Template talk:Notable flu pandemics

Inconsistent Case Fatality Rate for Spanish Flu

The values for the Spanish Flu (1918-1920) are currently inconsistent; the case fatality rate appears to incorrectly refer to the global fatality rate. Given 500M cases and 50-100M deaths (estimated) the case fatality rate should be 10-20% not 2-3% as stated. The value in this table is also inconsistent with the Spanish flu page. The given reference () does have a table with the 2-3% Case Fatality Rate, however the values in reference table are also internally inconsistent and would seem to refer to the global mortality rate instead. Amicitas (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing the reference to and changing the case fatality rate in the table to 5-20% as discussed in the reference. Amicitas (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More references for the Case Fatality Rate and Global Fatality Rate can be found here: Amicitas (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Merged with below :  Done

See talkpage history for details. -- Yug (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unused sources ?

• this. Yug (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Scope adaptation and rename "Notable modern pandemic" ?

Considering it. Yug (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Rational: The ongoing covid19 pandemics seems pretty in line with the other influenza pandemics. Flu and covid19 are similarly respiratory diseases, pardemic, nearly similarly viral and contagious, and represent similar threats for human societies. It seems therefor interesting to gather them altogether for comparisons. Splitting in 2 tables seems quite counter productive, as the split would be unbalanced. While the renaming seems necessary, I favor some caution so to not have to undo it later on. Yug (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose They are not similar diseases or viruses and COVID-19 is not "(an)other influenza pandemic". We have influenza pandemics because of genetic shift and because influenza viruses have a segmented genome and undergo genetic reassortment. Coronaviruses do not. Graham Beards (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Graham Beards, you are creating an edit war by yourself alone. You unilaterally removed duly sourced data / work of others without joining the existing discussion.

We are talking of scope change and your whole argument is "new scope is not in old scope". Yes, you are right : it's an argumented scope change because it makes sense. This template is clearly about pandemic : the spread of disease among world population. The exact same dimensions are available and sourced for influenzas and covid19. I cannot change the reality that covid19 aligns with influenza on this dimensions. Should we ?

Your single argument about genetic reassortment is not the matter treated by this template, at all. Yug (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So where do we stop? By renaming you would have to include smallpox of which there have been many pandemics. Sweating sickness, yellow fever, measles , poliomyelitis and of course HIV, which is still ongoing. And there are others, what about the bacteria bubonic plague and cholera. And you should check the meaning of "modern" in this context. Graham Beards (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is true question. And I was in favor yo have influenza and covid19 only. As expressed in the title, since all are threats to society in nearly the same style : respiratory, 2-years lifespan, 10~60% spread, R0 in same order of magnitude. Covid19 is perfectly in line with 1918 flu's pandemic, on all dimensions. Alternatively, we could create a duplicate template with all the similar 30 data, but title "Covid19 compared to previous influenza pandemic". Splitting maintenance efforts has not my preference, therefore the quest for elegant compromise. Yug (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I was looking at the influenza page and was confused why it included an entry on Coronavirus when it is not related to the influenza article. I think this will confuse many people who are looking up influenza and without any background think coronavirus might be the same as influenzavirus. I'd prefer this not be added, or we create a separate template for "modern" pandemics. Luxdormiens (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Luxdormiens you've consulted a vandalized version of the page with messed up Flu-only title and vandal "coronavirus" remplacing "Seasonal flu"'s title in the seasonal flu row. This is a messed up configuration. I encourage you to remove your oppose vote since it judges a messed up configuration that no one is arguing for. Yug (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. Thanks for clarifying. Luxdormiens (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternative bikeshed colour: Modern respiratory disease pandemics. The diseases caused by the various flu strains and the coronavirus are practically indistinguishable without lab testing. I suggest that this forms a pretty natural category, which will give readers useful context. 80.6.208.95 (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'am also thinking of this. Would be a good compromise. I also think we need to raise awareness on Covid potential as "grave pandemic" (spread x mortality), therefor would help to keep it in this template.
Also, Graham Beards, a reminder that you did 3R in ~24h and are at a push level bordering the 3RR, this before engaging discussion. I'am drained by my 40 days non-stop coverage on covid, but discussion before removing other people's explained work (scope, title, data, sources) would have been appreciate. Yug (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I restored the covid19 row within a <noinclude> tag. So it prevents the unilateral destruction of sourced materials while this discussion is ongoing. It keeps an article view following Graham Beards' preference. Yug (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards reverted the changes using WP:TW-tool and blocked me from editing the template for one month. [Edit]: the discussion was at this stage. I and one IP (England) supported "respiratory diseases", Graham and Luxdormiens (Luxdormiens based on a temporarily confusing vandalized version, he will later remove his vote) supported return to "influenza-only". Graham used his admin tool to solve crush the content dispute he was involved in with me, to block his opponent, brutally stopping my ongoing active contributions and stewardship on this page. Contribution to the page at that point, Yug: 22,121 bits (with ~20 academic references), Graham: 2 bits, source: xtools). At the time Graham blocked me, Graham had contributed all together about 40 words to the talk page and no content nor source to the page. The blatant abuse, 30-days blocks, and non-correction have disgusted me from this issue. Yug (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: it doesn’t make sense to add coronaviruses to this influenza template. There’s no inherent relationship between coronavirus and influenza other than they can cause pandemics. If you’re gonna do that, you might as well add all the other pandemics that have happened, which is ridiculous.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bait30. Coronaviruses are of the family Coronaviridae, while the influenza viruses are of the family Orthomyxoviridae, two separate families. The proposal to link the two together is completely arbitrary. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I see this template being mainly centered upon human-pandemic dimension : pandemic article, year, R0, number of infested and dead, mortality rate. The subtype being the one core DNA related dimension. Grouping here by DNA, means we well have elsewhere to group pandemic by human factor, which will literally reuse 80% of this present template, forking maintenance efforts. Yug (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • • (DNA is not relevant here. These are RNA viruses. Graham Beards (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC) )
    • Again, you would have to add smallpox and bubonic plague among other pandemics that have affected humans long ago if you're planning on making a "human pandemic" template. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Bait30 And it's actually not fordidden to have them all in we can have IF statements showing/hiding row on command. :P But we need easy maintenance place, not split nor content destruction. Yug (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure, but I don't see why it's necessary. I also don't understand why you just don't create a new template? What's the point of trying to co-opt this one?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Bait30 I initially created this template by merging 3 in-articles similar yet differently updated tables. I harmonized them, enriched the table by 20 references mostly academics because I want to propose to the reader a clean table to compare these flu-like respiratory pandemics together. We are at the early stage of one after all. And while there is commons dimensions this last one has specificities to compare to what we already experiences. All a rational and normal wikipedian editor piloting a page's content lost to the editors who just flying by, doing 0 content contribution, and nearly no discussion. What you propose me is that I create a 2nd template with same data and a minor title change. What are we playing at here ? It's literally what I proposed at the start before this dispute (to avoid duplication of maintenance) and I got template-blocked for it by the single opposing party abusing its community-granted admin tools. The abusive block is still in place despite procedural appeal, no excuse from the party either. So I'am quite skeptical with this "oh, we page-blocked you from here where you were editing alone but you can do it on an other place via data duplication and double maintenance cost (you know the opposite of your initial merging efforts)". 2020 wikipedia collaboration is really something. Yug (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
            • @Yug: First, just because you created an article/template doesn't mean you own it. The editors in the discussion seem to agree that it doesn't make sense to add coronavirus to this template. Authorial intent isn't necessarily relevant here. Second, don't go to to the talk page of WP:COVID19 asking for input about your editing dispute with Graham Beards and then subsequently accuse us of being fly-by editors who avoid discussion when we don't agree with you (I know for a fact that Tenryuu and I are active members of WP:COVID19). Third, I suggested four days ago that you open a WP:RFC about this and you still haven't done that. An RFC will allow for more people to contribute to the discussion and make for a more formalized consensus than whatever we're doing here right now. If you're unsure of how to start an RFC, just let me know and I'll do it for you.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
              • Own is not the point, expertise is. As much Graham is right to point out RNA rather than DNA, I also designed this table and piloted this content with good intent and experiences, so Graham fly-by, reverts, refusal to discuss or questioning of ongoing rational is problematic and properly weird. Second, you are no subject to the "fly-by" comment since you truly engaged, constructively comments and mediate. Third, RFC, yes, good idea. But yes... never did that before. And we know how interwikipedian prower-dynamic plays : now than an admin (and his associated a-priori positive charisma) came and blocked the other party, the slope is the Admin's way. There is literally another admin who told Graham that blocking page while involved is not recommended, yet this admin is not undoing the block. It's classical power dynamic. So I don't see the point of an unfair RFC where the position of one admin and one blockee are competing. I observe I've been block-sniped out of here. And naturally, because a comparison table is still required per the content itself, I'am (because the pusher wont take charge obviously) pushed to restart the exact same work elsewhere where we could have had an intelligent scope realignment. This is a case where power get out of touch with ground work reality, shot, and leave. + The 4 days disputed. Yug (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Admin tools abuse / I don't know how to handle your edits since you brutally reverts before reading discussions and quest for reasonable concensus

Copy of talk page. Yug (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Basicaly, I'am proposing serious solutions and you keep hammering reverts before engaging in discussion. The state of the template before your arrival was inclusive of covid19, you are single handlely removing it, and brutally forcing your concensus preference. Yug (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there is no consensus on the Talk Page to erroneously add coronavirus to a table about influenza. Please stop your disruptive edits. We have enough challenges with covering this pandemic as it is.Graham Beards (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a template about influenza alone when you arrived, the table-title was clear on that, an the renaming discussion was opened. What more do you need ? You are single handly dragging in back and claiming your preference canonical. You also shoot down compromise solutions. Are you just looking to create a conflict ? Yug (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you consider you are all knowledgeable and are therefore allowed to revert well build contents before engaging in discussion. You tell me, because this level of brutal jump in, reverts, limited discussion or compromise is quite rare. Yug (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You are abusing your admin tools:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.
The block was made by ‪Graham Beards‬.
The reason given is Disruptive editing.
Start of block: 2020-03-20T12:17:47
Expiration of block: 2020-04-20T12:17:47
Intended blockee: ‪Yug‬
Block ID #9679113

Yug (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: If you want to rename the template, follow the procedure at WP:RM/CM.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30 and Graham Beards: if you have an other way to display to the reader core fact about flu pandemics and coronavirus pandemic to : avoid content duplication/destruction, ease maintenance, showcast that covid19 "is not the flu", I'am fully behind your solution. Yug (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: You can do a WP:RFC and/or WP:RM/CM. That way you might be able to get input from a wider community than just the people who so happen to already be looking at this page.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• 1889–1890 flu pandemic was renamed to 1889–1890 pandemic since there are strong arguments that it was not flu but a coronavirus disease. I support renaming the template and adding COVID-19 back. Ain92 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Read and integrate

• Influenza: lessons from past pandemics, warnings from current incidents https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro1208

Yug (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Other Diseases

Could this box be expanded to include information about COVID-19, SARS, Zika virus or Ebola virus disease? more info better template. CityOfSails2 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@CityOfSails2: yes it could. But we need to add switches function so the template may still display "influenzas only", Ili (Influenza-like illness: influenza & coronavirus), or other subsets. I also encourage you to add your opinion in the section above about the page's scope. Yug (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)