.122.205 (talk)

I'm not the one deleting the estimated numbers, but I do think that simply adding them to the current table is large enough to require discussion rather than being made unilaterally. A) it's ugly, B) it screws up the formatting, and C) it throws the meaning of thr confirmed numbers into confusion. The estimated numbers will definitely need to be added, but just appending them to the current confirmed numbers isn't going to work, I'm afraid. Sqlman (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's ugly why do we put suspected deaths in the table?218.103.169.63 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suspected deaths are those deaths that may have been from N1H1 but were not tested at the time. Suspected "cases" are those being tested to confirm H1N1 or not. They are credible numbers. Estimated cases are wild guessing and not credible numbers as we don't know what the infection rate and unreported rate are. No one knows how many "estimated" cases there are with any degree of accuracy. Countries may be reporting numbers, but that doesn't make them accurate or meaningful. These numbers need to be removed because they do not meet Verifiability requirements. Kf6spf (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But that may be the best data we have! It's the same reason why we estimate the number of cases in the article 1918 flu pandemicSampsonkwan (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Dependencies totals

These haven't been updated in some time, I suspect because it has been somewhat hard to find - the information can be found beneath table 2 (page 5 of the current report) of the Weekly epidemiology update, available on the HPA site: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1240732817665?p=1240732817665

From the most recent report (30th July):

"In addition, there have been 175 cumulative confirmed cases reported from the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: Anguilla (1), Bermuda (1), British Virgin Islands (5), Cayman Islands (60 – and one death), The Falklands (5), Guernsey (17), Isle of Man (6), Jersey (38), Sovereign Base Area Cyprus (30), Turks and Caicos Islands (12)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.1.218 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

YThanks a lot for the information! I updated the UK numbers incl. overseas territories. But feel free to update the numbers yourself, too. Wikipedia encourages the users to make edits as necessary. If you need any help, just leave me a note. FHessel (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting this table into two

I would suggest to split this table in two. One more simple(the one we're using now)and one more detailed(see Template talk:2009_flu_pandemic_table#Reshaping_the_table_for_the_inclusion_of_hospitalized_patients )Sampsonkwan (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Everytime we split an article into several more articles, there is a tendency to forget something or to update something. I point you out to this article that hasn't been updated in quite awhile: 2009 flu pandemic tables. Seems no one is tracking this article and updating it. By right this article's information can be taken from the table we using right now. We should leave the information of confirmed laboratory cases, deaths and indicators in the same area. Roman888 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the table. Thenthornthing (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hospitalizations and deaths by country

Country	A/H1N1 ./. ILI rate	Confirmed#(estimated)	Hospitalized		ICU		Deaths (suspected)	Reporting Authority	Data Status
			Total	Actual	Total	Actual
Mexico	-	12.645	-	-	-	-	124(77)		11.07.2009
Chile	80%	9.549	406	-	-	-	25		06.07.2009
Singapore	13%	1.217 (7. Jul)	-	46	-	1	0		14.07.2009
Hong Kong	-	1552	-	-	5	5	0(1)		16.07.2009
	%		-	-	-	-
-: no data available
‡Many countries have stopped to report cconfirmed cases. A date in brackets indicates the last date when confirmed cases have been issued.

References

Addressing inconsistencies in the way various territories and dependencies are listed in the table

I'd like to see us come to some sort of a convention for listing confirmed cases and/or deaths in various dependencies and territories, etc.

We currently have territories from the following nations all rolled up under that country:

--United States (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam) (Note that Northern Mariana Islands--a territory of the US--is still being listed separately.)

--France (French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Saint-Martin)

--Netherlands (Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles)

(All of those were listed as table references until today when someone unilaterally removed the reference for the US territories and placed it back at the bottom of the table where it had been for quite some time.)

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom's overseas territories are shown as separate line items in the table: British Virgin Islands, the Falkland Islands, the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda, along with the crown dependencies Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man.

I propose that the UK territories/dependencies be allowed to stay as they are, and that the territories now rolled up into the United States, France, and Netherlands totals be broken out into separate line items for the following reasons: 1) to maintain consistency with the way the UK territories are listed; 2) to facilitate research, as case numbers for most territories can be found in different times and places than numbers for the mother country; 3) to facilitate updating, as extra work won't need to be done to update individual portions of references; 4) to ensure cases show up in their proper geographic areas (for instance, right now cases in French Polynesia in the south Pacific are listed under Europe); 5) to make the table more useful via greater granularity.

I'd like to make this change in two or three days unless there's overwhelming pushback against doing so. Sqlman (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. I find it cumbersome, how the numbers for the French territories are kept in a footnote, ever being at risk not to be updated. But it needs clear instructions (hidden comments) within the table, similiar to China. FHessel (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An update: we've now got 1) all the UK territories/dependencies still broken out separately; 2) all the United States and French territories/dependencies listed as footnotes at the bottom of the table; 3) all the Netherlands territories/dependencies listed as a reference. As there's been no pushback, I plan to standardize all these elements per my comment above as soon as possible, probably today. Sqlman (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Norway statisics

Norway is now having an increase of swine flu. The statistics have not been updated for a while. I think it is important to follow the disease there. The statistics can be found on Norwegian FHI Peoples Health Institute On the site you choose Influensa A (H1N1) in the first box (Sykdom) and then 2009 in the second box (År). Than click the button Lag Tabell (Create table)

Until today there has been 630 cases in Norway.

Link to Peoples Health Institute (department MSIS Reporting System for Infectious Diseases): http://www.msis.no/emsisexternalweb/DynamiskRapport.aspx

Urban Jonsson South-Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.169.223 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

YThanks a lot for the information! I updated the Norwegian numbers. But feel free to update the numbers yourself, too. Wikipedia encourages the users to make edits as necessary. If you need any help, just leave me a note. FHessel (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Legend for bracketed data in 'Deaths' column?

I have seen bracketed data under 'Deaths' for a while now, but am not sure what this means, as there is no legend/descriptor in the heading. There was a legend a couple of months ago with (suspected) - as per 'Confirmed Cases' column, but I am not now sure if this is the same for this data or not. Could someone who knows what the bracketed data is please insert a descriptor in the heading? Savlonn (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The legend is right in the header, where it says 'Confirmed (Suspected)'. FHessel (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

noinclude refs

if we noinclude refs, then the template will look much tidy. Doorvery far (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

==> Please put UPDATE REQUESTS in this section <==

Schools are closed now: All schools and colleges are closed in Pune from 12th August to 18th August, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.78.151 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First Death in India. Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?issueid=&id=54925&option=com_content&task=view&sectionid=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.1.198 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Charts are now about 11 days out of date. I really like the charts because they give a sense of whether the rate of new cases/deaths is changing over time. ike9898 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The figure for Hong Kong shows 1055 but the reference supporting this says 1178 218.102.216.172 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

New cases in Peru, 1580 confirmed cases now, and one more death, so 4 in total. Source: http://www.minsa.gob.pe/portada/prensa/notas_auxiliar.asp?nota=7579 AbnormisSapiens (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.187.2 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nauru and American Samoa are not included in this table, the WHO figures or the CDC or PAHO figures, but they are in the french health institutes figures here: http://www.invs.sante.fr/surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_A_h1n1_170709/bilan_monde.pdf (in french). 18 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.181.56 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

American Samoa is included in the number of the United States. Nauru I will look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.157.253 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 20 deaths in Peru now. I've been updating this table for Peru throughout the entire pandemic, so it pisses me off quite a bit that now it's protected. Please update it, thanks. Source: http://www.minsa.gob.pe/portada/prensa/notas_auxiliar.asp?nota=7652 AbnormisSapiens (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In the table Hong Kong is showing as two deaths but the referenced source shows only 1. I can't find any mention of a second death. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? 202.40.210.130 (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well facts have caught up with the table, 2nd Hong Kong death has now been reported 202.40.210.130 (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Who has time to check that case in the US[3]. I am not sure, whether it belongs to Indiana or Ohio. The brother is in our list quite sure. FHessel (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are now 517 cases in The Netherlands: http://www.rivm.nl/cib/themas/nieuwe-influenza/index.jsp Conego (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of cases in The Netherlands is put in between brackets, as if the Dutch government wouldn't be recommending laboratory tests for all suspect cases. However, the website of the national Dutch health 'organization' (www.rivm.nl, in Dutch) still says that anyone with symptoms of the swine flu should contact his physician for further tests. To conclude, can anyone remove those brackets? 77.165.72.162 (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The ECDC has marked The Netherlands as a country 'not recommending laboratory tests for all suspect cases'. FHessel (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, didn't know that. Thanks!Conego (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

First death in Vietnam, confirmed at 23:48, 3 August (UTC+7, local time) in Khanh Hoa hospital, Nha Trang City, Khanh Hoa. The patient named Bùi Thị Xuân, found positive to flu on July 30, along with her son. Reason of death to be investigated. User:linker173 5:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First fatality in Irish Republic, source [4] Squidlimerick (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

42nd death in the UK, source [5] and I even knew that person... 194.165.29.74 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Impetus and reasoning for adding an 'Estimates' column

Again, it's becoming increasingly clear that the table needs to include official estimated numbers. A greater and greater number of nations are no longer reporting confirmed cases--the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Argentina, and Japan, just to name a few--and even more are being added to that group every day. This table's relevance and value will continue to diminish the longer this continues. Now, many nations that are no longer reporting confirmed case numbers are beginning to release estimates. The U.K., of course, has been doing so for the past four weeks, and Spain recently began (the Spanish one is very precise: http://www.expatica.com/es/news/spanish-news/Spain-reports-more-than-12_000-new-swine-flu-cases_55255.html), to name but a few.

Table-wise, we can't get rid of either the 'Country' or 'Deaths' columns, and for the foreseeable future the 'Cases' column needs to be maintained. It seems, then, we need to either A) omit the 'Indicators' column (though it's obviously of value) and replace it with an 'Estimated Cases' column, or B) simply add a fifth column titled 'Estimated Cases'. Thoughts? Sqlman (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What about renaming the 'Confirmed cases' column to simply 'Cases' and then omit case counts, which have lost their meaning (e.g. those in brackets), replacing them by specially marked official(!) estimations, where available? FHessel (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We can do that, I think. Some nations are providing either actual cases or estimated cases, while a few are providing both (and others are providing neither). How would we acomodate those?75.147.156.165 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Color indicators?

Suggestion at Talk:2009 flu pandemic#Color indicators? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-12t15:42z

I say be BOLD and do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.33.230 (talk • contribs) 2009-08-12t17:51:42z

I'd say do NOT be bold and do it; this is too large a change to make without consensus. Yeah, on the face of it, this sounds great. But the reality is, maintenance would likely be a headache, and--possibly of greater importance--given that only certain countries are providing that trend data, the table would be very cluttered and even more unreadable.

And Jeandré: are you logging out to second your own suggestions? ;-) 75.147.156.165 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See answers to 1st paragraph at Talk:2009 flu pandemic#Color indicators?

Nope, I'm in South Africa, and whois says the 78 is from Turkey and you're from the USA. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-13t15:48z

Updating the US table

Because of lack of time I am not able to update the US table. Bud every once in a while I run into a news item, which would come in helpful for the US. So I will start a new topic in the template talk of the US table, where I will put the links to these articles. So there will be some material, when someone wants to see about the US. FHessel (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Chile deaths

Yesterday I updated the Chile deaths from 105(7) to 112. Now it has been reverted to the old number and the user 190.21.51.246 has left a hidden note saying: "Only 105 deaths have been strictly confirmed to be caused by Human influenza on Chile, on 7 other deaths H1N1 virus was present but was not the main cause of death. Please, DO NOT edit this figures even if PAHO says so, because the main oficial source of information for Chile is the "Ministerio de Salud de Chile" (Chilean Departament of Health)".
First of all, this citing is incomplete. The official statement is "el resto está aún en estudio o se consideró que la influenza no jugó un papel en la cadena causal de eventos que terminaron en la muerte". Somehow the first part, saying that the seven cases are being investigated has slipped your attention!
Then please note, that the Ministerio de Salud issues a weekly report, actual report having a data status of Aug 11. Please note also, that the PAHO report has a data status of Aug 14.
So, please do not revert the official statement of PAHO again to the outdated data of Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Thank you. FHessel (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Those 7 deaths are from about 2 weeks ago, those figures ARE NOT outdated and confirmation of those 7 deaths due to AH1N1 virus DID NOT come out recently and will not in the near future. The information provided by PAHO is correct, but raw and not detailed. Correct and detailed information is: 105 strictly confirmed deaths due to virus and 7 deaths just with virus presence (in study or already ruled out as cause of death). So, please, stop editing this numbers, even if PAHO says so, until this statement "el resto está aún en estudio o se consideró que la influenza no jugó un papel en la cadena causal de eventos que terminaron en la muerte" changes into "en las siete muertes que estaban en estudio se confirmó que la influenza jugó un papel en la cadena causal de eventos que terminaron en la muerte". Please also consider that PAHO is taking its numbers ONLY from the Chilean Health Department report (Ministerio de Salud de Chile) so the only reliable source is the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.48.83 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed about your detailed knowledge of the communication between Chilenean government and PAHO. And I will not start an edit war here. Time will render this discussion useless anyway. Only for completeness: also ECDC is reporting 112 fatalities for Chile since Aug 15, before that date they had 105.
FHessel (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just go to page 6, table 3 of the PAHO report and see what I say is true. I quote: "Source: Ministries of Health and National Influenza Centers of the countries in the Region". And let's go to the ECDC report, again, I quote: "Note: cases reported in non-EU and EFTA countries correspond to cases published on Ministry of Health websites, or through WHO, or through credible media source quoting national authorities. Therefore, some of these cases may be taken out at a later stage if not validated. Yellow shading indicates a new update has been recorded for the country during the past 24 hours." Finally, before Aug 15, ECDC and PAHO had 104 deaths for chile when actually the Health department was reporting 97(7). It all depends on whether you are informing just the number of deaths where the virus was present or the number of deaths caused by the virus. I feel that 112 or 105(7) both mean 112 deaths in the former situation, but in the latter situation 112 is incorrect.190.21.15.127 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am looking at the ECDC list and its states that the number of Chilean deaths is now at 128. So I was wondering how long are you going to put the 11 unconfirmed deaths up there? Let's say if the number of deaths do increase are you going to remove the 11 unconfirmed deaths? The number of deaths situation is fluid and that will change in the coming weeks. I can tell that certain countries the ministries of health are slower in updating their websites on the number of cases and deaths compared to the information you get in the media. I am thinking the Chilean Ministry of Health may be in that category. Roman888 (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case. Please read the complete discussion, ECDC and PAHO take their numbers from the Chilean Ministry of Health, and the 11 deaths will stay where they are until they are ruled out or confirmed to be caused by the virus. Probably they are going to rise or decay, we can speculate on that, but certainly we must respect the official information coming from each country unless they explicitly and officially say other way. And if you think that Chilean Ministry of Health falls in the "slowy" category, just try to find any source not quoting the Chilean Ministry of Health weekly report and change the figures (I couldn't). Again, please read the whole discussion about it.190.21.52.28 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot, also as ECDC says: "...Therefore, some of these cases may be taken out at a later stage if not validated...", that is the reason why ECDC has 128 deaths. I feel 116(11) shows exactly the actual situation, 128 is wrong since one death was ruled out and 127 is imprecise.190.21.52.28 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before the situation with the H1N1 virus is fluid and the numbers will eventually change. I have removed the notes regarding the Chilean virus and updated the new figure of 130 deaths as per the ECDC reference.Roman888 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman: let´s take the confirmed deaths as the preferred number if available, as most countries specify (or else we should state 465+349 for Argentina for example and the table would be a mess!).Acolombo1 (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics update for Mauritius

7 death cases and 35,000 confirmed infected cases.

Reference: http://www.lexpress.mu/article/sept-d%C3%A9c%C3%A8s-dus-la-grippe

Note: Reference is in French.

Requesting an admin to update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.192.99.54 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the information. FHessel (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated death numbers

On adding the numbers of current deaths as of 08:38 UK time on 09/09/09 I get a total of 3520 rather than the 3430 listed in the table.

I note there has been a large increase in deaths reported in Brazil, and perhaps the total has not been updated following this.

Does the table totalize automatically?Dmshaw (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)dmshaw

No, the table does not totalize automatically. Every editor should update the totals (and also the subtotal 'Other'), when he or she edits numbers or moves a contry to the top table. Unfortunately many don't, so some editors (incl. Sqlman and me) have automatic procedures for checking the totals every once in a while.

What concerns the brazil increase not being reflected in the total: I was planning to revert the brazil number (which I finally did today) and I did not want the total to jump back and forth. So I did not correct the totals, when I checked them routinely. Unfortunately s.b. else did, before I had time to rev the brazil entry.

FHessel (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar First confirmed death

I updated the first death in Madagascar. then when i look one day it becomes 0. I even have a reference:[6] For the one who is reverting it to zero pls stop changing it. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia so let's make it a reliable source. If there is a news saying that the first death in Madagascar is a false alarm cite a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.126.50 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it was me, who removed your edit. Here are the reasons:

• Your news item of Aug, 13 is referring to a swine flu death in the header, but to a swine flu case in the text
• Usually a news item about a single flu death is supplemented with further information about the victim, the hospital, the time and place of death, ... All this is missing here and reading the article, one gets the impression, that the girl is very alive ("arrived in the country last week after having travelled in several countries").
• WHO updates for Africa indicate no case in Madagascar on Aug, 11 (http://www.afro.who.int/ddc/influenzaa/updates/update27.pdf) and then 6 cases on Aug, 18 (http://www.afro.who.int/ddc/influenzaa/updates/update28.pdf).
• No other media have reported a death in Madagascar.
• No public statement since has confirmed a death in Madagascar.

Taken together, all these facts indicate, that we have a faulty header here. They meant case, but wrote death. Never mind, it happened to me, too, that I started confusing deaths and cases.

Finally: I would have removed the entry anyway, when no official statement has confirmed the news report after latest two weeks.

FHessel (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Madagascar death twice, too, for the same above reasons. I hope you understand. CaninePitDog (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. I wish people would actually read the article before citing it, or at least check the date. 121.162.91.9 (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acolombo1 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

References

United States death count

Does anybody agree with the posted number? It´s plain wrong: states total U.S. 2009 H1N1 Flu Hospitalizations and Deaths, reported to CDC by September 3, 2009, 9:00 AM ET (593) (in the title: for Week Ending August 29, 2009); then states U.S. Influenza and Pneumonia-Associated Hospitalizations and Deaths from August 30 – September 5 2009, reported to CDC by September 10, 2009, 12:00 AM ET (196). Even if we assume from the dates that there is no overlap in the accounts, the latter number accounts for any influenza, including not subtyped, and any pneumonia-associated, not just H1N1.Acolombo1 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the US table becomes really important again, because - as far as I am convinced - we will not get numbers of CDC any more. See, how they are effectively pusuing a strategy of hiding information? FHessel (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This behaviour can be found in most countries when death counts begin to rocket, probably to avoid panic and critics. As of Sep 16 the latest national report from Brazil is from Aug 31. In Argentina three weeks without official reports ended with deaths jumping from 137 to 337. Some exceptions are Australia and New Zealand.Acolombo1 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

... and India. They have an ideal information management [7]! FHessel (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do with the US? Keeping up the US table (based on state information) is one thing. Its value is limited though, because some states are also effectively hiding information (namely NY, resp. NYC). Hence we have a lower bound for the real number here. Secondly we should keep the official 593 + weekly lab confirmed flu deaths, because that is a number, which is close to the (national) official H1N1 deaths (at the moment almost ALL flu infections are H1N1 infections, and we can see the actual relation in the fluview). That could be considered as an upper bound. As long as this upper boud is close to the lower bound (or even lower like at the present), we can be quite sure, that the information we present is not way off reality. FHessel (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Death figures

Can there be some control over the figures? They go up and down like a yoyo. It is becoming almost meaningless to look at them as you don't know whether it is an upswing or a downswing in the yoyo. I know there are significant difficulties because it seems clear that some countries are hiding/delaying the figures (Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, UK?) but some control is required I feel.

We can't conduct any fortune telling or speculation in regards to what whether some countries will do with releasing their figures. If you have any new sources you wish to contribute you are welcome. Roman888 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Death count in France

Today ECDC confirms 27 deaths (they have made a mistake, though, because the footnote does not reflect the new death).
The source (straits times) referred to 28 deaths (so 29 was definitly unsubstatiated). But these 28 include one case, where a traveller from France had died in Greece. As far as I know, this case has been counted already in Greece. So I corrected the number back to 27.
FHessel (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal doesn't have only 2983 cases, this week were confirmed 2105 cases, last week, 23.., we have at least more than 5000, but i think it's more than 10000, the reference is wrong João P. M. Lima (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did check the former reference which stated that Portugal had about 10,000+ cases of H1N1. But that reference stated that they in fact had 2000+ cases in total confirmed. I think I would rather used the ECDC ref until we can get a good source reference for the Portugal H1N1 cases. Sometimes we get cases which are just estimates, not confirmed cases. Roman888 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

no, the mistake was because de health minitery said that last week were 2983 case in one week, but after one hour more a less came say that there were only 2105 cases, but only on one week, here you can see all the situation points (i don't no if is like this), that have been made in PT. I will now put here the nunbers with dates, cases and the respective reference, but PT as more than 2000, at least 8 or 9 thousand João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2244 cases confirm since May in Portugal - 23/08/2009 [8]
• 2879 cases confirm between 24 and 30/08/2009 [9]
• 2390 cases confirm between 31/08/2009 and 06/09/2009 [10]
• 2105 cases confirm between 7 and 13/09/2009 [11]

Total: 9618 cases confirmed in Portugal between 04/05/2009 and 13/09/2009

So, there are at least this number of cases confirmed in the country, i don't know if it's missing any "date", but at least these one are true and oficially confirmed João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you put the figure of 9,618 for Portugal then you would be including 4 difference references to back up that figure. Don't you have a single official up-to-date figure from the Health Ministry from Portugal or some other credible media source (eg. Portuguese newspapers, etc) And eventually the figure will change in the coming week. Just to let you know the ECDC will only be releasing their daily update on the weekdays only, not weekends. Does the Portuguese Ministry of Health release their figures every day? Roman888 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the beginig they updated everyday, but since 3 weeks i guess, when we star to have more than 200-300 cases per day, it's a week update (at all the Wednesday), i'll try to find a source with all the cases together. João P. M. Lima (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

i can't find a unnic reference for all the cases, i'm going now to the you tube, to look out for news movies, generaly they say how many cases were registred in one week, and after say "Portugal as now, since the confirmation of the first case in May, X cases" João P. M. Lima (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally i've found a source! lol Here it is, this is from the TV channel sic, from 17/09/2009, and confirms that PT has a little bit more than 9600 cases confirm (it may be more 18 cases, because the count that i've made with the HM references gave 9618), so, i think that I can now confirm that Portugal has 9618 caes of A/H1N1 Flu, the next actualization will be next Wednesday, the 9816 cases only counts until 13 September João P. M. Lima (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2213 cases confirm between 14 and 20/09/2009 [12]

Total: 11831 cases confirmed in Portugal between 04/05/2009 and 20/09/2009

João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia Death

There seems to be an argument between the World Health Organisation and Russia in regards to certify the first flu death in the country. Russia has denied that the recent fatality was due to A(H1N1) and called the earlier statement about the fatality a mistake. WHO meanwhile has certified Russia as having a A(H1N1) fatality amongst European countries. The following link makes for interesting reading:

[Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-SwineFlu/idUSTRE58N1H620090924] [AGI http://www.agi.it/world/news/200909241051-cro-ren0010-swine_flu_who_first_certified_death_in_russia]

Roman888 (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Germany death

There has been a death in Germany and the woman had the H1N1 virus in her blood. Currently the case is being investigated, whether it was caused by H1N1 or not. Please wait, until it is really confirmed. The confirmation will be published on the RKI website or by media citing RKI officials. | FHessel (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

69.156.56.103 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I can't see Germany in the table.... at least put old numbers so sum will be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.56.103 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Today it has been confirmed, that the first death in Germany was caused by the H1N1 virus, see:
http://www.uniklinikum-essen.de/index.php?id=detailanzeige&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=267&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1272&cHash=427da58007
Sorry, I could not insert it as link because of the square brackets! FHessel (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. American deaths

936 swine flu deaths have been reported since the CDC's new system. Before their new tracking system their was a total of 593 deaths. Adding 936 to 593 would make a total of 1,529 deaths in the US. However on here only 721 deaths are recorded. It remains unclear how many deaths have happened based on the US table on wiki, as many states have stopped reporting deaths. Maybe the CDC figures should be used ? --90.198.210.228 (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read carefully: The 936 is not referring to 'swine flu deaths', but to 822 deaths with Influenza and Pneumonia Syndrome and 114 deaths with Influenza Laboratory-Tests.

It is quite sure, that the 114 dead had H1N1, because almost all Influenza currently around is H1N1.

Furthermore it could theoretically mean, that the 822 dead had H1N1 but presumably it is mostly not the case.

Summarizing we have a lower and an upper limit for a 'real number'. Since the wiki number is above the lower limit, there is nothing wrong with using it.

Which US states have stopped reporting deaths?

FHessel (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the 1784 US deaths in brackets. Reason see above. The number is - as the ref clearly states - the sum of deaths with Influenza Laboratory-Tests and deaths with Influenza and Pneumonia Syndrome. Not all of these are pandemic flu. So you must NOT use this number!

PAHO has updated the US deaths and uses the deaths with Influenza Laboratory-Tests "as a proxy for confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 given that it represents over 99% of influenza A samples" (see footnote *** in PAHO report). Yet this number is still lower than the number we have derived from state publications. The number we have already is the best number we can get in the context of this table.

FHessel (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue in the usage of PAHO figures or the figures which you derived from adding up the figures of US state-by-state cases. At least you have a system in place to count the number of A(H1N1) cases. But if let's say the CDC makes an announcement stating that there are 1000 or 2000 deaths in the USA, we can at least put that figure in brackets together with whatever figure you derive from your USA table or PAHO figures. That is if your figures haven't caught up with the CDC. Roman888 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But that is like comparing apples and oranges. The table is about 'Pandemic (H1N1) 2009', that is clearly stated in the headline. But the 1784 US deaths are deaths in connection with 'Influenza and Pneumonia Syndrome'. A proportion of these may well be caused by the pandemic flu. Yet for sure there is also a proportion, which had no flu at all. And we do not know which fraction to use.

The solution which PAHO is using is also a proxy, because there might be deaths with seasonal influenza A contained in the number. And they are missing those, which have been counted under 'Influenza and Pneumonia Syndrome'. So I think, that the number we already have is the best you can get.

FHessel (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with you regarding sometimes the announcement of figures for A(H1N1) might be mixed up with normal types of flu including bird flu. But if the CDC just happens to mentioned a milestone in terms of A(H1N1) deaths in the United States, then I see no reason to put it up there in brackets, together with the number that is tabulated in your US table. Example would be 2,000 deaths or 2,500 deaths, etc. That is before the numbers in your tables have caught up with the CDC announcement. I feel sometimes the PAHO figures are release too slowly compared to some of the media sources in countries covered by PAHO. But there is no reason to discount the PAHO figures. Roman888 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Flu death rates by country

I apologise in advance for my general incompetence in being unable to transfer this excel spreadsheet directly, but I wondered whether this table might be a useful addition.

Population data is taken from wiki population by country data (downloaded about 3 weeks ago) Deaths are from the pandemic flu death table All countries with fewer than 5 deaths have been excluded from the table (there are issues of statistical validity with low population nations with a single death, as well as with higher population countries with low deaths).

Feel free to do with it what you want.

Total deaths population deaths/million

Argentina

538 40,134,425 13.40

Uruguay 33 3,361,000 9.82

Australia 183 21,903,000 8.36

Paraguay 52 6,349,000 8.19

Costa Rica 37 4,579,000 8.08

Chile 127 16,961,000 7.49

Oman 21 2,845,000 7.38

Mauritius 8 1,288,000 6.21

Brazil 1147 191,820,000 5.98

Bolivia 54 9,863,000 5.48

Peru 143 29,132,013 4.91

Ecuador 60 14,036,775 4.27

New Zealand 18 4,322,500 4.16

Israel 28 7,434,000 3.77

Singapore 18 4,839,400 3.72

Hong Kong (PRC) 23 7,008,900 3.28

Panama 11 3,454,000 3.18

El Salvador 19 6,163,000 3.08

Venezuela 83 28,456,383 2.92

Malaysia 77 27,468,000 2.80

Kuwait 8 2,985,000 2.68

United States^ 804 307,340,000 2.62

Thailand 165 63,389,730 2.60

Canada 78 33,772,000 2.31

Mexico 236 107,550,697 2.19

Dominican Republic 21 10,090,000 2.08

Colombia 91 45,074,137 2.02

Honduras 15 7,466,000 2.01

Nicaragua 11 5,743,000 1.92

South Africa 84 49,320,000 1.70

United Kingdom# 85 61,634,599 1.38

Saudi Arabia 35 25,721,000 1.36

United Arab Emirates 6 4,599,000 1.30

Guatemala 13 14,027,000 0.93

Spain 42 45,929,476 0.91

Taiwan 19 23,069,345 0.82

France~ 30 65,073,482 0.46

Philippines 28 92,222,660 0.30

India 329 1,168,670,000 0.28

Yemen 6 23,580,000 0.25

South Korea 11 48,333,000 0.23

Vietnam 16 85,789,573 0.19

Japan 20 127,590,000 0.16

Indonesia 10 229,965,000 0.04

Dmshaw (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly most useful, much more useful than the death counts alone. Only the relation between death count and population makes the countries comparable. And it is even more interesting to have these numbers (both as total and weekly change) as time series.

The problem, which we have here is, that wikipedia does not allow original resarch. And putting these numbers in relation is original research, unless there are other sources, which we can cite and which are providing exactly these data. I know that one or the other country publishes this data regularly or as a one off. But I doubt, that we can find enough sources, to get the whole compilation together. What do the others think??

FHessel (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more questions and thoughts:

• Why do you think, that there is problem with low death numbers in countries with a high population?
• I have a similar Excel sheet, only that I also group countries (e.g. (subdivisions of) continents, North/South, economical status). Once countries are grouped, you also have to include countries with no or just a few deaths.
• One very interesting result of this research is, that industrial countries are much more affected than developing countries (both in total and still in weekly changes) and the least developed countries are hardly affected at all.
  

FHessel (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting finding, nevertheless are you calling Argentina an industrial country?? Regarding the question of original research, I don´t think compilation of data can be called research, so what´s the problem with putting those numbers in a table? What´s the differece with the deahts table? Mortality rate (in relation to population) is a key number, IMO it´s hardheaded to omit it in the name of farfetched implicancies. Acolombo1 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Argentina belongs to a developing region, according to UN (code 05 region South America). I have strictly used the country classifications of the UN, i.e. least developed countries, developing countries and developed countries. But the numbers dilute, when grouped together with the other developing countries (e.g. India is almost 30 times as big as Argentina)

Before doing the effort of putting the numbers in a table, which s.b. else removes in turn, I would appreciate to get some more approving comments.

Graphs would be even better than a table, they tend to be much more intelligible. Only I do not know, how to create those graphic files.

FHessel (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues for adding population figures to the table if there are people who want it so. It makes for interesting reading comparing population figures and number of cases and deaths. Eventually I think WHO and many countries who are counting the number of laboratory cases of A(H1N1) will cease to count them anymore and we might just fall back on the population figures. Roman888 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New column for weekly estimates

I think, that I have to clarify the intended use of the new column:
It is meant to host official weekly estimates like they are published in many influenza situation reports.
For a long time I had the feeling, that the column is needed, because again and again editors were unhappy with the 'confirmed cases' number and replaced it with such an estimate. Furthermore an increasing number of countries has its 'confirmed cases' in brackets, showing that these numbers are more or less far off. Especially for these countries we have to offer something more reliable.
The column is NOT meant for wild guesses of self-proclaimed experts, which are published in the media from time to time.
Be aware, that

• this column are weekly numbers, while the 'confirmed cases' are totals
• these are official numbers, too. The difference is, that authorities have estimated the infections, wheras the confirmed cases are diagnosed by physicians/labratories.

FHessel (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don´t find it worthy adding a column to such a big table just for two numbers.Acolombo1 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The solution here would be to highlight the estimated cases for A(H1N1) in a colour, maybe red or blue with a note or citation at the bottom of the table stating that these are estimates. Rather than putting in a new column which will just take up more space. Roman888 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

I see in nwespapers, wacth on TV, on you tube, etc, that Ukraine as more than 200 cases (in RTP passed 254 000 cases). In this new, they say that Ukraine as 478 000 cases and there are 68 deaths (but only 20 are oficially confirmed as swine flu death). So, what should we do? Wich sites and news offer sufficient "true" in this case? João P. M. Lima (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

here (apart of being a contest site), we can see some actualizations of the current situation of the flu in Ukraine. Only on Kiev, on November 3rd, more than 6500 people were infectec. The ukrain autorithies are expecting 12 milion of people to be infectec during the Winter (1/4 of the population) João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There are competing political factions in Ukraine that are using the swine flu issue for political mileage. In the first few days of the flu reports in the Ukraine we were seeing exaggerated reports of 60+ deaths attributed to swine flu. It was later on that we saw their Health Ministry denying that and saying there were only less than 10 cases of swine flu deaths. Later it was confirmed at 30+ deaths of swine flu. Figures like 478,000 or 254,000 cases might be a combination of swine flu and season flu, and should not be included in this table. Roman888 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine Revisited

Over the past few days, several folks have repeatedly changed the Ukraine number to reflect not the confirmed cases of A/H1N1, but rather the number of all ILIs in that nation. While there's a very good chance many if not most of these cases may indeed turn out to be the pandemic virus, there's no proof of that yet, and the WHO is still investigating. As of this writing, only 30 cases have been confirmed; please do not continue to use the very high six or seven-figure numbers being bandied about. (If we're going to begin using ILIs on the assumption that all or most are H1N1, we need A) to do the same for all countries, and B) change the table to reflect that our numbers no longer reflect only laboratory-confirmed cases.) Sqlman (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Estimates vs. confirmed

The USA does not have 22 million confirmed cases. It has an official estimate of total of 22 million cases based. Similarly, France doesn't have 1.9M and Spain doesn't have 540k confirmed cases, and so on. The table needs to either switch to all estimates or remain only confirmed cases, but mixing the two makes the numbers meaningless. I have updated the column header to reflect the ambiguity of the numbers for now, but ideally we should settle on one data type or the other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, if there is an estimative, soon or late the cases will be confirm, but for example, i don't understand why Portugal has its cases in brackets if the cases are those. I personally update the cases every wednesday, when the health minitery "give" the cases of the past week João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Portugal has its cases in brackets, because Portugal 'is not recommending laboratory tests for all suspect cases since 26.9' (see edcd [13]). In order to indicate, that the real number is most probably higher than the denoted number it has been put in brackets. |FHessel (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the explication ;) João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reparing that many countries have being updated during this two days, but the Total Reports hasn't changed, i ask that every time that someone add and update, update the total too, it's very important for we don't lose the rigor of the contage thanks João P. M. Lima (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why keep the number of confirmed case ??? All those countries now will just estimate the case, and don't count them one by one. We should delete this "Confirmed cases" column or change it in "Estimate cases". To keep the number of "Confirmed case" is just a nonsense. Kormin (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the number of confirmed cases in the table as explained to you previously in the other talk page. Firstly I pointed out media outlets still do published the number of confirmed cases. Secondly I pointed out that there are still countries whose ministry of health published number of confirmed cases. Third there are different organisations within WHO (EMRO, SEARO) who are still publishing the number of confirmed cases. If you want to put the estimated number of cases in the table, I suggest you highlight them in a different colour or put them in brackets with a note. Roman888 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should switch to the officially estimated number of cases whenever available, and else stick to the confirmed cases. The "confirmed cases" numbers become meaningless when the government recommends not confirming any (non-fatal) cases. But different colours or a "~" in front of estimates would be good, so that it becomes clear which is which.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support this latter proposition. Color coding is too laborious. Let's use three different formats:

• Plain number, e.g. 1,234 as the standard for confirmed cases, as long as a test-every-suspect-case policy is pursued.
• In brackets, e.g. (56,789) from the moment on, when the government does not recommend tests for every suspect case
• With 'wiggly line', e.g. ~120,000 as soon as the government publishes official estimates.

A corresponding footnote should explain these formats. At the same time we should abolish the total of cases, because it is not more meaningful.

I think, that it is important to include the estimates. Countries are in different stages of the pandemic. And there is not one means, that fits all. For countries like USA, Spain, UK, ... it is ridicolous to refer to lab confirmed cases. On the other hand for countries like Tuvalu, Ghana, Libya or Kyrgyzstan (just to name a few) lab confirmed cases give a meaningful perception of the spread or non-spread of the pandemic.

FHessel (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine flue deaths in America

Swine flu confermed deaths in America become more than 4,000.Read this news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_he_me/us_med_swine_flu Please correct the table of swine flu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.153.88 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The news is based on this CDC publication.

First of all it is important to highlight, that CDC is giving a range and that the Wiki number is almost in the range.

Secondly I am regarding these numbers with suspicion. There is one number, which is mostly reliable and that are the pediatric deaths (see also my past comments on that topic). Now the new CDC numbers tell us, that there are 300..800 pediatric deaths. But, why have they not been reported in the regular reporting scheme fluview? Mind you, a pediatric death is almost always subject to closer investigation by the authorities. And I cannot believe, that 100..600 additional pediatric deaths, which allegedly occurred due to pandemic flu have gone unnoticed!

But why should CDC publish too high numbers? I am contemplating one major aspect. They have been telling in the past, that the risk is not overly high. Now, at a moment when they want people to get immunized, they are discovering, that not enough people want to get the immunization, so they are trying to heat up the demand. (But these are only my personal suspicions!)

FHessel (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@FHessel this is not a reason not to report this number. What you personally think about the credibility of a source is really irrelevant. In wikipedia we just say "The CDC says this" and if you can find a critical voice you can report that too. I take the opposite opinion to you. I think the CDC estimate is surprisingly low. Certainly the under reporting is likely to be greater in other countries. Not to include the number because of your personal opinion on it is POV. Barnaby dawson (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another reason not to report this number in this table though. That is that this table is a table of confirmed numbers as reported by the ECDC. To mix confirmed and estimated numbers is confusing. Barnaby dawson (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you a few links in which the CDC has made major announcement on deaths linked to A(H1N1) -

LINK - 5360 deaths

LINK2 - nearly 3,900. Roman888 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added here another link that has a statement from a US official regarding the number of A(H1N1) deaths - [U.S. A/H1N1 flu deaths "estimated at 10,000"] Roman888 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on main page about placement of Swine flu data

Please notice the actual discussion on the main page about the placement of the data table, which includes the link to this template. Perhaps you like to give your opinion? FHessel (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)