Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Subtle distinctions

1. The article says "The H1N1 flu mainly spreads in the same way that regular "seasonal influenza" spreads,". Please make a better effort to identify what you are talking about. This new strain of H1N1 spreads like seasonal flu stains such as seasonal H1N1 strains. 2. The article says "The virus can have a lifetime of up to two hours outside the body". This strain remains infective to humans for only a few hours at room temperature. Other strains, other temperatures and other animals (other than humans) have different time periods because it is not completely killed in those hours. See Transmission and infection of H5N1#Environmental survival for information on length of time for the flu virus to be completely killed at various temperatures. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Avian flu virus can last indefinitely at a temperature dozens of degrees below freezing, as is found in the northern most areas that migratory birds frequent.

Heat kills H5N1 (i.e. inactivates the virus).

Influenza A viruses can survive:

• Over 30 days at 0°C (32.0°F) (over one month at freezing temperature)
• 6 days at 37°C (98.6°F) (one week at human body temperature)
• decades in permanently frozen lakes
• on hard non-porous surface such as plastic or stainless steel for 24–48 hours
• on clothes, paper and tissues for 8–12 hours

While cooking poultry to 70°C (158°F) kills the H5N1 virus, it is recommended to cook meat to 74°C (165°F) to kill all foodborne pathogens.

Inactivation of the virus also occurs under the following conditions:

• 30 minutes 60°C (140.0°F) (half hour at a temperature that causes first and second degree burns in humans in ten seconds)
• Acidic pH conditions
• Presence of oxidizing agents such as sodium dodecyl sulfate, lipid solvents, and B-propiolactone
• Exposure to disinfectants: formalin, iodine compounds

Ordinary levels of chlorine in tap water kill H5N1 in public water systems.

To kill avian flu viruses, the "World Health Organization recommends that environmental surfaces be cleaned by the following:

• Disinfectants such as sodium hypochloride, 1% in-use dilution, 5% solution to be diluted 1:5 in clean water, for materials contaminated with blood and body fluids
• Bleaching powder seven grams per liter with 70% available chlorine for toilets and bathrooms
• 70% alcohol for smooth surfaces, tabletops, and other surfaces where bleach cannot be used" WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

About "Additional facts" section

It's questionable, IMO, whether the sub-sections of this section should be included in the TOC due to their random topics. For instance, there is no obvious structure balance between "Novelty of the strain," "Predictions," "WHO alert phases defined," and "Naming the disease." It would seem that if any of the facts in those sub-sections were valuable then they should be inserted within existing sections if possible. As they read now there's a lot of redundant information with a disconnected list of "facts" which don't seem useful in the TOC and were earlier demoted to simple bold headings. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've merged some of this into the section on the new H1N1 strain. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Finished, all factoid content now merged into existing article sections, or deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good improvements. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

International cases and responses

I think it would be worth mentioning that several countries not only advised their inhabitants not to travel to infected areas but also cancelled flights to México.

It might also be important to note the political frictions that arrised as a result of the responses of the international community to the swine flu outbreak.

Here is an article from Time magazinedescribing those conflicts.

I would add that but I'm Mexican and I fear I might be very impartial on that.

Thanks for your time

Federico Castro M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.129.64 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One case has been deteced in Iceland, and four more are suspected. Icelandic news can be found here (Icelandic). Jonfr (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Charts

• 
• 

Found on the Japanese Wikipedia. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Remarkably similar to the ones currently on this page - File:Influenza-2009-cases.png and File:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic.png. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:50, 22 May 2009 (GMT)

The number of cases in Canada seems to stagnate near the 512 mark in the grap, but it'sbecause there was a few days gap in the national count. Now the government has resumed publishing the statistics a few times a week, and we're up to 800+ cases. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New article idea

I believe there are two main articles right now that deal with the swine flu. This one, which is news oriented (2009, outbreak) and Swine influenza (also redirected from "swine flu"). The "Swine influenza" article covers both flu in swine and humans pretty much equally with many of the sections divided between both.

The Swine flu, until the recent outbreak, was mostly thought of as infecting pigs with some earlier human outbreaks, such as 1976, causing a lot of fear. Fortunately, that one turned out to be a false alarm and the virus disappeared, but not before 40 million Americans were vaccinated and many dying from side effects. Now, with this current human outbreak potentially becoming an official "pandemic," and with the disease's lifetime unknown but no doubt lasting into 2010 and beyond, it seems that a single article, such as Swine flu (human) would be useful. The naming is another issue but alternate names could be redirected to the decided-on name.

If such an article was started, it would obviously include and overlap many of the "general" facts from both of the other articles, along with some from others, such as Influenza virus, etc. But it would obviously not include day-to-day stats and news reports except where they covered more general concepts. It would become more of a gateway to other newsworthy articles like this one or more technically-focused ones. I'd also hope that the article, if it's started, would try to stay readable and interesting to the average, non-technical, person, and become a hybrid of the CDC's, WHO's, Mayo, Medline, etc. sites, (many of which are question and answer designed.) As an encyclopedia, the article would not have the question and answer format, but could include well-sourced lists, guidelines, etc. I'm willing to get it started and outlined if there's a consensus. Any thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --62.69.130.82 (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.Geometer9420 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it & see what happens. If you'd like a second opinion, you can draft one up in your userspace & I can check it out/help. hmwithτ 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Decided to first try revising this one before starting a new article. If the improvements (?) are useful and help simplify the topic, another article may not be needed. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this completely needs to happen. This article keeps switching between being about the outbreak to being about the disease and while the disease is part of the outbreak they should have separate pages. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu parties

"Swine flu parties" are gatherings during which people have close contact with a person who has novel H1N1 flu in order to become infected with the virus. The intent of these parties is to become infected with what for many people has been a mild disease, in the hope of having natural immunity to the novel H1N1 flu virus that might circulate later and cause more severe disease. - http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/qa.htm - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth a brief mention in the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source confirming these have actually occured. Jenkem comes to mind.131.111.186.68 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well people used to hold Chickenpox Parties so that all kids in a neighborood would catch the disease, knowing that the disease is usually mild in kids (but can have more dangerous effects on adults). And knowing that early vaccinations were relying on "weak strains" of viruses (or related diseases) to protect against the most dangerous strains (e.g. Cowpox versus Smallpox), this reasoning would make some sense. Another argument for organizing a "Swine Flu Party" would be that exposure to earlier strains of a flu "family" seems to reduce the severity of symptoms when you catch a related flu strain years later. HOWEVER all these arguments have to be weighted against the relative severity of flu as a "common" disease. This is NOT the common cold, this is a pretty serious illness that will keep you in bed for two weeks; you will have fever, soreness in muscles, fatigue, appetite loss. Some people will vomit or have diahrrea, while other will develop secondary infections such as pneumonia. So the risk is too high, and there is NO way somebody can decide that he/she is in "relative good health" and will "beat" the 1% mortality rate statistic. Maybe it's time for an education campaign. THE FLU IS NOT THE COMMON COLD. YOU COULD BECOME THE «1 IN 100» DEAD GUY IN THE STATISTIC. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Also, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. hmwithτ 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be in the article unless as a well sourced discussion. Especially as it is a potentially dangerous activity. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:00, 22 May 2009 (GMT)

I was just explaining why people would think about organizing "Swine Flu Parties", perhaps giving some hints about what to look for in the medias. No need to whack me with a baseball bat. Here is another reference in the press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-VB_9IP5TEVmozh2Ua58D_6miqQ and another one that mentions chickenpox: http://www.parentdish.com/2009/05/13/swine-flu-parties-are-a-bad-idea-say-experts/ 70.83.220.148 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not supporting/condoning these parties, but just think that the article should mention that they are taking place? If we did add it, we'd have to make sure that it didn't sound like we were suggesting users do this. hmwithτ 08:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

¿??????¿

When did the swine flu hit ten thousand cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Apollo, Wikipedia isn't a forum. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not to talk about it and ask questions. 85.102.205.71 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

However, you can try asking at Wikipedia'a reference desk. hmwithτ 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

new cases graph?

Considering the line seems to be linear rather than exponential, coupled with the fact that most earlier-infected people have been successfully treated, should we also include a graph that shows the number of new cases for each day/week (rather than total cases)? 203.184.1.253 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried making a new cases/day graph from the WHO data, but it's a mess. I think the total cases graph makes is a lot easier to follow, and any time period chosen would be arbitrary and only reflect the time the cases were notified. cyclosarin (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian provinces

We get daily numbers from some of the Canadian provinces (even during week-ends), while we get the whole picture (for Canada) every few days. Would it be advisable to add a value in parenthesis in the table, for Canadian the flu total, accounting for a partial count of new cases? For example, we have learned that there are 15 new cases in Quebec today (Saturday). The Canadian total of 805 will only be updated late Monday. Could we put in the table: 805 (820+) ? 70.83.220.148 (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If the CA numbers for the proviences excede the MoH latest report, You can source the Canadian totalss from the Canadian page template. This methodolgy was done previously for the US numbers, and will keep the CA total with 1 ref tag rather than 5 ref tags trailing it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add Iceland to the infected table & map

There's currently 1 laboratory confirmed case with 4 more suspected, all from the same family in Iceland [3].

The source is Haraldur Briem, the chief epidemiologist of Iceland with the national health directorate. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Macao

CCTV has reported, about an hour back, that a Mexican bloke died in Macao over (their) night, he's Macao's only victim of Swine flue so far.--86.29.254.10 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source? hmwithτ 13:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table

Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to restore lead with explanations

I noticed that a large number of changes were made to the lead and came across what I think are problems with many of them. However, since there were so many small edits to the lead interspersed, and because others have edited in the interim, I could find no safe way to fix these potential issues without a simple restoration of the lead and some explanations of the problems separately. The following is the lead before restortion, and it's followed with a list of many, but not all problems I came across:

It is true that I could have used a larger number of edits, and in some cases I could have taken more care in phrasing, but since as I anticipated all changes were reverted at once this wouldn't really have been productive.

The 2009 outbreak of Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 is an epidemic of a new strain of influenza virus identified in April 2009, commonly referred to as "swine flu." It is thought to be a hybrid ("reassortment") of North American and European swine flu strains that has brought together genetic material originally found in pigs, birds, and humans. Although it is classed as H1N1, like many existing seasonal flu strains, it is antigenically quite different. Previous flu vaccine or flu exposure generally offer little protection, though the comparatively low number of deaths among the elderly may reflect some immunity from previous exposures. The source of the outbreak in humans is still unknown, but the virus is believed to have circulated in Mexico for months prior to its discovery in April. As a result, the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO), along with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), expressed concern that this could become a worldwide flu pandemic, with WHO raising its alert level to "Phase 5" out of the six maximum, indicating that a pandemic was "imminent."

The new strain spreads like other strains of influenza from human to human. Though it may remain able to infect pigs these animals are not involved in the present outbreak. As of May 24, the virus had spread to more than 40 countries; however, nearly 90% of reported deaths have taken place in Mexico. This has led to speculation that Mexico may have been in the midst of an unrecognized epidemic for many months prior to the current outbreak. Depending on the location and the number of unrecognized cases believed to occur, sources have estimated the fatality rate for this flu to be anywhere from that of familiar seasonal strains (0.1%) to that of the 1957 flu pandemic (0.4%). As the flu season winds down in North America, about half of all influenza viruses being detected are the new H1N1 virus.

An easily grown "seed strain" for vaccine production is now under study by the CDC, and vaccine is expected to be available in four to six months. But there is concern that the virus could spread widely in the Southern Hemisphere during the July flu season. There is also speculation that the virus could mix genetically with a more dangerous flu virus like H5N1 avian influenza, which could potentially lead to a far more dangerous flu outbreak.

These are some of the problems I see listed in order they were added to the lead:

• Added: "Although it is classed as H1N1, like many existing seasonal flu strains, it is antigenically quite different." This statement is both unnecessary and unreadable by the average person, as it forces them to link to a medical definition. I think words like this should be avoided anywhere in this article unless absolutely necessary, and certainly in the lead.

I don't think it is out of place to use technical terms in an article about flu - the point is to offer the unfamiliar reader an explanation of why 2009 H1N1 flu is something different from previous H1N1 flu, with a link to a Wikipedia article explaining the difference. Still, I suppose that "immunologically" could pass here.

• Added: "Previous flu vaccine or flu exposure generally offer little protection, though the comparatively low number of deaths among the elderly may reflect some immunity from previous exposures" This sentence immediately follows and, while true, seems misplaced. Because it is so specific, it would be better in the "symptoms" or "virulence" sections, and placed within clearer context. Using a phrase like "may reflect some immunity" without cites is OR in any case.

A citation was provided, to a New York Times article specifically making this conclusion. It is by no means a minor point, since the elderly are often most at risk of death from the flu and this information should interest them.

• Added: ". . . virus is believed to have circulated in Mexico for months prior to its discovery in April." This is already discussed in context later in the lead. However, by adding the word "believed," where it later says "speculation," it becomes both repeated, contradictory and uncited in the body.

This was explained in a recent Science paper. [4] Some of the facts I cited from this paper were later deleted and haven't been fully restored. The language was a bit tenuous because that paper offers some rather wide ranges for the number of generations of virus and the period of time during which it spread undetected.

• Added: "The new strain spreads like other strains of influenza from human to human." This new sentence cut off the significance and key facts (i.e. how spread) that were in the original. The "human to human" phrase is assumed.

I think everyone knows how the flu usually spreads, and it is explained in the text.

• Added: "Though it may remain able to infect pigs these animals are not involved in the present outbreak." This statement replaced the ones about transmission from eating pork or being around pigs, which was the key significance. Further, there is no confirmation that "it may remain able to infect pigs" and the article's only cite about this was the suspected case in Canada. It clearly serves no purpose as a leading sentence in the paragraph. Any new facts should be put in context in the article.

To say that the virus can't be transmitted by eating cooked pork is a statement carefully chosen for optimism - it is true, but it doesn't tell you what will happen if a herd of pigs becomes infected by contact with an infected farm hand and you handle the frozen meat. Pork is an unlikely mechanism and almost entirely irrelevant to the current outbreak, but I wanted to stick with what was fair to say.

• Added: "Depending on the location and the number of unrecognized cases believed to occur, sources have estimated the fatality rate for this flu to be anywhere from that of familiar seasonal strains (0.1%) to that of the 1957 flu pandemic (0.4%)." This statement inserted in the paragraph seems disjointed and out of context of the earlier and following sentence. It has statistics not stated in the article. And it has contradictory and weasel-word phrases: "Depending," "unrecognized cases believed to occur," "sources have estimated," to be anywhere from," and "familiar seasonal strains." Those were all in one sentence!

I was attempting to be diplomatic in relating those sources which say that the outbreak is no more harmful than seasonal flu with the abovementioned Science paper stating that it is as dangerous as the 1957 Asian flu, if not worse. Both the 0.1 and 0.4 appear in the article.

• Rephrased: "As the flu season winds down in North America, about half of all influenza viruses being detected are the new H1N1 virus." This created a sentence connecting two entirely different and unrelated statements.

These statements are not unrelated. The number of swine flu cases is still very small by the standards of the main North American flu season.

• Added: "An easily grown "seed strain" for vaccine production is now under study by the CDC, and vaccine is expected to be available in four to six months." The only fact mentioned in the article is the "under study by the CDC" part. The rest is both unsourced and somewhat contradictory besides: saying it was "under study" and "expected to be available" can't both be true without more details. Whatsmore, this new vaccine-related statement seems out of context as the vaccine has been mentioned in other portions in the lead. The article does not have "four to six months," so this should be cited and used in the body first.

I just added this information below in the article - the CDC is in fact examining two candidate seed strains (one produced by them, one by another lab) and expects to make a seed strain available by the end of the month.

• Added: "But there is concern that the virus could spread widely in the Southern Hemisphere during the July flu season." Not a biggie, but "July" was not cited anywhere in the article as being their flu season. However, starting the sentence with "But" when the sentence is unrelated the the prior one is confusing and adds to the leads disjointed factoid appearance.

Use your browser's Find function - July is mentioned.

• Added: "could mix genetically with a more dangerous flu virus like H5N1 avian influenza. . . " Didn't see the point of replacing "mutate" with extra words, nor adding "like . . ." This is unclear, vague, and possibly incorrect, since only the avian virus was mentioned in the article as a potential mutation risk. If you have other cited details they could be added to the article.

The point is that a mutation is a certain kind of change in the genetic code that happens by random chance. The reassortment that flu viruses do to mix genes from different strains is conceptually more similar to sexual reproduction. Because flu can do either of these things, it is important to keep these concepts straight. Mike Serfas (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing some of this up, Mike. It's an important article so it's worth making everything understandable for typical readers.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to take up so much space explaining this revert, but I couldn't risk damaging the lead doing it piecemeal. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Formerly suspected cases / disproven cases on maps ?

  Disproven cases

Should areas that have no cases, no suspected cases, but were once suspected to have cases be highlighted? (note the Veracruz North America map uses green to indicate Veracruz, site of the initial known cases - File:H1N1 Norte América Veracruz.svg) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, it doesn't describe anything about the real outbreak. cyclosarin (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Current situation in Selected Countries

I don't really see the point of this section. It is already covered in the international response and outbreak by countries articles. Why do we need a second section? --62.69.130.82 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed country reporting from article

Initially, with only a handful of countries reporting outbreaks, this section was fine. But now with 43 countries involved the news is changing quickly and this type of section would become no more than a selective news summary. I therefore cut the section from the article and placed it here for any other comments or ideas.

===Current situation in selected countries===

====Mexico====

A May 21st Associated Press article stated: 'City Health Secretary Armando Ahued said nobody has been hospitalized with respiratory infections in the last three days, and no swine flu cases have been confirmed since May 14. "We are seeing a 96.1 percent drop in cases, and that's why we are dropping the alert level to green today," Ahued said.'

====United States====

The outbreak has spread to 47 states and the District of Columbia; however, with over 5000 confirmed or probable cases as of May 20th, only 9 deaths have been confirmed. In a press briefing on May 20, Dr. Daniel Jernigan of the CDC stated that of the 247 individuals hospitalized because of the swine flu, over 70% had underlying chronic medical conditions--including pregnancy, asthma, and heart disease.

=====New York City=====

On May 21, the New York State Department of Health stated that of the 333 laboratory-confirmed cases in the state, 227 were in New York City.

See Also: Local Links for NYC

=====Houston=====

A May 21st article in the Houston Chronicle states: “Houston's largest concentration of swine flu cases has grown by one to 25 at Travis Elementary, although the city's health department said the latest case actually was part of the cluster of illnesses that caused the school to shut down last week. As of Wednesday there had been 121 confirmed cases of the disease in the Houston area, according to the city."

====Britain====

May 21st AP article: "British health authorities have confirmed three new cases of swine flu, bringing the country's total to 112. The Health Protection Agency said Thursday May 21 2009 that the new cases are all children living in the West Midlands. The children had all recently returned from an affected area in the U.S."

====Japan====

A May 21st article from Time/CNN stated: “The Japanese government on Wednesday confirmed the first two cases of the disease in Tokyo, the world's most populous metropolitan area. Meanwhile, the number of Japanese who have contracted the new flu has more than doubled since May 18 from 130 to 279, a rate of increase that is "without a doubt" the highest in Asia, says Peter Cordingley, regional spokesman for the World Health Organization.” According to the Asahi Shinbun, the worst affected regions are Hyogo and Osaka prefectures.

====Southern hemisphere====

The outbreak comes at the beginning of the flu season for the Southern Hemisphere, including Australia, Oceania, southern Africa, and most of South America. July is usually the height of flu season in this part of the world.In a May 18th article, CDC’s Dr. Richard Besser was quoted as saying in reference to the Southern Hemisphere: “We’ll be looking at the virus to see [if it] has mutated into something more severe.” From a May 22nd Reuters article: 'Robert Booy, who heads Sydney University's immune research and surveillance centre, said more people than usual in Southern Hemisphere countries could become infected this winter and die from the new flu because of its novelty. "Once you have enough virus out there, evolution is simple," Booy said, adding that the H1N1 virus could change to the point that it could get "nasty."'

=====Brazil=====

According to the May 22nd Dowjones Business News: "The Brazilian Health Ministry confirmed the 9th case of H1N1 swine flu Thursday in the state of Sao Paulo."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the by country article, that also needs repair, since the UK section is excessive, and it even has its own breakout article already. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recovered patients?

Hello, I believe that victims who inhaled the virus that have recoved should not be on the 'confirmed list?'

I ask, because I believe it is pointless to have ex-patients confirmed as 'infected', even that they may have recovered?

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Your questions aren't questions. They are statements of your opinions ending with question marks. The numbers we get, we get from offical statements from state and federal health agencies, while the majority of the patients in question have not been hospitalized and most likely have recovered by now, we do not have consistant, reputable numbers on how many are currently ill. We're and ecyclopedia, we report what we have focusing on the historical, the notabale, and the verifiable, not what some wish we had. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Estimates by notable reputable sources are encyclopedic and can be found in many articles. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand that, but I have a right to raise awareness about 'recovered patients'. Some people who come into contact with the 'Swine-flu' may have recovered now, and therfore, the 'confirmed number of cases' should remove those who may have recovered. Yes, this is to make the article better (improve). (TheGreenwalker (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

A confirmed case is still a confirmed case whether the person recovers or not. Anyone who doesn't die will eventually become an "ex-patient," but they are still a case of someone who contracted swine flu. To state otherwise is to contradict decades of precedence in medical texts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greenwalker stated the point poorly, but his concern is valid. By focussing on cumulative total cases, we've ignored the new and active cases. The New figures have been available, but we haven't paid attention. We could equally have done the simple arithmetic on the cumulative totals to get the weekly new cases. We still could if someone wanted to. Or we can wait a few months and a paper will be published.LeadSongDog come howl 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well even so the primary statistics of long-term encyclopedic interest are total cases (confirmed+suspected) & total deaths (confirmed+suspected). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rate of spread is equally of interest. In general, the question becomes, "When a new strain emerges, how fast and far will it spread before vaccines are available?" or something similar. We've done little to address the rate question.LeadSongDog come howl 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We have data on number of confirmed cases from governments, and these numbers include the total of those who are sick and those who died and those who have recovered partially or fully, without the sort of detailed breakdown requested. Where would we get daily figures for how many are "currently sick?" Would you include those hospitalized or recovering at home? What if they are hospitalized because of other concurrent medical problems besides flu, like the commonly noted preexisting heart disease or respiratory disease? This request seems to demand data which does not exist. Edison (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

swine

Wash your hands people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.191.206 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sir!--86.29.240.217 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice people but this isn't a forum. Jozal ^(talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could cover each country's public health announcements related to Swine Flu. In Quebec (Canada), the provincial government is running a serie of radio ads and both the federal and provincial governments have set up websites giving advices to the population. http://fightflu.ca/ and http://www.pandemiequebec.gouv.qc.ca/ What about the other countrie? 70.83.220.148 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Death totals map?

• 
• 
• 

Can someone make a death totals map like the confirmed cases totals map (pink map) ?

Suggest:

  0 deaths

  suspected deaths

  1+ deaths

  5+ deaths

  20+ deaths

  100+ deaths

  500+ deaths

  2000+ deaths

Obviously, levels above 100 deaths won't probably be used...

70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there much point at the moment? There haven't been enough deaths to justify even more maps. Jozal ^(talk) 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, and no one would updated it at least for now, because only 4 countres had reported deaths, (CA, US, MX and CR)--Vrysxy! (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to "Current situation"

I don't think the article will benefit by trying to become a search engine news replacement. If we want to assume that users will come to this article for news bulletins instead of more general "outbreak" material, we could simply create a list like the following with every country listed, and a user can just click the link to get information as in the following examples I just made in a few minutes. That way, if someone wants to read about Canada, for instance, they would click on "Current situation" country link and get 21,000 news articles mentioning Canada over the last 7 days. Why let our editors pick and choose which articles are important when the reader can pick their own out of 21,000? Or we could just tell them to go to Google News themselves, even simpler.

Number of Google News articles over the past 7 days:
Canada swine flue news - 21,000 articles
Mexico swine flue news - 59,000 articles
Japan swine flue news - 23,000 articles
China swine flue news - 14,000 articles

Personally, I wouldn't do either since this "article" should not become a news aggregator site. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

question on transfer of swine flu

Does this article answer the following question? Should it?
Can swine flu be transmitted from humans to animals and birds? for example, if a broiler farm worker has swine flu, could he then pass it on to the birds which would then be processed for meat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.82.81 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be passed from human to animal, as seen in Canada, but you can't contract swine flu from cooked meat. cyclosarin (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the article. It is not a forum. This question is best suited for the reference desk. hmwithτ 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The correct response is "What part of this query is not explained by the article?"LeadSongDog come howl 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

USA 1918 death toll

The intro refers to the 1918 pandemic as killing 20 million, which is closer to the lower estimates of the worldwide death toll. I think if the line is to stay there it should have a better estimate, any ideas? This page refers to the US toll as more like 600,000. - cyclosarin (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Asia flu

For the Asian flu in 1957 the article gives a death count of 2 million and case fatality rate of <0.1%. This means there had to be more than 2 billion people infected. That's hard to believe considering a world population of less than 3 billion in 1957. So every single person in the world got the flu? --WeißNix (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A better place for news clips

Since there's already an article called 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States, there's no reason why others by either country or continent couldn't be created. That article already has a state-by-state section with news and the format could act as a good template. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many country articles, see the nav template. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool Nerd, there are right now about 83,000 different online news articles about swine flu that were posted over the last 7 days. Please refrain from adding more cut and paste news clips into the article, deleting the lead and redesigning the article to fit your personal desires. Better yet, simply create your own web site or blog for that purpose. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kuwait

There were formerly 18 cases of the flu in Kuwait. All 18 were American soldiers, and all of them have now left the country. None of them had come into contact with the Kuwaiti public.[5]

Should we then really list these 18 cases under Kuwait? Perhaps we should have a footnote indicating the details?VR _talk 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The table just reflects the number of cases and where they were diagnosed. - cyclosarin (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

2 more people have fallen ill with Swine flue [6]/ [7]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.10 (talk • contribs)

10:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much speculation... section Majority of fatalities in Mexico should be removed

The first paragraph in this section has each sentence with one of the following:
"also suggest it is"
"it may help explain"
"it may be that"
"They speculate that... may have been"
"Castro accused Mexico of"

The second paragraph is not any better:
"has likely been"
"states that it's possible..."
"Do we really know..."

This section is just a compilation of no hard facts but speculative matter. To be removed. GaussianCopula (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The theories in that section are correct, but not good enough based on wikipedia policies. Deleting maybe the best we can do, although better would be to find more authoritative references for the theories/speculation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the speculation that we are quoting is a speculation that was made in a reliable source, there is no problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect since both the Mexican government and the WHO have stated otherwise with regards to knowing what the origins of the current H1N1 influenza are. Articles like CNN's http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/06/swine.flu.origins/ state that there is no current evidence with regards to its origins. We have Castro as a source as well as someone posting a comment in a negative form "Do we really know...?". Do we really know if it comes from Outer Space, or from Fish People or what other thing one can't prove because you are trying to prove a negative argument?

This section is entirely non-balanced plus feeding off non-reliable sources. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the virus is discussed in 2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Initial_outbreaks, not the section on why the infection appears from the statistics to have been more severe in Mexico. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The text GaussianCopula deleted didn't say anything about origins, so I don't know why GaussianCopula is arguing about that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If a valid source questions a particular country's much higher infection or mortality rate, that's a legitimate addition. Wiki editors are not doing OR and speculating, but adding questions presented by others. The CDC and WHO are "speculating" on further mutations or another outbreak in the future. Are we supposed to ignore them, and wait until the outbreak happens before citing it as a possibility? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia have to do with "Are we supposed to ignore them, and wait until the outbreak happens before citing it as a possibility?". This is not the CDC, the WHO or anything similar. GaussianCopula (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not revert your reversion of the changes I just made for now, but please explain to me what you mean with ""Are we supposed to ignore them, and wait until the outbreak happens before citing it as a possibility?". Seriously, what the heck is that suppose to mean? GaussianCopula (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDC, for instance, is using historical and current circumstantial evidence, along with the expert opinions of others, to speculate about the future. It's noteworthy. In a similar way, experts are using data of much higher mortality rates in Mexico as evidence for their own theories and speculations to explain why that may have happened. They have a right to try to explain an event and theorize based on facts. For facts like those, their views are also noteworthy when coming from a valid source. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you say about the CDC. But both the CDC and the WHO are not indicating where the origins of this virus are. They are specifically stating that they don't know. You have stated that we are not "supposed to ignore them, and wait until the outbreak happens before citing it as a possibility?". This is not what wikipedia should be. The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/06/swine.flu.origins/ states "Now, researchers are looking at travel and trade patterns from Mexico to shed light on how the virus has spread. There's a large trade of pigs from the United States and Canada, as well as pig trades from other countries, each year into Mexico, he said.

"There's a lot of mixing, and a lot of potential for viruses," Daszak said. "It's equally likely that it emerged in Mexico as it is in Canada and the U.S."

This does not fit in the picture that is being portrayed.

If anything there should be a section named "Speculations regarding the origins of the H1N1 virus"

That would make sense. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The exact "source" of the virus is still unknown, although they think it probably came from a pig somewhere. But the experts are only discussing the probability that the epidemic might have started earlier than April and might have been widespread within Mexico before the official "epidemic" was declared. That's all the articles are saying. They're merely trying to explain why Mexico had so many deaths so early after the rest of the world discovered the outbreak. The sudden super-high mortality rate in Mexico within days after the outbreak scared the heck out of the world! But if, as some speculate, the epidemic was simply not recognized, then the mortality rate fits in to normal seasonal flu rates, and people can calm down a bit. This seems like a very important kind of theory and helps the experts make better predictions. The only negative connotation about Mexico would be, IMO, the recognition that their health system was less developed and less sensitive than the U.S., which most of us already know.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing. There is no "super-high mortality". This is not a Stephen King novel. The Mexican government has stated that the majority of the deaths due to h1n1 flu happended before they took the precautions to alert the general population with regards to this flu. The number of deaths in Mexico as in the rest of the world, once it has been detected are localized to those who have previously known respiratory problems. No Captain Trips. Sorry. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re last revert, the text provides sourced "indirect evidence that the country [Mexico] may have been experiencing a silent epidemic for months." To erase these cites and theories is an implied attempt to hide information. Is that your intent? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe not enough speculation - and should be investigated and expanded

Why? This is a typical article from last month: "At Least 16 Dead, Hundreds Ill in Swine Flu Outbreak in Mexico". In the article, WHO estimated 57 deaths out of 900 known cases, which would show a mortality rate of over 6%. A similar article, "Mexico swine flu outbreak triggers global pandemic fears" included figures which gave about 6.8% mortality. It naturally "sparked widespread panic in Mexico," as the article states and is now history.

But WHO and CDC knew something else: that the typical seasonal flu, and even other flu pandemics like the Asian and Hong Kong pandemics, had a mortality rate of under 0.1%. But the "horrific" Spanish Flu had a mortality rate of slightly over 2.5%. Now flash back to this time last month and the entire world sees a "new" swine flu outbreak in Mexico that over a week has a confirmed mortality rate of 6-7% and the SHTF in government health administrations, aka "panic," leading to quarantines, surgical masks, shutting down Mexico City, killing pigs, shunning travelers from the U.S. and Mexico, closing schools, swamping emergenchy rooms, etc. And it's still happening because of this initial fear.

But one simple fact, IMO, could have prevented all of this. What if it was already known months earlier that Mexico was undergoing a flu epidemic, and the cases that were now reported included only the most serious ones and as a result had a sudden influx of deaths? The CDC or WHO could have come in and tested and estimated, for example, that there were already a million cases of flu, and the mortality rates were within "normal" seasonal flu rates. There would have been no reason to press the panic button and the government reactions would have been much less fear-driven. If anything, it would be great if some experts in Mexico were able to confirm or deny whether there was a preexisting flu epidemic earlier than first reported on the 6:00 0-clock news. A lot of us would really be helped. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some typical articles a month ago:

• "Scientists were trying to understand why there are so many deaths in Mexico when the infections in the United States seem mild, Besser said."[8]
• "Why So Many Swine Flu Deaths In Mexico?" [9]
• "Why So Many Swine Flu Deaths In Mexico? (Broadcast transcript)(Audio file)."[10]
• "Swine flu's mystery: Why it kills in Mexico"[11]. "Keiji Fakuda of the World Health Organization. “This will be the object of a great deal of research and attention, but at this time we can't say why there appears to be a difference."
• "Self-medication, poverty drove up flu deaths in Mexico"[12]
• "In an outbreak, "the nation that gives the most information is the nation that suffers most," Mexico's Health Minister, Cordova told a press conference. "Without international support, nations with disease outbreaks are punished for their honesty," he argued.[13]
• "Mexico shut down as flu outbreak stabilizes" [14]. "Experts have struggled to explain why so many deaths have occurred in Mexico and nowhere else. On Friday, the CDC suggested a simple explanation: there are many cases in Mexico, most are mild, and just the bad ones have been seen so far."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:H1N1 map by total cases.svg

A new map has appeared... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that these maps of total case numbers have become irrelevant. There is a vast difference between the 229 known cases in the UK and the estimate quoted later in the article that as many as 30,000 people could be infected. (Though I am rather suspicious of that estimate, since any flu strain should have produced some deaths from that many people) As I predicted in talk archive 5, we have reached the point where state and national differences in how cases are tested have overwhelmed the actual differences in the number of cases. Originally, using the number of known cases to estimate national distribution was obvious, but once we start seeing discussions of whether 1 in 20 or 1 in 300 cases is reported it starts to become what Wikipedia calls "original research". Mike Serfas (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Recovery Statistics?

Recovery statistics would be appreciated, that is how many people have got the disease who now don't have it and are alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealdeal (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cases are confirmed usually days after the sample is obtained from the patient. By then, the patient has either died or recovered. So it is fair to say that every case not dead is recovered. --Una Smith (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Medical statistics lose value when other countries are involved, as in the following article: "Self-medication, poverty drove up flu deaths in Mexico"[15]. Then compare that with places like Hong Kong where they quarantine a hotel with 241 guests after one person came down with the flu (see article).--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Estimated cases

The CDC as of 1 June is estimating total U.S. cases at "around 200,000" by scaling 20-fold from the confirmed number of 10,000 using a scaling factor derived from the "FluView" sentinel system. Other countries will no doubt follow. Recognizing that no country will lab test for a very large proportion of its population, we should prepare to handle these estimated numbers in a consistent way. Suggestions? LeadSongDog come howl 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this information as text to the article. It should not be added to the table until we have reliable such numbers for the majority of the coountries listed there, if at all. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cases in Antarctica?

On one of the maps on the main page, it shows that the flu has been confirmed in Antarctica. Since there are only about a thousand persons there at any given time, is this really true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.83.178 (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

IOW, citation needed? The comment on the change to the map doesn't provide any explanation, just mentions that Antarctica has been added. Where would you add a citation needed marker in a case like this - under the map? 84.19.238.82 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Australia is now missing from the list of confirmed flu patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flakeyrob24 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia is back on the list...cheers flakeyrob24Flakeyrob24 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SH versus NH

It appears that new infections are rapidly increasing in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), opposed to the Northern Hemisphere (NH). See Australia and Chile as examples. While it is still early days, this is to be expected as the flu season is abating in the NH, and just about to start in the SH.

For those into graphs, it would be useful to see a log graph of NH versus SH. 84.197.239.221 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Current situation" section

It was poorly formatted, and it worked like a news site. This is not what Wikipedia is for. WIkipedia is an encyclopedia. This section does not belong, especially in its current state. The countries with articles should be mentioned per summary style, but that current news section does not belong on Wikipedia. hmwithτ 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll - to Keep or Remove section

• Remove: It's not workable for reasons stated earlier. With 50 countries having flu now, there is no way to keep a news-oriented section meaningful or limited. Anyone can post any news clip for any country. If a country like the U.K. has a subsection which appears in the TOC, then every country should have a subsection, and the TOC will become a massive list full of clips. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, Wikipedia is not a rolling news website, add it to Wikinews if you wish, but this article is about the broader topic and its background, not minute-to-minute updates. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove is the correct action. L∴V 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Interwiki section to wikinews where thorough rewrite will be necessary. Note that at WN there will be more acceptance of what WP considers WP:SYNTH Should check that editors there will be prepared to take on frequent updates to keep the story current. LeadSongDog come howl 22:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  I've posed the question at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Ongoing_status_updates_on_the_Influenza_A.28H1N1.29_story.LeadSongDog come howl 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews has moved it to Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#Ongoing_status_updates_on_the_Influenza_A.28H1N1.29_story. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SVT. Would it help if some of the WP article's editors here pitched in there, or is the culture clash too great?LeadSongDog come howl 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that we are communicating real information to real readers. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that might be the case if WP was set up to be any good at delivering news, but it isn't and it won't be. The result is that as often as not we wind up trying to cover current events and wind up creating a mish-mash of stale information that readers mistake for information. Why not contribute at Wikinews, wehere editors actually do cover news pretty effectively?LeadSongDog come howl 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For purposes of ongoing editor reference, I've moved (cut/pasted) that section from this article to Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#Current situation for want of a better place. If you need it, please consult/maintain it there.LeadSongDog come howl 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article they're linked to. hmwithτ 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO may issue periodic summaries of the state of the spread of infection, and weekly newsmagazines such as Time and Newsweek will have weekly updates. The journal "Science" also had an article on the disease, discussing how virulent and how deadly it was. Such sources allow us to stop and catch our breath rather than sticking in numerous stories each with a limited perspective on the big picture. We want that "big picture," but we also want it up to date. It may peter out, it may taper off in the Northern Hemisphere but spread in the Southern Hemisphere during their flu season, it may evolve into something quite different. I would like to be able to open this article on any day and have confidence that the lede reflects the perspective of mainstream authoritative consensus of scientists up to that day: is it getting better, is it getting worse. Thus the important thing to put in each day is the latest authoritative overview, not the latest case on a cruise ship or the latest school closing or the latest fatality, from local newspapers. That heslps the reader figure out if our current flu is more like 1918, 1957 or the 1976 nonevent. Edison (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To LeadSongDog, but I think I might have a way for us to be good at delivering news. And if this is where people are coming first, why don't we include it here, as well as telling them 'for additional information . . '? Cool Nerd (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To Edison, I answer: And-Both! I certainly am in favor of the including the latest summary from WHO, as well as nongovernmental organizations such as maybe Doctors Without Borders, as well as news stories. This is a messy, fast developing situation. In Zen-like fashion, why don't we simply allow our coverage to remain messy and fast developing?

About the news stories, I like specifics-->general. I realize that may be somewhat of a personal preference. But I ask people to consider their own reactions when you learn something new. For example, I really enjoyed the book Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin. The bulk of it was a middle section in which he devouted a chapter to each Apollo mission. I got much more out of this than if he had just made some broad generalizations blurring all the missions together. (Save the generalizations, which may be very well thought out, for the end.)

One of the news articles I included talked about New Mexico. The state health authority reports cases once of week, following the lead of CDC. I didn't know that. It's like we're practicing medicine in the 1950s! And this is the example of the kind of thing you can learn from a specific.

So, and I want to be very careful saying this, health authorities are not going to intentionally mislead, but they may be cautious, and perhaps overly cautious at times. This is another reason, not overwhelming, but one more reason for including today's news stories. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool Nerd, as has already been pointed out there are many venues for reporting news. Wikipedia is not one of them. If that's what you wish to work on, WikiNews would be very happy to have your help. We do pay attention to news sources as we build encyclopedia articles, so we often use and cite them, but our product is intended to be more enduring than news. If news editors attempted to operate to encyclopedic standards very few articles would get to press. If encyclopedia editors worked to news standards far too many factual errors would be included. Both have their place, we try not to mix them up.LeadSongDog come howl 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a Texas politician Ralph Yarborough who said something to the effect, Well, if the little people can't reach the jam, why don't we put it on a lower shelf! (There was also a later politician with a very similar name who ran for and won a judgeship.) I take from this, instead of criticizing people, accept them where they are. Go ahead and tell them want they want to know.

There is a tension, the information people want and the information an expert (or just a more experienced person) knows they need to have. You accept and artistically build from this tension. That is, you attempt to have a real conversation. I mean, is there any other way to do it? Not that I know of.

If we pick an article in the Associated Press, or CNN, or The Herald (Scotland), you really think there's going to be that many flat-out errors in it? It's going to be incomplete. That's the shortcoming a news article is going to have. But if we have a modest number of news excerpts at the top of our article, with clickable references, and then a section that gives more of a constant baseline of information, we would have something I don't is anywhere else on the Internet. We would have a very good article indeed on swine flu, so much better than the "perfect" article we seem to be attempting to write.

If a particular section is unbalanced, by all means, let's discuss that. (By the way, I'm not a particular fan of using a log scale on a graph. To me, that's an unnecessary complication. Just make sure the vertical axis is large so that it's clear that the number of cases so far is still small, thank goodness. This is not a current crisis, but it is a potential crisis.)

But the argument, news is over there, encyclopedic is over here, and never shall the 'twain meet, I'm sorry, I just don't see it. We want our article to be accurate, complete, timely. To me, we are merely limiting ourselves. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

“Current News” section as part of genuine intellectual collaboration

Let’s suppose we do have a “Current News” secton pretty much at the very top of our article, very short intro, then Current News of, let’s say, approximately 8 news items, each one a quote, sometimes one sentence, sometimes more, sometimes a paragraph, each with a date and source, and a clickable link back to the original news article. You add one, someone else adds two more, then another someone else rolls the two oldest off the bottom.

And someone likes the third one and incorporates it into the article, with a reference.

The next day, someone likes the second news excerpt and incorporates it into the main body of the article.

You yourself run across a good news article on the swine flu, not a perfect article, not the best article on all of (?) bing news, but merely a good article. And you’re not going to share it with the rest of us? I hope you will. Well, you don’t have time to incorporate it into the article. Okay, very understandable.

Then, just take an excerpt and just slap it up on Current News. And the very casualness is what makes it work. The low threshold is what invites participation. You might have time to get to it later. Or, someone else may get to it in the meantime. Either way is a winner. And this is a genuinely collaborative project.

Currently, people put finished products on wikipedia. It is largely a perfectionist environment. And that's a shame. We lose a lot. And it’s often a critical environment, and because of this, people often hold themselves back.

And also, the “may cause” types of edits. If language boldly states something, there’s a real tendency to shave, to downgrade. So much of our effort is spent wordsmithing and phraseology, we often end up not discussing the topic of our article at all. It’s really kind of amazing. It’s as if we have succeeding in recreating corporate communication.

So, let’s embrace the messiness, the always-becoming-never-being. So, this article’s going to be finished and complete? Maybe in 20 years when Swine Flu 2009 is a distant memory! But not anytime soon. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find a better venue for this discussion. Perhaps the WP:Village pump. Good luck with your project of redefining what WP is. LeadSongDog come howl 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One death in Chile

You may add one case of death in Chile. See this.

The death map needs an update to account for this. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Total UK cases

I make the total UK cases 339 not 362 as in the table Flakeyrob24Flakeyrob24 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Present tense

In general we avoid the use of present tense, not as a pretense that events are over but to avoid creating stale statements. See Wikipedia:MOS#Chronological_items for discussion of better ways to state things.LeadSongDog come howl 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (foll pasted from my user talk: LeadSongDog come howl 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

swine flu, current versus past tense, unsourced claims; currentism

Running counts should be labeled "as of [date]" or some such. There might be other obvious cases where claims are clearly temporary. But you CHANGED a lot of sourced claims from present tense into past tense claims without any sources or logic indicating that those claims are likely to be past tense any time soon. This epidemic can be expected to run for a couple of months up to a couple of years - no one knows yet when it will end. When this current epidemic does end, the virus stain will join with the other seasonal flu stains as a yearly problem, but one most humans have some degree of immunity to. On the other hand, that article should not have a "what happened in the last 7 days" section - you are right about that. Current-ism in a case like this is best dealt with by creating other articles and moving the current-ism news clips to there. We already have a 2009 swine flu outbreak timeline article and country specific article that serve this purpose. Feel free to create more so people can have someplace to put their "what happened today" gems. It's a matter of people management. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not discussing first, I was principally working on fixing citations and corrected these as I went section by section. There may be a few that should be present tense, but I'm pretty sure I got most of them right. I'll review my changes in detail over the next hour. LeadSongDog come howl 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(another move from user talk:LeadSongDog): For example you just reverted me to make the article say :"There was mounting evidence that the symptoms were milder than health officials feared." "WAS MOUNTING EVIDENCE"? Why is this in past tense? Is the evidence not continuing to mount even unto today? Do you have a source for this claim that this is past rather than current? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the reversion was to restore all the substantive changes you wiped out in the reversion. I'm open to discussion on any of the tense points, and as you can see, I've changed some already.LeadSongDog come howl 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

fyi: statistics from New York Hospitalizations

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/2-more-deaths-linked-to-swine-flu-in-city/?hp

"...80 percent of the more than 300 people hospitalized with swine flu since mid-April have one or more underlying condition that put them at risk. Asthma, which affects 10 percent of New York City children, is by far the most common underlying condition, affecting some 41 percent of those hospitalized. ..."

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pregnant women

In a grand rounds presentation we heard that the virus was particularly hard on pregnant women (beyond the already expected increase in morbidity/mortality). Has anyone else found evidence to back this up? http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/recommendations.htm doesn't seem to mention anything about it other than they are at higher risk (as usual) for contracting the flu. ChillyMD (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The have more specific guidance at http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/clinician_pregnant.htm if that helps.LeadSongDog come howl 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About a week ago, I included a couple of sentence news clip in the body of the article where we are discussing pregnant women. It stated that pregnant women who are exposed are advised to take Tamiflu--but acknowledging that there are not studies on the safety of Tamiflu on the fetus (I guess not specific studies). So, it would be a risk v. risk choice. My source was a college student-run newspaper. A contributor deleted this addition. Okay, the source is a little cutting edge. However, student newspapers might provide a little more feisty counterpoint to just the mainstream corporate media. In any case, this is the kind of thing we could build on, if we can accept that our article will be imperfect during the process. Just try and adequately identify our sources. (And it's almost guaranteed that our article will be imperfect during the entire next three years!) Cool Nerd (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)(someone who is trying to help, in his own rambling way)

H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg

  500+ cases

  50+ cases

  5+ cases

  1+ cases

I think it's about time to add a 5000+ cases colour.

Suggest:

  5000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000,000+ cases

?

70.29.208.129 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No country could have over 5,000,000,000 cases, but otherwise it looks pretty good. It could use some more contrast between 50,000, 500,000 and 5,000,000 cyclosarin (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  5000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Too bad when the reds where put in, no one used

  Indian Red

  Crimson

  Red

  Deep Pink

... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this variant-

  disproven/hoax

  unproven/N/A

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  1,000+ cases

  5,000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  1,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  250,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

--86.29.254.131 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

you can't use yellow, it's used on the other map for suspected cases. I think brown should be somewhere else on the spectrum... and this is a confirmed cases map, so disproven or unproven are inappropriate. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but not now, since it could go higher than even those numbers, in a matter of months, right now we only have 12 cases, and most of the cases are in the US, Mexico, Canada and Japan. --Vrysxy! (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets be reasonal! No country would test for 500 million cases. I think the highest mark should be 1+ million and that's it. No maps should have so many colours. One should easily distinguish between little, moderate and highly infected areas. Markers should therefore be 1+, 5+, 50+, 500+, 10000+, 100.000+ and 1million+. PeterPodgoršek (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, 5,000 and 50,000 levels should be added, or it should be rejiggered to be 1+/10+/100+/1000+/10,000+/100,000+ 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  20+ cases

  100+ cases

  500+ cases

  2000+ cases

  10000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  200,000+ cases

  1,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  20,000,000+ cases

?

In any case you don't have to use the entire scale, and it won't appear in the legend keys unless something approaching the next level were to be reported, since on the maps we already have, people are leaving out the steps that aren't relevant already on the legends. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More fives. I think 5.000+ is a good idea, and the green color to suspected only cases too.
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Using green is problematic. It is already used as the color for Veracruz as point of origin for one of the North America maps, and it is used in the Galicia map for suspected cases that subsequently proved not to be Mexican Flu. And in the other map, yellow is used for suspected cases. So yellow should be used for suspected cases, not green. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like this...

  1+ unconfirmed cases

  5+ unconfirmed cases

  50+ unconfirmed cases

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  5,000+ cases

• ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 11:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+

  5+

  20+

  100+

  500+

  2000+

 ? If you wanted a suspected cases range... but I think it would be confused with confirmed cases, so should not be on the same map. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This map is for only confirmed cases. We can create a total cases map?
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No one could stop you from making one... but would anyone maintain it? I'm not sure what color spectrum you would use... since reds are for confirmed cases, yellows for suspected cases, greens has been used for several different things, blacks should be used for deaths. And I just suggested that blues be appended to the reds to extend the red-scale. Ofcourse if we decided not to append blues to the red scale, they become available again. That would mean inserting the missing reds I pointed out above (Crimson, Red, Indian Red) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  200,000+ total cases

  50,000+ total cases

  10000+ total cases

  2000+ total cases

  500+ total cases

  100+ total cases

  20+ total cases

  5+ total cases

  1+ total cases

- if the blue scale is not used for confirmed cases... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases:

  5,000,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  5000+ cases

  500+ cases

  50+ cases

  5+ cases

  1+ cases

? (all red scale now...) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those of you who are aiming at numbers over the million should reconsider making such colors seing this will not happen before much, much later in the process, it might not even happen. So maybe you should stick to the current colors, and expand it to something below 100,000 at maximum. I think this will do us much better, if we add too many of them, it will just become confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notelitten (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this version-

  disproven/hoax

  1+ unconfirmed case

  2+ unconfirmed cases

  5+ unconfirmed cases

  10+ unconfirmed cases

  25+ unconfirmed cases

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  25+ cases

  50+ cases

  75+ cases

  100+ cases

  125+ cases

  150+ cases

  175+ cases

  200+ cases

  225+ cases

  250+ cases

  300+ cases

  400+ cases

  500+ cases

  1,000+ cases

  2,000+ cases

Over 2,000 ill would be very unlikley outside of Mexico!--86.29.251.175 (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

--86.29.251.175 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Still can't use it. Black is for deaths on the other map. Using it would be confusing. This map is for confirmed cases, so putting suspected cases on it would be misleading; besides areas with confirmed cases also have unconfirmed ones many times, so your unconfirmed coverage would be bad; and your unconfirmed scale is too small, plus a difference of one? (1+ / 2+ ???) . Make a separate map for tha instead. I think your divisions are not that good. The current version uses geometric progression for the most part, yours uses arithmetic progression for the most part. The other maps of confirmed cases also use geometric progression. Greyscale should be used for deaths. The no cases areas are also grey, so it would be confused. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely can't use greyscale, it's used for the death map. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:H1N1_map_by_confirmed_deaths.svg

I suggest to use powers of ten as delimiting parameter for the different colours. 1+, 10+, 100+, 1000+ and maybe 10,000+ would definitely be sufficient at present.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I wonder why the current scale was selected in the first place (1+/5+/50+/500+) ... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have selected a smaller and detailed scale. You can see that 1, 10, 100, 100 are a lot of large for this case. However, five to fifty will make a more detailed scale, like two times more detail than the only "1 followed by 0" scale. ⇨HotWikiBR^msg 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

On the one hand the article says "As the outbreak spread throughout Mexico and into the U.S., scientists were trying to understand [...]" but on the other hand it mentions "Both the place and the species in which the virus originated are unknown." If the origin is NOT known, then it cannot be said that (the virus and also the outbreak) spread throughout Mexico and (then from Mexico) into the U.S.! Please edit the first quoted sentence. The outbreak spread throughout both Mexico and the U.S.--201.153.14.226 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a contradiction. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd --76.202.193.188 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak by country

See Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country - there is a discussion on removing the maps from the article, and a suggestion on splitting it into continent based articles because it is lengthy. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Victoria, Australia has stopped widespread testing. Section deleted.

And our article relies so heavily on numbers.

"As of June 4th, with the number of cases increasing, the state of Victoria in Australia has discontinued across-the-board testing for swine flu. Instead, patients with symptoms will be given anti-virals and asked to avoid public places for three days. Doctors will order tests on a case-by-case basis as needed. This is the “Sustain Phase” of Victoria’s pandemic plan."

This above part, which is my summary of the news article, was deleted from the Southern Hemisphere section. Also, patients deemed high-risk and those with severe symptoms are still likely to be tested. And also, as the article states, "The US and Canada have moved to a modified sustain stage.", page 2. That is highly significant, and I'd like that verified (or not) by additional news sources. (I would rather have just included a medium-sized quote from the news article, but that has been controversial. A summary, to my way of thinking, just adds one more layer between the information and the reader.)

So, if Western countries have stopped testing to some extent, what about poorer countries with less resources?

And again, our article so heavily cites numbers. And yes, yes, so far mild. So far we have been (relatively) lucky. Also in the undercount are the many patients with mild symptoms who have not sought medical care. Ideally, we could include quotes from several different health authorities who give their best judgment on how much of an undercount. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC), and Cool Nerd (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

CDC Weekly update

"During week 21, seasonal influenza A (H1), A (H3), and B viruses continue to co-circulate at low levels with novel influenza A (H1N1). Approximately 82% of all influenza viruses being reported to CDC this week are novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses." - http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/ - The graph at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2008-2009/WhoLab21.htm is especially informative. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Third confirmed case in Venezuela

Please update the table and the info, because since june 1st Venezuela report a third case, the sources available in english are these: [16][17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.26.166.136 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Rakela (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we had a 'Current News' section, this person could have slapped an excerpt of there, then a more experience wiki user could have updated the table. And at least this information would have been there for the time being.

By the way, as a reasonable experienced user, how do you update the table? Cool Nerd (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A) New information should be given no more weight than old information, since this is an encyclopedia and not a news site (see WP:NOT#NEWS).

B) The table is located at Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. You can edit it there. For future reference, you can see templates linked on the page in the edit window (in this situation, it's at the top as {{2009 swine flu outbreak table}}. hmwithτ 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the new information is what's more likely to affect real human beings. And as an electronic encyclopedia . . .

Oh, that wild-eyed radical Cool Nerd, he's causing all kinds of problems! Well, what exactly is he doing? He wants us to include current news along with the background information! And . . .
Cool Nerd (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to inform people of the news. If they want information on what's currently going on and what can affect them, they should watch/read the news instead of reading an encyclopedia. hmwithτ 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

single-path vs. multipath

Yeah, a table, map, and 'Current News,' that's multipath. We have both table and map, but both are high threshold. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Come again? hmwithτ 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was easier, more people would participate. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions:

• If what was easier? To update the maps and tables?
• What do you mean by multipath and single-path?
• What do you mean by high threshold?

I can't quite understand what you're pointing out, but I want to respond. hmwithτ 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on readability of vaccine genetics text

The material below is being added to the beginning of the Vaccine section and I have removed it twice as being too technical and not appropriate for this article. IMO it clashes with the readability of the article and becomes a barrier for the typical reader who simply wants to understand the topic. The material is again being removed for comments.

Original text

Vaccine genetics

---

The composition of flu virus vaccines for use in the 2009-2010 Northern Hemisphere influenza season recommended by the World Health Organization on February 12, 2009 was:

• an A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like virus;
• an A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like virus;
• a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus.

A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is a seasonal strain of A/H1N1 while what the media calls "swine flu" is a novel (new) swine-origin non-seasonal strain of A/H1N1 that humans currently lack immunity to. Vaccination against A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is not expected to confer immunity in humans to the new H1N1 strain.

As of May 30, 2009: "CDC has antigenically characterized 1,567 seasonal human influenza viruses [947 influenza A (H1), 162 influenza A (H3) and 458 influenza B viruses] collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1, 2008, and 84 novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses. All 947 influenza seasonal A (H1) viruses are related to the influenza A (H1N1) component of the 2008-09 influenza vaccine (A/Brisbane/59/2007). All 162 influenza A (H3N2) viruses are related to the A (H3N2) vaccine component (A/Brisbane/10/2007). All 84 novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses are related to the A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) reference virus selected by WHO as a potential candidate for novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Influenza B viruses currently circulating can be divided into two distinct lineages represented by the B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Victoria/02/87 viruses. Sixty-one influenza B viruses tested belong to the B/Yamagata lineage and are related to the vaccine strain (B/Florida/04/2006). The remaining 397 viruses belong to the B/Victoria lineage and are not related to the vaccine strain."

Option B

I have rewritten the text so that it only contains information relevant to the article. I also simplified it a great deal.

Vaccine genetics

---

Further information: [[:Influenza vaccine#2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)|Influenza vaccine § 2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)]]

On February 12, 2009, the World Health Organization recommended that the vaccines for use in the Northern Hemisphere during the 2009-10 influenza season should be composed of viruses that are similar to A(H1N1), A(H3N2), and B. However, the virus in the vaccine is A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1), a seasonal strain of influenza. Since the H1N1 virus responsible for the swine influenza outbreak is a new, non-seasonal strain of swine origin, humans lack immunity to it. Therefore, vaccination against A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is not expected to result in protective immunity to the current strain of swine influenza virus.

As of May 30, 2009, the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) has characterized 84 new influenza A(H1N1) viruses, all of which are related to the A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) virus that WHO suggested could be used in the vaccine to protect people against the strain commonly known as swine flu.

Please let me know your opinions on this version. Thanks, hmwithτ 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Much easier to understand! Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Option C

The simplest official proposal yet. I'm open to other options when it comes to creating the title. hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine genetics

---

Further information: [[:Influenza vaccine#2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)|Influenza vaccine § 2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)]]

WHO recommended that vaccines for the Northern Hemisphere's 2009-2010 flu season contained an A(H1N1)-like virus. However, the version of H1N1 in the vaccine is a different, seasonal strain. Therefore, since the virus responsible for the outbreak is a new, swine-origin, non-seasonal strain of H1N1, the annual vaccination is not expected to result in human immunity.

As of mid-2009, the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) has characterized over 80 new H1N1 viruses, all of which are related to the virus that may be used in the vaccine combatting the strain responsible for the swine flu outbreak.

Straw poll

• Remove - not readable or meaningful for vast majority of visitors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove or simplify. I agree it is too complicated for this article at present. Perhaps it would fit in a more specific article but it is not readable enough to be informative here. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:56, 7 June 2009 (GMT)
• Comment - polls are no substitute for achieving consensus by discussion; but they can be a useful place to either start or end a conversation, so long as it is recognized that content is determined by consensus which is far different from majority rules. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or rewrite - This content is needed so the reader can understand what is meant by news articles and claims in Wikipedia that there is a problem in producing enough H1N1 vaccine. We are already producing seasonal H1N1 flu vaccine and it is vaccine for the new H1N1 flu virus strain that is in question. Further, the flu season vaccine vaccinates against three separate strains - it is in essence three vaccines in one. Further this content points out that there is a specific isolate that represents 100% of known US "swine flu" cases that the CDC has analyzed. Rather than delete what you do not understand, ask questions. Together we can rewrite this so it satisfies your need for understandability and what I perceive as a need for this data to exist in this article, so readers do not misunderstand. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Simplify and keep It's good, encyclopedic information that comes from reliable sources. I'll draft up a potential rewrite and post it here for second opinions. hmwithτ 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or move to subarticle This is an encylopedia which contains deep technical info. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Option B was presented at this point in the poll.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, hmwithτ 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Use Option B It's shorter, in normal language, and only involves the information regarding this virus. hmwithτ 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • After further simplifying, I prefer Option C, and Option B would be my second choice. hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Use Option B and perhaps have sub article as additional information becomes available. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Simplify more. Option B is simpler but IMO still too complex for average readers. With the CDC online source (footnoted) including more details and charts, I'd prefer something more like this example and just let more interested persons dive in on their own (option C):

According to the CDC's U.S. Virologic Surveillance reports, annual influenza vaccination is expected to provide the best protection against those virus strains that are related to the vaccine strains presently circulating, but limited to no protection may be expected when the vaccine and circulating virus strains are different, suggesting that little to no protection to the current outbreak would be expected from vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine.

It would also help to put this topic in a sub-head called something like your "Vaccine genetics," to make future genetic topics easier to add and keep organized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. As for the title, I actually didn't mean to put composition. I meant to use the original title of the section. I've changed that minor thing. However, I just added an option C that is simpler yet still contains future information. Do you like that version at all? Also, when you talk about subheadings, are you referring to something like this? hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to combine some of the ideas a bit, I come up with a rough draft like this:

According to the CDC's U.S. Virologic Surveillance reports, "limited to no protection" to the current outbreak would be expected from vaccination with existing seasonal influenza vaccines. The current epidemic consists of a new strain of Influenza A virus - subtype H1N1 - and is thought to be a mutation (reassortment) of four known strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1: one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine). As a result, scientists are accelerating their efforts to develop a vaccine against the new H1N1 influenza virus (Swine flu) as rapidly as possible. The need for such a vaccine is supported by the CDC and WHO and a number of companies now have vaccines under production.

By sub-head I meant something like a sub-head under the "Vaccine" section, maybe 8.1.4.

• Keep or rewrite--or excerpt! WAS 4.250 brings up good points. The seasonal flu vaccine is actually three vaccines in one; one of these is old H1N1. Of course, the current concern is all about the new H1N1. Also the issue of CDC finding specific isolate in 100% of "swine flu." Mmm?
  Are we all suddenly virologists? Again, why don't we include a couple-of-sentence excerpt from a good source, with a clickable link? Most transparent and least mistake-prone method. Very easy for the reader to decide then and there to click, or to skip to next bold-faced section. Cool Nerd (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual US cases multiple hundreds of thousands at end of May, 2009

Models’ Projections for Flu Miss Mark by Wide Margin By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. Published: June 1, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02model.html?ref=science

INEXACT SCIENCE Where’s George?, a Web site that tracks dollar bills, provided data for a flu projection. Related Times Topics: Swine Flu (AH1N1 Virus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.11.130 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I removed the text of the article in its entirety. Users can click the link. hmwithτ 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Past tense?

Either these are new rules, or I just don't get something, but... why is the article all of a sudden written in past tense? As if it is now known that the disease doesn't spread anymore even in the most severe cases (which is not true)? And, just to precise, why does it say that contact with pigs does not inflict infection, while it has been known that it did, in fact, infect the early cases in Veracruz, who were farmers working with pigs? Someone please explain this to me. Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Two guidelines apply. Wikipedia is not news, and Precise language. Keep in mind that we write for the long term, not for today. Editors attention inevitably drifts off of articles when they cease to be current topics: if they were written in present tense they would remain that way long past the events. To avoid this we write articles describing events in past tense. Hence descriptions of the outbreak of the virus strain would be in past tense, while descriptions of the strain itself (enduring characteristics) remain in the present tense so long as that strain exists (even in preserved lab samples). That is why most of the usage was changed. Nonetheless, if there are specific cases which are troubling as written, it is possible to rework them in accordance with precise language.LeadSongDog come howl 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. YOU not we. Past tense is unjustified whenever it results in misleading the reader. Just because you expect to lose interest, don't write as if everyone will. Everything should be as accurate as possible at all times. We don't write bios as if the person were already dead if they are in fact alive. We don't write about a current epidemic as if it were over. By the way, "bird flu" is not over yet either. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, writing this article in past tense, and then having stuck up the "current event" template just above it, looks a lot like random act of vandalism. The infection is not over yet, and while it may be true that it eases the process of rewriting the whole article once the flu is over so that it sticks to the case, past tense would, according to me, confuse readers and create a false sense of security for those who are afraid of getting infected. And swine flu is not over until the death toll stops, by the way. Not the infection toll, the death toll. So, I think that it is out of question to revert any, even minor details to past tense right now.

Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bird flu, however, is a bad example because the death toll did stop. So, in terms, the epidemic is over, because there are no severe cases needing medical attention anymore.Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What the press called "bird flu" was actually a bird-adapted strain of H5N1, called HPAI A(H5N1) for "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1" that in the scientific literature was initally called strain Z and later refered to as "Asian-linage HPAI A/H5N1". It was never an epidemic nor a pandemic in humans. It was an epidemic in BIRDS and still is. It is epizootic (an epidemic in nonhumans) and panzootic (affecting animals of many species, especially over a wide area), killing tens of millions of birds and spurring the culling of hundreds of millions of others - EVEN CURRENTLY. H5N1 is endemic in wild birds and can still mutate into a strain that spreads easily human to human - so far as we know. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but so far it did not. So there's no point in pointing that out. Swine flu did, however, mutate long enough to be able to symptomize humans through third party infections. This is clearly not the bird flu case.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LeadSongDog. Contact with pigs doesn't matter about tense. Contact with pigs has not been known to cause this infection. If you have a reference that says otherwise, please provide it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu occasionally causes human infection. Read Swine flu. However LeadSongDog advocates writing this article with sentences like "This was an epidemic" rather than "This is an epidemic". You are agreeing with something he never said. You are confused. LeadSongDog is right about the need to write like an encyclopedia and not like a newspaper with phrases like "last week" or "this year". Use of "As of [date]" is many times needed. He just went overboard with the idea and changed too many verb tenses. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And I should, once I'll find it. But until then, I know what I'm saying, when I say that swine flu is transmittable from pigs to humans, with the only condition being that both of them were infected with bird flu somewhere in the past. Long enough for the H1N2 strain DNA to stay inside their genetic code by the time H1N1 is similar in both. It was already discussed on the web, and if needed, I'll find the link to it.Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"the only condition being that both of them were infected with bird flu somewhere in the past" is utter nonsense of the "the world is flat" variety. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for the section, but... There have been known cases of humans getting infected from pigs. Not from eating pigs, FROM pigs. The only problem is it wasn't proved if it was in fact the opposite (pigs infected from humans). But so far if there are infected pigs, there will be infected humans, or vice versa.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the balanced responses, but I'd prefer "The 2009 swine flu outbreak, in April of that year, was the initial phase of an epidemic...", since containment has been acknowledged to be impossible. Using {{asof}} should be considered as a last resort when no better wording can be found or as an interim measure when update is anticipated.LeadSongDog come howl 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"initial phase of an epidemic" should not be used without a source. No original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not start the first sentence with something other than The 2009 swine flu outbreak? I know what the name of the article is, but the first lines of text are not necessarily the same ones. Plus, it's not a swine virus, it's a well known misunderstanding. Therefore I say the article should start with The 2009 outbreak of several strains of H1N1 influenza virus endemic in pigs, commonly known as swine flu, is an ongoing level 5 pandemic disease... blah blah blah And then you put the past tense there, in the second sentence: It WAS first identified in April as a new strain A-type virus that SHARED both bird, swine and human genes in a single strain... blah blah blah And you finish with The first known case WAS reported and observed in Mexico, shortly before the virus MADE it to United States bearing more severe symptoms. The first death HAPPENED in Houston, Texas... and so on. It's not about eliminating past tense, don't get me wrong. It's about knowing when and where to use it so that the whole article doesn't look like a time mess with no description of current events. Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

" 2009 outbreak of several strains of H1N1 influenza virus endemic in pigs" is nonsense. There is only ONE strain that has been identified as the 2009 new H1N1 "swine flu" virus. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then rewrite it the way you see it. I have no problem with that. My only problem is past tense where it should not be. The second and third phrases sound perfect with past tense in this case, but not the first phrase. And while the disease itself is far from being over, the analyses which have shown us where it comes from are.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline on vaccine, varying estimates

And that's perfectly okay. In no way, do we need to "clean up" these varying estimates.

Our article states late July, August. Might help if we found sources. But, be that as it may, that may have been an estimate, may still be an estimate from some quarters. And a lot may hinge are you talking about the beginning of clinical trials or are you talking about widespread use?

June 9th article, spokeswoman for CSL (a manufacturer) gave three months. Roxon calls for calm over swine flu, Sydney Morning Herald, Greg Roberts, June 9, 2009.

May 29th article, CDC's Anne Schuchat gave October. And she tried to hedge her bets, saying "We are saying at this point not before October," and that's okay, for there is a lot of legitimate scientific uncertainty. Swine Flu Vaccine Won't Be Ready Until October: CDC, May 29, 2009.

I added the "three months" and October estimates to our article a little while ago. A variable, uncertain situation, we probably should have at least three estimates. Just let the reader see the situation. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

three to six months?

And we're that sure all credible estimates are within this range?

What we are doing is glossing over a messy reality to bring order. And that is a school skill and a corporate skill. It's also part of the scientific method, part not to the same extent. And hey, we don't need to try this hard. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FIRST AH1N1 CONFIRMED DEATH IN COLOMBIA!

I think you must actualize the information displayed on the outbreak table. Just a few minutes ago, the National Social Protection Minister, Mr. Diego Betancourt, confirmed the first death in Colombia, caused by the AH1N1 Flu. The victim was a 24-years old lady from Bogotá, that caught the flu in the city, without getting out of the country. Her husband and son are also confirmed cases of the flu. The lady died the 5th July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.99.102 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Colombian death sources!

[[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]]!--86.29.244.246 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam swine flu death sources

[[22]] [[23]] --86.29.244.246 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bogus. The two references are old and say nothing whatsoever about any flu deaths in Vietnam. Edison (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

U.K. help line!

Here is a U.K. helpline with facts and advice on how to cope with and treat swine flue!

[[24]]! --86.29.244.246 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Already mentioned in this article. Jozal ^(talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stale plots of total cases/deaths

The graph and semilog graph of deaths and cases are missing the last 6 days or 3 data points. Could someone please update, else it should be removed from the article since it is misleading about the progrression of the epidemic. Edison (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, kindly update them(and not remove) - Does anyone have the original source tables for them? I'm rather interested, just as a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.103.110 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The graphs are now up to date. The excel 2007 file I use is downloadable from here. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:48, 10 June 2009 (GMT)

Map of number of deaths

Outbreak evolution by confirmed deaths:

  0 deaths

  suspected deaths

  1+ deaths

  5+ deaths

  10+ deaths

  50+ deaths

  100+ deaths

  500+ deaths

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The scale might need adjusting... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So... add it to the article? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The map is well done, but it's not necessary at the moment, where we don't have large-scale death numbers. I think we don't need a world map just for 4 countries. Maybe later, if/when there are deaths in >10 countries, say. (Let's hope this won't happen.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update this for Chile? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update this for the Dominican Republic? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update the world map for deaths, for Colombia? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update the world deaths map for the June 10 death in Guatamala? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to invite the radicals into the tent?

I can't be the only one who thinks excessive concern with formality gets in the way of communication? At least I hope I'm not!

And I don't think I'm the only one who's wondered aloud, a current topic--maybe we need to do that a little differently. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So which of these recent 49,000 swine flu articles would most of us agree are the best ones to include in a new section?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We randomly select half a dozen or so articles and that would be better than nothing. Better, would be that as each of us learn more about swine flu, we each select an excerpt or two from articles that, in each person's best judgment, are relevant, timely, complete. Better still, we combine our own best judgment with conversations each person has with friends and acquaintances who know less about swine flu. What do they want to know, and what do they need to know? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason we have guidelines and rules. See WP:MEDRS, WP:V and WP:NOR. What you are proposing breaks them all.LeadSongDog come howl 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How does material from the New York Times or CNN, or equally reliable sources in Australia and Chile for example, break the Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (WP:MEDRS) guideline? Now, some of these articles may not be complete, and that might be the area where we can make our biggest contribution of all. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is WikiPEDIA. It is not a news service. It is not a blog. This is NOT where a person should be visiting if their only interest is current news. There are many many such places already on the Web. Please reserve Wikipedia for what it is: A place to store information of LONG-TERM interest for anyone to visit and learn: Think 'curious student', not '6 o'clock news'.Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"As have been patiently explained to you, this is a restaurant. We serve food. And therefore, your ideas that we also serve drink are wildly heretical."<--- And this is basically the response I have been receiving.

And please notice the 'student' part. Yes, the grad student in Australia, in Malaysia, in the United States, wherever, struggling with the protracted marathon of his or her doctoral dissertion and the formal approach expected. I wish them all the best. We're not against them, we're for them. (In fact, I hope they become bilingual in the sense of being skilled at both formal and informal communication. Yes, you will publish papers. But also, some of your best conversations with colleagues will be informal conversations in hallways or labs or via email. And some highly meaningful conversations--in your field--will be with friends and loved ones, who afterall do sometimes get interested in your work, as you talk with them about your work in plain English, or plain Malay, or plain Mandarin, or whatever language you prefer!)

So, whereas grad students are part of our audience, we are also writing for the parent in Australia, or Malaysia, or the United States, or wherever, the citizen and parent who sometimes thinks their government might be overreacting and other times thinks that a new flu strain is potentially pretty serious afterall.

We can have both a baseline of background information, and a top section of current news. And within the baseline, we can start at the 10th grade level, give it some narrative arc and take it all the way through grad school level, all the way to cutting edge research! (and for that we don't dare summarize, we just excerpt). And show me anything else like that on the Internet. We would be one of the best sites on swine flu. Not 'The' best, for that's dry and sterile, but One Of The Best. Our first goal should be to engage in genuine communication with people in at least a couple of different life circumstances. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An even more radical member enters the tent!

It seems to be killing mostly North Americans and South Americans and is also making many Chinese and Australians sick! Was Swine flue created in a Russian or Axis of evil lab to kill Anglos, Latinos and Chinese!?

Actually, this is same old, same old. Most of our major problems in the modern age are institutional, not conspiratorial. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts!

The UN is near to declaring a world pandemic [25] as the whole planet faces a simultaneous mass outbreak of it!--86.25.53.4 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad! Official pandemic just means person-to-person spread in several different parts of the world. And so far, generally mild. Worth keeping track of, but (relatively) mild. Also an important issue, and not as often discussed, if more total people get sick because of less immunity, even with low mortality, more total people might die. Unless we help educate people to make smart decisions. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

It is time for people here to begin to ask themselves about the validity of numbers. Which numbers mean anything? Which numbers mean nothing? During the initial spread, confirmed numbers were useful in clearly establishing the world-wide spread. Since then, numbers which are designed to draw conclusions about prevalence and death rate in a given area are useful. Total dead seems likely to be valid in first world countries. Blindly recording numbers that are now meaningless because it has spread to too many millions to confirm all cases seems .. well .. unthinking. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The confirmed cases, probable cases, etcetera don't mean much in places where the spread is well established. Especially where the local region has said they have stopped testing for swine flue except in severe cases. Would like to see the death column broken into two or more columns. Separate columns for healthy and unhealthy prior to infection. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the WHO records only numbers of serious cases, which include, at the very least, the need for medication (going up to hospitalization). When it says that "most patients show mild symptoms", they don't mean that they don't even know about it. Because the data of confirmed cases comes from those who present themselves at a local clinic, claiming to be fallen ill and so on. I agree with the fact that there are millions of infected by now, but it is serious in less than 10% of infected. However, I find these numbers useful in correlation with the death toll, so a percentage of the spread might be calculated upon the data. This could give an idea of how effective it has been recently and how effective it might keep up for the following weeks. Shadiac (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"the WHO records only numbers of serious cases" is not true. Perhaps though they provide a table someplace that only has serious cases. Can you provide a source for your claim, or are you just making stuff up? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is something really wrong with the numbers. The total cases and deaths are lower than the partial ones. I checked the numbers for Canada and it seems that the numbers are not valid. 7,978 cases are reported and 334 deaths! The reference cited is [7] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/swine-porcine/surveillance-eng.php (Public Health Agency of Canada). I checked this reference and it reports a total of 2,978 cases and only 4 deaths!!! 81.250.57.74 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Someone fixed them already! 81.250.57.74 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam update

Vietnam is flu free, but on guard for it at thier airports.[[26]] [[27]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.53.4 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WHO may be declaring level 6

This is probably old news for most of you by now, but the World Health Organization is holding a meeting today at 1000 GMT, and upping the level to 6 is the main topic.

There is a press conference at 1600 UTC. The BBC is reporting that level 6 has been agreed on, but that this won't change much in terms of practically dealing with it. Physchim62 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, the WHO has declared a level 6Drew Smith What I've done 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic level six declared

Please update the article to include that this is now a level six pandemic, indicating we are officially in a global pandemic: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/swine.flu.who/index.html "(CNN) -- The World Health Organization raised the swine flu alert Thursday to its highest level, saying H1N1 has spread to enough countries to be considered a global pandemic."14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)~

Can someone rename it 2009 Flu Pandemic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.186.68 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone is changing the blathering about whether it will become a pandemic section, should have been done before a link added on the main page, probably... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN jumped the gun. WHO press conference at the hour HERE LeadSongDog come howl 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a pandemic now.[28]. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. Sweden doesn't make the call, the WHO does. They give unofficial warning first and nations linkedleaked that warning, but the call waits for the conference. "WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan was due to give a news conference on the influenza (A) H1N1 pandemic at 1600 GMT, following a meeting of the WHO's emergency committee of flu experts, and WHO spokesmen declined to comment before that."LeadSongDog come howl 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Reuters and the NYTimes got their articles right, but headline writers messed them up. The decision and the declaration are distinct events.LeadSongDog come howl 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chan has finally made the announcement. "This means the world is moving into the early days of its first influenza pandemic in the 21st century" The CDC has a press brief scheduled for 12:45 EDT HERE. LeadSongDog come howl 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chan's comments summarized here. LeadSongDog come howl 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recovered patients? (again)

Someone has removed my awareness about 'Recovered patients', so I'll raise the point, again.

I believe that patients that was infected with the H1N1 virus but now recovered should be removed from the 'confirmed list', because some patients may of recovered by now and please don't remove this, thank you. Yes, this is to make the article better.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

"Confirmed" means they had a flu virus genotype test and it was confirmed that they had been infected with a flu virus that was not one of the seasonal strains; some had a stronger test confirming it was identical or near-identical to the reference flu virus isolate being used to create a pandemic vaccine. That status does not change just because they recover. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Shouldn't this article be semi-protected? With it being the center of quite some hysteria etc, I think we might potentially see alot of vandalism to the page. --OscarBor (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Copts

it is said in the page that native christias (copts) form 15-20% of egypt population !!! this is wrong numbers ... the real official # are 10-15%

about pork ... not all copts are eating pork as their regular meal .. few does and majority don't except occasionally Dr B2 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

References? LeadSongDog come howl 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Cited AFP for six to ten percent.LeadSongDog come howl 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The information here about Egyptian copts eating pork is not accurate; most of the Egyptian copts do not eat pork except rarely (http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=209278&IssueID=1392). Also the numbers of copts mentioned here is not accurate; according to the CIA fact book copts are 9% of the population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/EG.html) and according to the Egyptian government they constitute 6% of the population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.228.103 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Outbreak.

A virus replicates itself as best it can from materials available in its environment. That is all it does. It may change when it cannot find exactly the right materials for exact replication. But a virus is not a living thing and can not do things like hybridising as suggested in the first paragraph of the article. A virus showing characteristics of strains from humans, from birds and from pigs is a laboratory product. Queryit (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep the stupidity out... Nature is NOT under our control, and we are not onmniscent in science, therefor we cannot say what a virus can and cannot do.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be nice to the newbs and we will have a better encyclopedia. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary sources for your claim that this virus must be a laboratory product because viruses cannot hybridise? If not, there's no point discussing this further Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Different virus RNA can mix inside cells they infect .   Read up on Antigenic shift. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/AntigenicShift_HiRes.png
>It may change when it cannot find exactly the right materials for exact replication.
I doubt it. It is too simple of a device. It will only replicate in cells which have the right materials. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is well discussed and referenced at 2009 A/H1N1 where it belongs.LeadSongDog come howl 05:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking the meaning of "pandemic"

Having read this article yesterday, "Swine Flu: Don't Panic", a few interesting facts were mentioned. For instance, we know, and the article states, that 35,000 to 50,000 people die from the the "seasonal flu" in the U.S. each year. It also says that 500,000 die world-wide each year. And until the latest outbreak, we typically used the word "flu" to mean "seasonal flu."

So the first question is, are all seasonal flus pandemics? I don't remember any articles discussing this. But if it turns out that all "seasonal flus" are "pandemics" by nature, and "seasonal flus" are the same as "flus," then the "flu" is just one type of pandemic. And flus are so common that we don't even bother calling them "pandemic," since that would be redundant, like saying one had a "flu illness," or caught a "cold sickness." Hence, saying "flu pandemic" or "swine flu pandemic" would likewise be redundant and add nothing.

This might seem like a puzzle, but it obviously has some effect on how we should name the article. Most of the experts think this new "swine flu" will be around for a long time (excluding the mutation factor.) It may eventually become just another flu different from the "seasonal flu." If so, in hindsight a year or more from now, the name "swine flu" (for example,) would become the most logical one for the article, with "2009," "outbreak," "pandemic", "genetics," etc. just different topical sections. Any other thoughts on this?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of the major seasonal flu subtypes, e.g. H3N2 are generally derived from a pandemic. Influenza is zoonotic and pandemics occur when the population has not been previously exposed. The first time the subtype appears it is the result of antigenic shift, so the human population does not have time to adjust. I think the main differences are in the pattern of transmission, seasonal flu is endemic and only infects some, pandemic flu is epidemic and infects almost everyone. Often the more virulent strains will burn out faster, e.g. 1918 H1N1 cyclosarin (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't call an annual event a pandemic because it happens each time--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first criterion for pandemic is "emergence of a disease new to a population". The annual variations are usually small, so recent strains will have given some cross-strain immunity. The less frequent antigenic shift means this doesn't apply in pandemic strains. The 1957 strain seems to have conferred some degree of resistance to the present strain, witness the "people under 62" part of the epidemiology.LeadSongDog come howl 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to use the WHO definition for a pandemic? Why can't we use the common definition for pandemic or the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Or perhaps we can specify which definition of pandemic we mean in the given context? Seasonal flu is pandemic by the common definition of being wide spread. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research is not just a good idea, it is policy at Wikipedia. The idea is to only include claims that are backed by the best available reliable resources and for pandemics, WHO and CDC are the best reliable sources in the world. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statements don't make sense if one is using the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some traditional definitions: MedicineNet.com, "pandemic" simply means worldwide spread, WHO's Fukuda. HIV is considered pandemic and it's not a new virus. It seems that the yearly worldwide flu is pandemic by nature, i.e. not localized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pig flu fibs!

`Your statements don't make sense if one is using the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk)

18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statements don't make sense if one is using the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some traditional definitions: MedicineNet.com, "pandemic" simply means worldwide spread, WHO's Fukuda. HIV is considered pandemic and it's not a new virus. It seems that the yearly worldwide flu is pandemic by nature, i.e. not localized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some traditional definitions: MedicineNet.com, "pandemic" simply means worldwide spread, WHO's Fukuda. HIV is considered pandemic and it's not a new virus. It seems that the yearly worldwide flu is pandemic by nature, i.e. not localized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)`

Criticism

It is sourced from this newspaper: [29] page 4, lower right hand corner. If you think it is not worded right, please improve it. MythSearcher^talk 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read Chinese so can you translate the relevant bits for us ? Does the article quote the official Chinese/Hong Kong medical authorities ? If so, it may be worth mentioning as the Chinese government position, either here or in 2009 H1N1 virus strain outbreak in China. If it is just some local officer or unnamed opinion than it will be undue to include, especially since (at least according to the wikipedia article) the newspaper Headline Daily is distributed for free and has a reputation for sensationalizing news.

Note for other editors: This discussion is with reference to this edit, which I had reverted. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article basically is a critics section, so it is not from an official, but it shows reasonable published views of how the outbreak could be contained. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the source should be sufficient on the topic. The section is not a reader submitted section, which would be not reliable(unprofessional) and focus on current news events. If you still think it is undue, please kindly move the whole section here and we can discuss it further. MythSearcher^talk 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I tink it's undue to include. It's not a reasonable method of containment, given that influenza has incubation time; it would have to be an official position from a named health official of some standing to be notable. My opinion. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, common sense, if we have 300 people on the plane, and there are 2 person who got fever, preventing them from getting on the plane(and have them go to a medical centre or hospital) will eliminate chances of those specific 2 from spreading the flu to others. And yes, there may be another 5 in the 298 passenger that is in incubation, yet it would still be better than having the 2 "sure kill" on the plane, because "there may be" suggests possibilities, not a must have. It is quite common that critics in HK is blaming the US government for not even "stopping sick people on board". Another common sense, it would be a very bad decision for officials to openly criticize another country, which would obviously cause diplomatic problems. And to place that on even more important terms, Ming Pao of HK also criticize US for not changing its stance after WHO WHO raised the alert level to phase 6. MythSearcher^talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" isn't always right & in this case most spreading of all viruses is done before the victim has any symptoms whatsoever. However, this is not a forum so let's not continue this further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The question here is, whether the criticism appeared in 2 HK newspaper be used in this article. The argument of the above is undue, but if 2 newspaper that could be sourced is quoted, I don't think it is. Especially they are criticizing the U.S. not checking and in the case of suspected case, stopping the already ill person from getting on board the plane. It has nothing to do with containment of everyone helping or not. If quarantine of the patients does not work, then will you intentionally stay in an enclosed room with people with fever and all symptoms of the flu for extended periods? Say, 10 hours(general NA to Asia plane flight time)? MythSearcher^talk 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the opinion of one or two newspaper would be undue weight. For the criticism to appear in this article it would have to have roughly the same amount of coverage as a section of comparable size - which would probably mean dozens of individuals newspapers criticizing or at least one really major source. It doesn't have to be an official source, but it would probably have to be one of the top 5-10 newspapers in the world to matter in this article. The standards for inclusion in the China specific article would be lower, as the level of coverage required to "be equally weighted" would be less. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice there are no sources given to support the other point of view countering this one. Unless there are multiple famous newspaper(BTW, Ming Pao is the most creditable Chinese newspaper in 2006 in HK, SCMP is an English newspaper) stating having patients on board the plane is rather safe, all other sources are not specific on this particular claim and should not be considered to be counter acting agents claiming these criticisms undue. MythSearcher^talk 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, directly quoted from the article: A number of countries also advised against travel to known affected regions, while experts suggested that if those infected stay at home or seek medical care, public meeting places are closed, and anti-flu medications are made widely available, then in simulations the sickness is reduced by nearly two-thirds.[141], which is simply a supportive view on what I am proposing here. The critics I am talking about here is stating If a passenger is found ill in the departure airport, s/he should not be allowed on the aeroplane. which follows perfectly with the above statement about infected people should stay at home. I have no idea how people replied me with quarantine does not work with the simulation, in which the article is stating the direct opposite. MythSearcher^talk 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MythSearcher, can you provide a literal translation of the Headline Daily article here ? That will perhaps help us better judge the weight it should be accorded. Also, can you comment on the reputation of the newspaper in HK ? For example in UK, The Guardian, The Times (London) etc are generally regarded as reputable publications, while The Sun is taken less seriously even though it has a much larger circulation. From the wikipedia article, it appears that Headline Daily falls in the second category of populist "journalism". Is that a common opinion ? Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am also stating Ming Pao's article concerning the same matter. Headline daily ranked 11th on the link in the Ming Pao article, and Ming Pao is 2nd. If excluding English newspapers, Ming Pao is 1st and Headline daily is 9th. Actually, I can see the article developing a full criticism section, since there are other criticism sources about other matters already in the article, like some flu experts think the HK school closure is over-reacting.(this source) There are critics on each side, some thinking people are over-reacting and some think them wrong and more precautions should be given. A criticism section seems to be very reasonable in this topic especially with different governments reacting differently. I can provide additional sources stating how some legislators criticized the HK Government planned to spend 0.7billion dollars(HK) for flu vaccines on 2 million people. ([30] For the translation, There is this question about measuring the body temperature of the passengers, shouldn't it also be measured before boarding and not only checking after arrival? If the body temperature shows any abnormal signs, at least (it) could be stopped beforehand and not having the infected person get aboard, and bring the virus into an enclosed area to spread it. This can also minimize the delay and worry at arrival. On the other hand, if there are no measuring before boarding, and only checks at arrival, it would cause tragediy for passengers next to the infected person, causing better cases, time delays, or worse, quarantine. If measuring the body temperature is done before hand, would these troubles be prevented? These are the related 4~7 paragraphs, the first 3 paragraphes are also related, but since it is 5am here, I would have to sleep. Most of the blaming of US is in those 3, but as I look closer to the 8~10, the critic also criticize all airports not going doing this, so I would correct my point in criticism on the world as a whole instead of just the US for the airport part. MythSearcher^talk 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally poor writing and bad style. In an article like this, subsections should deal with aspects and issues related to the 2009 pandemic and within those subsections flesh out encyclopedic notable reliably sourced claims in a smooth flowing way. Aim for that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section:

Criticism on aggressive responses

Some flu experts criticize the closing of schools, such as the Hong Kong government response, ordered all kindergartens and primary schools closed for two weeks, as over-reacting. The Hong Kong government's plan on spending 700 million HK dollars (approximately 90 million U.S. dollars) to buy vaccines for 2 million for its citizens was also criticized by legislators.

Criticism on passive responses

WHO has been criticized for its slow response on declaring the pandemic and Ming Pao criticize the U.S., Canada and Australia governments for not raising the stance against the flu after WHO raised the alert level to 6. A critic in Headline Daily, Hong Kong criticize airports only scans temperatures at arrival, instead of having scans on departure, which would stop infected people from getting on board and minimize the spread. Simon Yam canceled U.S. exhibition plans and criticized the U.S. government for not controlling the borders well.

all claims are reliably sourced and are quite notable views. It would be better if the criticism on people being too aggressive could be further developed. MythSearcher^talk 09:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of WHO denying the flu is from a Biological weapon

As early as 27 April, 2009, Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General - Health Security and Environment denied that the swine flu is from a biological terrorism attack, should this be in the article(or did I missed it?) since it is from such an official? source MythSearcher^talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A biological terrorist attack... in mexico... that cna be treated by simple anti-flue procedures and anti-flu mecicenes. If this was a Biological atack, it was the worst orchestrated attack in history and the crappiest planning. If this was a biological attack more people would be dying.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, stop wasting our time with the myths you have researched. Go troll elsewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk)

Please remain WP:CIVIL, my username has nothing to do with the sources I have found, and per WP:RS, these are very reliable sources. I have no edit history showing any trolling behaviour, and I must remind you to WP:AGF, which your comment is definitely not showing any of this tendency by accusing me of trolling and giving you myths, especially when I am saying this is a source to break the myth. It is reporting what an official said, in 27 April, 2009, you can feed the source to translation machines from Chinese to English, and the result is this:

WHO Assistant Director-General, said Keiji Fukuda, Mexico there is no evidence that the outbreak of swine flu epidemic is caused by biological terrorist attacks. Obama to visit as a result of President of the United States shortly after the end of Mexico, where the outbreak of swine flu. A reporter asked the epidemic is not related to terrorist attacks. Fukuda denied that it was a purposeful action. Fukuda also said that the world's response to the threat of influenza pandemic, a significant improvement over five years ago, the preparation of a significant upgrade. The actual translation of the news article can be summarized to Fukuda said there is no evidence showing that the flu outbreak is intentional, when replying a question from a reporter, which concerns the outbreak shortly after the visit of Obama. So I would suggest you stop personal attacks on me and actually contribute to wikipedia with useful comments. MythSearcher^talk 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythsearcher your points are moot as it is Illogical this is a biological attack. So why mention something that is already known. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It shows what people are concern of in the beginning of the pandemic and it is important enough that a reporter asked such question to an WHO official. My point is stating something like In the beginning of the outbreak, there is concern about if the swine flu is an biological terrorism attack against Barrack Obama's visit in Mexico. WHO Assistant Director-General Keiji Fukuda denied such possibility since there are no evidence and affirms that the world response on an influrenza outbreak is much better than 5 years ago. I don't think it is debatable, but the concern was there because of the timing. Yes, most people know the fact that it is not an attack, but it is not well known of why there is such concern. MythSearcher^talk 07:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind oif idiot would use a flu strain for a biological attack...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably no one, but someone asked. MythSearcher^talk 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Detected human cases by country

The table/template "Detected human cases by country" at the top of the article was useful prior to this becoming a pandemic as evidence of how widespread this new stain had become. But now that it is a pandemic, it can not be stopped and over the next year or two if will infect and kill far more people than the world can test for which strain they have and in the end, only estimates based on testing population samples will be valid. I recommend we now delete this table/template from this article as no longer appropriate for this article. It has very limited usefulness at this point and has an inappropriate level of detail. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic table

FYI, 2009 flu pandemic table has been prodded for deletion by someone. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic in China

FYI, I have prodded 2009 flu pandemic in China for deletion, as an unnecessary subarticle, since it contains less information that the section in 2009 flu pandemic in Asia, and that section isn't particularly long. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Leading sentence false

The first sentence of the article is false. ("The 2009 flu pandemic,[55]—also referred to as swine flu although no pigs have been found to be infected by this virus—is a global ...") Many pigs in Alberta have caught the virus. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/06/07/edm-pig-famer-swine-flu-cull.html Eb.eric (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Eb.eric (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That should not have been in the article. hmwithτ 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

disappointed archiving bot archives so quick

This is the second time I've made this complaint. The bot archives too quick. How do others feel?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot only archives a section if no one has commented in 48 hours. In truth, on a page as active as this one it is unlikely anyone else is going to comment if no one has in 48 hours. That said, I bumped it up to 72 hours now.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can choose just about any other article with out the quick archiving and find people commenting way past 48 hours on topics. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but on high traffic articles, it needs to be done, because the pages get too large. It's okay to bring up archived issues. hmwithτ 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of too large? Instead of archiving based on date, perhaps the bot should archive based on largeness. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the way the bots operate, you need to take that up with the bot maintainers. This is not the place to request such things since it's unlikely bot maintaners are reading this page and it's completely OT. Despite suggestions other archiving algorithms may be available, it's been the case for a long while that only the old (i.e. thread age) one is available. In terms of discussion, it's worth remembering that on extremely high traffic rapidly changing articles, like this one was at the beginning, most issues raised 48 hours ago would usually be irrelevant if they weren't still being discussed. In any case, even if they were still relevant and weren't being discussed, if you had a 500k page with 50-100 threads no one would even notice the issue and it would probably be discussed several times over; in other words, it's likely counter productive to keep a very large number of threads. Remember the date is from the last comment not when the issue first started so if the issue is an active one, it's not going to be archived. When no one is commenting further, it's likely, but not definite, that the issue is resolved or perhaps was never really mattered. For this reason archiving based on date usually works resonably well, although the time depends on how active and how fast changing an article is. Archiving based on size, may or may not work well too, but it isn't currently an option so is irrelevant. Finally, if the talk page is not that large and you feel auto archiving is too fast, I suggest you just loosen it yourself, perhaps noting on the talk page you've done it rather then complaining and waiting for others to do it. It's extremely easy to do, and there's usually no need for extensive discussion. In other words, it's usually a case where it's entirely resonable to be bold. P.S. Note that if things haven't changed, then archiving doesn't actually happen as soon as a thread reaches 48 hours old if it's set to 48 hours rather 48-~72 hours old since the bot only runs thorough a page once a day. P.P.S. We could of course turn off automatic archiving and only manually archive but I would generally expect the person proposing such a move to volunteer to be the sole person resposible and would also caution that there's a resonable chance that will lead to accusations of bias P.P.P.S. I don't have a solid personal definition for what's a too large talk page, but for random opinion, I would start to consider changing archive time if there are more then 25 threads. Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page and recent archive and considering it's been nearly 48 hours since the archive was bumped to 72 hours I feel it's resonable to relax it further and so I've done so to 5 days. Also while making the change I noticed something I forgot, the bot has a minimum number of threads left function where it'll leave the number of threads specified even if they are older then in the age, I've increased this to 8 from 5. In theory I presume, you can use it to basically archive based on number of threads, by setting time to low, e.g. 24 hours so it always only archives up to the number of threads, although I'm not quite sure what the bot does when there are multiple candidates to remove but it can't remove all candidates. Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it's not off-topic. One sets (on a specific talk page) whether or not a bot automatically archives it and how often it does so. Therefore, that talk page is where one should discuss it, as that is where the code for frequency is located and decided upon. hmwithτ 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point, please read what I said carefully. It is on topic to discuss the timing of archives and any code that is modifiable on this page which I made clear on my post. It is off topic to request that the maintaners of the bot, who are unlikely to be reading this page, add features to the bot which are not currently available, as Daniel.Cardenas requested and which I pointed out what off topic and which is indeed off topic. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer crowded over the limiting of discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wait I'm lost, are you saying the bot is dissapointed? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is about how often the bot should archive. Recently the parameters for controlling the bot was changed from 5 to 3 days. It will now archive in 3 days if there has been no date update on the topic. Do you prefer fewer or more topics on the discussion page? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

With 25 threads on the page, it is unlikely anyone will be responding to posts more than 3 days old anyway. Soon as activity dies down again, it can be move back to 5 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New title?

So say the WHO declares this a pandemic, as it seems is increasingly likely. Should this article then be renamed 2009 swine flu pandemic? Just throwing this out there as a preemptive discussion. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO and reliable news media call it a pandemic, then it should be moved to that title. But not until then. Edison (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing title changes, should this (and the series of related articles) be renamed as 'H1N1 flu' rather than 'swine flu'? Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on both rename suggestions. Per WP:COMMONNAME the current title is the "correct" one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As it was previously discussed, I'm in favor of renaming the article as "2009 flu pandemic" or "2009 influenza pandemic" (leaving Mexican, A/H1N1, or swine out of the picture). Of course, such a change could only be performed after the outbreak has been officially declared a pandemic by the WHO. This would have several advantages:

1/ Most common name: the outbreak can be recognized every reader, regardless of the name they are the most familiar with ("swine", "mexican", "north american" or "A/H1N1"...)

2/ No ambiguity: although there will probably be several flu outbreaks in 2009, there will be most likely only one pandemic.

But let's wait for the events to unfold before jumping the gun. Cochonfou (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In flu surveillance, each separate cluster of cases is an "outbreak". If this is labelled a pandemic, then the title should be changed to 2009 influenza pandemic; similar to 1918 flu pandemic (which, to be consistent with all the title changes of flu to influenza, could have that change done to it as well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point the WHO's 9 June press briefing makes it evident that the declaration is "closer" but not that it is "imminent". LeadSongDog come howl 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As the change to level 6 is official, I am being WP:BOLD and making the change.Drew Smith What I've done 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title should now be changed. "2009 influenza pandemic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dycotiles (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated below and evidenced by Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#what_happened_to_the_swine.3F and Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#Move_to_2009_swine_flu_pandemic, I believe this move was too bold by removing swine. -Pecoc (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: 2009 swine flu outbreak

Someone needs to change the category at the bottom of various articles from "2009 swine flu outbreak" to "2009 flu pandemic". WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the category, you HAVE TO request it at WP:CFD — 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk section was vandalized by user:WAS 4.250 . see [31] 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries in Europe and Asia

Please see Talk:2009_flu_pandemic_in_Asia#Country_inclusions_(Europe/Asia) where there is an ongoing discussion on which articles countries should be placed. Countries like the Mediterranean islands, Turkey, Russia, Caucuses nations, etc. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica

in the timeline article, it says there are two confirmed cases in Antarctica. Does anyone have evidence for this? Contributions/70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is Swine Flu bad?--Contributions/222.154.163.115 (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the Wikipedia article on the 2009 flu pandemic. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject. Also, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. hmwithτ 13:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial Outbreaks: Article "Swine Flu Origins Revealed"

Nothing completely new, but a possibly useful reference for this Wikipedia article:

Our results show that this strain has been circulating among pigs, possibly among multiple continents, for many years prior to its transmission to humans.

Swine Flu Origins RevealedThe origins of swine flu revealed--Contributions/201.153.2.126 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Those articles are based on a letter to Nature, as yet not quite final but available at:

• Smith GJD, Vijaykrishna D, Bahl J, Lycett SJ, Worobey M, Pybus OG, Ma SK, Cheung CL, Raghwani J, Bhatt S; et al. (11 June 2009). "Origins and evolutionary genomics of the 2009 swine-origin H1N1 influenza A epidemic". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature08182. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (near final letter)
  

Unless I've missed it, the letter doesn't quite say the present strain developed in swine, but rather that recent ancestor strains did. LeadSongDog come howl 16:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

These new reports are already in this article: "Virus origins" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New Eng J Med: 94% fever, 92% cough (study ending May 5th)

The media had been used the buzz phrase "flu-like symptoms." Hopefully, they've stopped. I'm not sure. In either case, we have the opportunity to do some real good and give people some specific information. And part of the specific answer is, yeah, the symptoms are pretty vague. There is no signature symptom for swine flu Cool Nerd (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

productive or unproductive cough?

I think we might be able to get some good information on this. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename all articles proposal, outbreak > pandemic

Per the World Health Organization, see here. We'll have a lot of redirects to fix and moves to do. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just the outbreak part? Do we keep the 'swine flu' in the title, or do we shorten it to just 'flu' now just like with the 1918 flu pandemic article? --Aeon17x (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this one: 2009 Influenza A pandemic or 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. Felipe Menegaz 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These names are too long, how many influenza pandemics are we expecting this year? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the one, I hope! Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving it to 2009 influenza pandemic, and similar names for other articles - this is unambiguous and avoids the discussion on whether to use "swine flu" or "A(H1N1)" or other variants. The discussion over "influenza" or "flu" is pretty minor but my preference would be "influenza". |→ Spaully^₪† 16:13, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

I agree with that. Perhaps we should move 1918 flu pandemic to 1918 influenza pandemic for the sake of consistency. It is illogical to name these articles differently. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1918 flu has a WP:COMMONNAME and we should use it. Spanish Flu. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree for this article. 82.32.8.154 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the move to 2009 influenza pandemic. I also support moving 1918 flu pandemic to 1918 influenza pandemic. hmwithτ 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated, I support the move to 2009 influenza pandemic or 2009 flu pandemic. As Spaully said, this solves the problem of the numerous names of this disease (A/H1N1, swine, mexican, north american...) Cochonfou (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer 2009 flu pandemic per WP:COMMONNAME as I don't think nearly as many people refer to it the "2009 influenza pandemic" as will refer to it as the "2009 flu pandemic" --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote to go to "2009 influenza pandemic" as that what it is now, as per WHO. Dinkytown 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with "2009 flu pandemic." If there is a different 2009 flu pandemic, like bird flu we can distinguish them at that point, (if anyone is left to edit). Edison (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"2009 flu pandemic." or if consensus is to be more specific "2009 swine flu pandemic." sherpajohn (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i think this article should be renamed to 2009 flu pandemic and the rest of the articles like "2009 flu pandemic in the United States" etc.--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"2009 influenza pandemic" per WHO. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu or influenza?

Consensus seems to be going with using either "2009 flu pandemic" or "2009 influenza pandemic". Which one is preferable? hmwithτ 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the former, per WP:COMMONNAME. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest letting the mainstream news settle in with some labels first before changing. Some options to consider so far:

• "swine flu" or "flu"
• "flu" or "influenza"
• "H1N1" or not
• "2009" or undated (what happens in six months?).
• "Outbreak," "pandemic," or neither (flus are yearly outbreaks; outbreaks are always epidemics; we live in a globalized world, so pandemics are expected.)

The good news (or bad news) is that "pandemic" is declared so the key word is official. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "2009 influenza pandemic" and "1918 influenza pandemic". Note that the 1918 pandemic lasted well into 1919. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1918 should be named Spanish Flu, since it's the common and recognized name. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the name unchanged for a few reasons:

"2009" keeps it focused on initial discovery and outbreak period;

"Swine flu" removes ambiguity from "seasonal flu";

"H1N1" would be used in opening description as part of the "official" and "technical" name in the lead sentence as it is now, with "swine flu" noted as the "common name."

"Outbreak" is still valid, but "pandemic" cannot be misinterpreted as being more severe or dangerous to an individual than an "outbreak" (and it is still no worse than the "seasonal flu.")

Since the current name has never been challenged as being does not now seem inaccurate, even though it was also an "epidemic," and is still technically correct, I see no necessity to wave the "pandemic" flag.-Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The current name was repeatedly discussed as being unsuitable, and 2009 flu/influenza pandemic came up as the most suitable name should it reach pandemic status - see the archives.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I preffer "flu".--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive suggestion. Still lean to hold as is, especially knowing how hesitant even the CDC and WHO were to call it a "pandemic." As I see it, the term "flu" and "outbreak" are sort of redundant, since flus are always "outbreaks." But the term "pandemic" is a major event in and of itself, and gives an aura of global danger, risk, fear, and worse. And I don't think this would have been the case before the web's instant news effects.

But since the swine flu is no worse than the seasonal flu -- although it is a new virus type -- for many average people, just seeing this new "swine flu" attached to another event, "pandemic," may have the effect of throwing gasoline on a typical grass fire. But realizing that everyone will have a different viewpoint, calling it an "outbreak" still seems my personal preferance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. The announcement calls the distribution the "2009 influenza pandemic" and calls the strain both "novel influenza A" and "novel H1N1 virus". Early lead in the press goes to "flu pandemic". I'd use "2009 influenza pandemic" with redirects from the others.LeadSongDog come howl 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support "influenza" over "flu" as it is more correct and is supported by the WHO. There isn't a strong argument for either though as there is little difference. Thus I would support a move to "2009 influenza pandemic". |→ Spaully^₪† 23:13, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

I support a rename to "pandemic" and I believe that "flu" is preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Oren0 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do concur with many of those above that [[2009 influenza pandemic]] makes the most sense, with redirects used liberally but sensibly. (Although, I bet we already have that covered; test: [[2009 flu pandemic]]. Yup.) The inner editor in me always hates beginning a sentence with any sort of number (a year in this case), but it is what it is. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have "The" in our recursive article repertory. LeadSongDog come howl 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done I moved the pages to 2009 flu pandemic per consensus here and the above parent section. hmwithτ 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would rather have seen the article at "influenza pandemic" rather than "flu pandemic". I should point out that WP:COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all of article naming, being filled with get-out clauses and can be overridden by other manuals of style. However, it is a point of legitimate debate which term is more common: "flu" or "influenza". Normally, both terms see a 50/50 split in usage. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: another show of support for "Influenza" rather than "Flu". Flu is a slang term and titles should avoid slang where possible. Both "Flu" and "Influenza" are common terms so WP:COMMONNAME should apply to either riffic (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Not that its any of my business or anything but now that the World Health Organisation has declared that its a pandemic, shouldn't we rename it to 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic? --Thanks, Hadseys 09:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly it isn't much of a pandemic.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's not for us to decide, the world health organisation says it is so who are we to argue --Thanks, Hadseys 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a set name yet? I noticed on other Wikipedias, there are a variety of names to describe this... there's A/H1N1-2009 , 2009 A(H1N1), etc ad inifinitum variations on that theme. There's still usage of "novel flu", "Mexican Flu", "North American Flu", "human swine flu", etc. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the #Rename all articles proposal, outbreak > pandemic section above. hmwithτ 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References/links to outbreak pages

I moved / am moving the articles, but there are probably still a lot of references/links that should be changed to the new page locations. Feel free to help out. hmwithτ 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also a ton of double-redirects (on lots of sub-articles). I've been fixing them manually, and ThaddeusB has been doing a ton, but anyone, feel free to help out! hmwithτ 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All or at least almost all of them should be fixed now. There were some really strange ones in there: Snoutbreak!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The best part is that's a legitimate redirect. Anyway, I just did a manual check, and everything seems to be in order. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

what happened to the swine?

Seems like people took the opportunity to quietly remove "swine" from the name when renaming this to pandemic. I think "2009 swine flu pandemic" is a better title. This outbreak brought "swine flu" into the public consciousness and I think a lot of people still recognize it for the fact that it was the swine flu. –xeno^talk 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't quiet at all. There was a lot of discussion on this page, and there was hardly any objection to the move to 2009 flu pandemic. hmwithτ 15:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a couple objections nevertheless. It could've done with more discussion. I think it should be moved to 2009 swine flu pandemic. –xeno^talk 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What other 2009 flu pandemics are there? This issue was discussed some time ago and the consensus was to move away from the word swine when pandemic status was declared.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" isn't the recommended name, though. If we absolutely need to disambiguate the flu type, it should contain "H1N1". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we bow down to "recommendations" of outside bodies? Swine flu is the common name. –xeno^talk 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The current name is unambiguous. When we have a 2009 bird flu pandemic, then we can rename this article 2009 swine flu pandemic. Until then, lengthening the name for no purpose will not be productive. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ambiguous because readers might not know that there's only been one pandemic this year. They aren't scientists. –xeno^talk 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not the god of naming conventions. Specific manuals of style override it. And MOS:MED is pretty clear we should use the scientific name, which is not always the common name. In general, we tend to use WHO's recommendations and naming conventions with slight deviations (i.e. myocardial infarction, not heart attack). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is about an event. Anyways, it's already done and there seems to be a consensus in this thread that it's ok, so I'm not too fussed. The redirects will do their job. –xeno^talk 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really hate to fix 100+ double redirect again for a minor name change. 2009 flu pandemic, 2009 influenza pandemic, 2009 swine flu pandemic are all fine, and each could easily be argued as slightly superior to the others. However, now that one was picked let's just stick to it, please. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quietly? See above for the latest chapter in adnauseum discussion. We don't really need to run month-long vote cycles on trivia like this do we?LeadSongDog come howl 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By quietly, I mean that it seems that this was moved to pandemic and the swine was eliminated as a by-product, without much discussion on whether swine should remain in the name. If there was general support for this in a prior discussion, then, OK, but I still think swine should be in there. –xeno^talk 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A "swine flu pandemic" [32]. –xeno^talk 19:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the loss of "swine" to be a benefit of the new title, it is unambiguous and bypasses this discussion over how to refer to the virus or illness. Given the many redirects I doubt anyone will be perturbed. I agree with ThaddeusB (thanks for the redirect work, and hmwith) that given this is a pretty trivial difference it would be best to leave as is. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:29, 12 June 2009 (GMT)

True enough. The grunt work is done. Might as well leave it as is. –xeno^talk 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I thought anyone would object to what I saw as consensus, I probably would have waited for some more discussion. There has been a ton of debate on this page about the title since it was first created, and, up above, even though consensus isn't in numbers, I see almost every single person agreed to either "2009 flu pandemic"/"2009 influenza pandemic". This also was consistent with "1918 flu outbreak", & it compromises between the "H1N1" & "swine flu" sides of the naming debate. hmwithτ 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu updates

Mongolian update

[[33]] Mongolia quarantines some tourists come swine flu suspects.--86.29.246.103 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A resent Chinese border casese. [[34]]. --86.29.246.103 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

General info- [[35]].--86.29.244.29 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First UK death

One person has now died in the UK from the virus, here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8099832.stm

(86.169.213.127 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5535075/First-UK-swine-flu-death-confirmed-in-Scotland.html).--86.25.54.17 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Beloruss update

The victim was an ex-pat living in Italy [[36]].--86.25.54.17 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nigerian update

It's not in Nigeria yet [[37]].--86.25.54.17 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Confirmed Cases Reaches 86

New Zealand Now Reaches 86 Confirmed cases this should be updated to 86 cases now. Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2499956/Confirmed-swine-flu-cases-has-reached-86

203.167.220.153 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Samoa update

A person is now ill with it in Samoa now [38]!--86.25.54.199 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Deaths in the world

So can someone update the world deaths map to account for deaths since the last update?

• Scotland  Done
• Dominican Republic  Done
• Colombia  Done
• Guatemala  Done

70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Argentina ?  Done

70.29.212.226 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More NHS advice

Read this- [39]!

This isn't very important, but I suggest bringing it up on the talk page for the pandemic in the UK if you want to. Jozal ^(talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mutation in Brazil (continued)

I do not understand the need to wait to identify the significance as you say of the 'exact' change. It is confirmed that this now represents the first re assortment / mutation of the current 2009 H1N1. This is now the new Influenza A / Paulo/H1N1

In the main page under the title. "Mutation"

It quotes the CDC as saying that. "as of early June 2009, Schuchat reported "encouraging news" regarding any mutations to date, by announcing that samples of the virus from points around the globe are "genetically identical" to the strain found in the United States. "We have tested isolates from a wide geographic area, from the Americas, Europe, from Asia and New Zealand and we are not seeing variations in isolates from the genetic testing we do here"

If it was worth posting this comment. Then a change to this situation is worth noting as well.

This is a translation of the Sao Paulo, Government response

Tue, 16/06/09 - 11h20 São Paulo isolates of influenza A virus H1N1 The original Portuguese can be found here: http://www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/spnoticias/lenoticia.php?id=202024

"Genetic sequencing revealed that proteins of the virus is not the same standard found in California, genetic characterization will contribute to production of vaccine

The State of São Paulo has isolated and sequenced, so pioneer in Brazil, the influenza virus A H1N1, popularly known as swine flu. The study was conducted by Instituto Adolfo Lutz, organ of the Secretary of Health, from the material collected in the first case of Sao Paulo disease, confirmed in April.

Following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Secretary named the new strain of Influenza A / Paulo/H1N1 are. The genetic sequencing revealed a mutation in the hem agglutinin protein, responsible for the ability to infect the virus, which no longer has the same pattern of the virus in California (USA), first isolated in the current pandemic.

The genetic characterization of the virus is crucial to whether the standard is maintained or have differed from those found in other regions of the world.

"This work is extremely important to monitor the behavior of the virus, which will contribute to the production of the vaccine and to assess the response to anti-viral," says Martha Solomon, director of the Institute Adolfo Lutz.

So far were recorded in the 27 cases of influenza A H1N1. 21 other cases are considered suspect and are being investigated. No death by disease in São Paulo.

Eighteen hospitals across the state serve as reference for treatment of suspected cases of the new flu. These units have beds for isolation and are in readiness to identify any case, report the fact immediately to the Center of Epidemiological Surveillance (CVE) and the Secretariat to take samples of nasal and throat secretions of patients.

The virological examinations are being conducted at the Institute Adolfo Lutz, one of three references to the national identification of influenza that meets standards of biosecurity needed for the manipulation of viruses.

Department of Health"

Sigrun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigrunvril (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What this misses is that the virus mutates all the time. Every day there are 10-20 new sequences added to GenBank from all over the world. To be notable, there should be something special about this mutation.LeadSongDog come howl 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. To be specific, the change must be of a sort that would make a vaccine made from the referenece virus not work in humans. Read flu vaccine. Or change how easy it is spread or how sick it makes people or allows it to spread to species the reference virus can not. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Response section revamp

Can we revise this section as it is getting unorderly and confusing. I suggest adding subsections of the World Government Responses section for countries such as: USA, UK, Canada, Mexico, Australia (hardest hit countries). All information should be taken from their respective country articles then briefly put into the subsections. Bretonnia (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Any response to this? I will start trimming and revising the section if no one is contesting it. Hopefully it wont be reverted this time without discussion. Bretonnia (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is better organized by theme rather than country. Leave it structured as it is. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why is there a U.S. response? Can we not just put together all the majorly affected countries responses into one neat paragraph rather than a conglomerate of information only know as the "U.S. response"? Bretonnia (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(<---)I see, I will trim and add other countries perspectives in the response section intro soon. Bretonnia (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives do not differ by country, but by situation - poor versus rich and so forth. Further, different people will have different takes on the situation based on their jobs and responsibilities. Don't quote someone from country X as if that represents the perspective of country X (in general). India's Minister of Heath mentioned how she would like the US to pre-screen plane passengers going from US to India as her job would be a little easier if that were to happen and further since it won't happen, it gives her someone to blame when the pandemic strain inevitably sweeps across India. Someone in India's government who is responsible for maintaining good relations with the US would never have said that. An expert familiar with computer simulations of flu pandemic spread would have never said that. People give their own opinions. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Experiment suggests swine flu can transfer from humans to animals

I thought that maybe we can add some info about this experiment suggesting that swine flu can transfers from humans to animals.[40]--Vrysxy! (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That article says "Animal and public health specialists remain cautious about the consequences of their findings, which they describe as "preliminary", saying firm conclusions cannot be drawn." WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of a likely second wave...

Discussion of a likely second wave, quite possibly Tamiflu resistant, and more lethal, is badly needed in expecting "expected" lethality.

Without understanding the likelihood of an unpredictably virulent second wave, the Wikipedia reader of this article won't understand why influenza specialists are so concerned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.4 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reference we can use? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Search engine results

Just wondering how most visitors are finding this article. While it's still getting a load of hits, I could no longer find it by doing a search of either "Swine flu" or "Flu pandemic." Before the name was changed, however, a search for "Swine flu" brought this article near the top. This might also be something to consider when doing any other name changes. For instance, we should stay sensitive to how the average person is searching for information, and if they are using "swine" in the search they may not get here as directly as before.

After the CDC sites, the Wikipedia articles in the results direct the user to either articles about swine flu (primarily pig related,) or influenza pandemics in general. Since there's so much to read on those particular articles, they may simply give up trying to find facts relevant to the current pandemic. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a google search for "swine flu" and it came up on top for me with the old title. Perhaps because I previously had hit the up arrow to bring it to the top. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If a user ends up on either the swine flu or the influenza pandemic article, they'll see right at the top, in italics:

For the current outbreak, see 2009 flu pandemic.

I'm not sure how we can make it much easier. hmwithτ 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

flu virus

FYI, the article 2009 A/H1N1 was renamed to 2009 flu pandemic virus yesterday.

70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to compare statistics of regular annual flu cycle

The table that shows the infection rate and number of deaths for various influenza pandemics is interesting, but it is missing a key statistic to really judge how serious the H1N1 "pandemic" actually is: the infection and death rate each year for just the standard, run-of-the-mill seasonal flu.

I believe that the normal annual death rate worldwide for influenza can be as high as 500,000. The "swine flu" has not even been responsible for 1% of that number.

This "pandemic" is a farce. I would also be curious if other people see it this way and what your thoughts are as to the real motives behind creating a global panic over (relatively) nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.18.163 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is such a line present in the table currently. Perhaps it was temporarily absent when you looked. The total deaths to date cannot be compared with annual seasonal flu figures as swine flu has not reached its peak yet (infection figures vary by about 8 orders of magnitude from start to end of a pandemic). The peak is not expected to happen for at least a couple of months and the total infection rate won't be clear until some time after that. The Case Fatality Rate for swine flu has been estimated at 0.4% (not a developed world estimate). This compares with 0.05% for the seasonal flu, 0.1% for the last two pandemics and >2.5% for the 1918 pandemic according to our table. The WHO refers to swine flu as of moderate severity. The WHO and national governments have gone out of their way and have twisted the definition of a pandemic to avoid causing a panic over swine flu (the media haven't been quite as restrained). Barnaby dawson (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The following comment has been moved from a random section above. I assume that it meant to be posted here. hmwithτ 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please add a column for the annual deaths and locations for the "usual" seasonal flu. I suspect that if we do this the next question will be: why are we panicking over THIS particular flu strain? It hasn't even begun to approach 1% of the total deaths associated annually with seasonal influenza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.18.163 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mutation in Brazil

it has been reported that researchers in brazil found out a mutation in H1N1, in it's Hemagglutinin protein http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u581714.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.194.71 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The news strain, "Influenza A/São Paulo/H1N1" should be listed by now. The source doesn't indicate if there is any significance to the mutation, just that it's been found.LeadSongDog come howl 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So far, it is not notable. There is yet to be a determination that it has a difference that makes a difference. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got that additional source. It's an unofficial translation from the Portuguese/Brazilian press release.

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=249460 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.220.148 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The current article states that: "We have tested isolates from a wide geographic area, from the Americas, Europe, from Asia and New Zealand and we are not seeing variations in isolates from the genetic testing we do here." This is not true anymore, so perhaps we could integrate information from the mutation that was detected in Brazil. It's not a major mutation, but it makes the citation obsolete. At least we could replace this citation with something else, because it can be seen as misleading. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Schuchat would understand that there are many minor mutations, but she chose not to try to convey that subtlety to the public. We should follow her lead.LeadSongDog come howl 06:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoonosis map

So, should we add the zoonosis map to the article? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is very little information on this and the location of such spreading is not as important as whether it is happening at all. |→ Spaully ^τ 12:43, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

Removal of swine from name

• Oppose removal of swine. Just because the WHO caved, in my opinion, under political pressure, after initially resisting[41] "renaming", doesn't mean Wikipedia has to. Per WHO is not an argument, in my opinion. Please put the swine back in the name. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also argued against removing "swine" above at Talk:2009 flu pandemic#what happened to the swine?. –xeno^talk 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Prefer adding H1N1 in the name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer Mexican Flu or North American Flu, since that's consistent with the naming pattern, in the world at large (as opposed to the way Wikipedia wants to do things) for past flus, like Russian Flu, Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu. Though that would be a less common name... but since this flu is not in swine (except for an Alberta farm), it might be better to be human swine flu. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Yes because obviously North american Flu will NOT hide the fact it's world wide.... Use the scientific name--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment obviously not, since Spanish Flu doesn't hide the fact it was worldwide, and Hong Kong Flu doesn't either. They're known as worldwide pandemics. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the removal of "swine". "Per WHO" is actually the best argument, because the Manual of Style is specific that we follow WHO nomenclature. If we were adamant not to "cave under political pressure", people would argue that we'd have to talk about the nigger who beat a cripple and the mother of a mongoloid. But instead, we don't do that. We just use the most appropriate term. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the new article title. It's simple, not (currently) ambiguous, and is how WHO is currently addressing the outbreak. If any of these underlying reasons changes in the near future, we can address it then, but I don't see any drastic need to change it at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• "2009 pandemic flu" is a good title. "Pandemic" is a far more useful qualifier than "swine" has been anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion highlights why it is a good thing to move away from swine in the title, already we have 5 different names proposed each with their own merits. Let's stick with what we've got, it's unique and understandable. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:02, 13 June 2009 (GMT)
• Oppose removal of swine Unless you're an egyptian bureaucrat, everyone knows what swine flu is. H1N1, H5N1, H3N1 = I'm confused. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose still. H1N1 is a general category as there is no scientifically accepted name for the strain. CDC is currently using novel H1N1 to be more specific than just H1N1, again showing there is no scientific name. Am not aware of WHO nomenclature being a style guide for WP, but if it is, then it is just a guide. Swine flu is the WP:COMMONNAME, the "nickname", the one that sticks in people's mind, which is why the CDC has H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) in the title of their page. I have strong opposition to the recent removal of swine because I do not believe there ever was "consensus" to remove it with the recent pandemic rename. My understanding is that this very article is tagged Recent debate has resulted in no consensus for any change to the article's title. Please read through the previous debate before proposing a name change because of this very issue. Please restore swine to the name, or please do not revert a rename. Also, in my opinion, the nigger counter-argument above is over the top (as CDC even has Swine flu on their website) and thus counterproductive in an attempt to reach consensus. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Pecoc (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment - I believe voting twice on your own suggestion doesn't contribute any to determining consensus other than to show that you are particularly adamant about your preference despite very clear consensus that there should be a name change without the word 'swine'. More importantly, whether the CDC still refers to it as swine flu is irrelevant: the actual people who declared that we have a pandemic in the first place does not even call it swine flu anymore -- see the WHO homepage and their latest press statement. --Aeon17x (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not aware I was "double voting" or even "voting" for that matter, that's why I used to word still simply to rebut arguments. Please forgive my stupidity for reading the wrong section when gauging consensus, however. -Pecoc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support removal of swine the the title, per previous consensus, precedence, compromise, WHO, and WP:MOS. hmwithτ 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of "swine" from name. The "Hong Kong" flu has left the world no negative connotations about Hong Kong; the "Asian flu" has left no negative legacy about buying Asian products, eating chinese food, or going there; and the killer "Spanish flu" has not left a negative feeling about Spain or things Spanish. So I feel that attaching the source of the flu in swine will not long affect the pork industry. And if it did, it would only be for the better - better surveillance of transmittable illnesses, pig vaccines, cleaner practices, etc.

The name as it is now, IMO, is a non-name, or nameless illness. "2009" is not much of a defining name, and it won't mean much in a few years as the disease continues. So what's left is really a name for a pandemic - a "flu" pandemic. The article now seems to be about a "pandemic," now, instead of the specific disease. In six months, should I tell someone I came down the the flu, they'll be forced to ask "Which one?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't removed due to fear of negative views toward swine. It was removed due to previous consensus, precedence, compromise, WHO, and WP:MOS. hmwithτ 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Except the article has (or did have) many citations about why WHO felt compelled to remove the word "swine." Need any? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A few for the record or the still curious: "Too pig to fail: Officials seek to remove “swine” from flu name to save pork industry" Michelle Malkin; "Swine flu: a virus by any other name . . ."; "The World Health Organization indicated it had no plans to try to remove the term "swine" from the flu’s name.", MSNBC --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my response to clarify how I meant it: Swine was not removed from the Wikipedia article title due to fear of negative views toward swine. It doesn't matter why WHO calls something what they do. We can't control that, and we also can't decide what something should or should not be called based on our own ideas. We're not scientists. hmwithτ 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's odd that no one has suggested removing the date. To me, at least, it seems better to remove "2009" and replace the "swine." It sounds a bit alarmist to start an article by its year, especially a "mild" flu, but I'll admit that in April the TEOTWAWKI crowd had me in their grip. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the current article title. We already had this discussion. Stop wasting our time. Not everyone is 13 years old with nothing better to do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• My 2¢: I would prefer the word swine in the title, but I don't view it as a big deal either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also oppose the removal of swine. Didn't really notice that the nth discussion (of a name change, above) was going to remove "swine" (the most commonly used identifier)... it appeared to only change the word "outbreak" to "pandemic" -which I was fine with. Since all of the previous discussions kept the word swine in the title, despite a small but persistent effort to remove it, I guess I didn't follow as closely as I should have. . .but registering my opinion now. "Swine flu" is the most common way to refer to this, it should be in the title. R. Baley (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose removal as the word "swine" is the common distinguishing feature, it is the term used by the public, the media, and avoids any confusion with seasonal flu. Will you still want call it "2009 Flu" when/if it rolls into 2010?  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The common name should not be an issue. Wikipedia has a policy that medical articles use the technical medical name and not the common name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) For example heart attack. Novel A/H1N1 should be in the title or other technical name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this an Article or an Event?

This is not a medical article, it is an event. Myocardial infarction and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 are medical articles. Should a contagious worldwide outbreak of Myocardial infarctions occur the proper article name would be 2009 Heart Attack Pandemic. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope it's OK, but you brought out something maybe worth considering before any more name changes, so I partitioned it into a new topic-section. If it's agreed by most that it's an "event," then the year "2009" becomes more important (although not absolutely necessary.) But if it's become an article -- even if it was originally conceived as an event-article, -- then it requires looking ahead and seeing this article from a future perspective. As it looks now, this event-article seems substantial enough to be an article about a new human swine flu virus. My understanding is that HIV is pandemic by its very nature, yet we don't usually see it referred to as the "AIDS pandemic," which would likewise make it more of an event. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should "swine" be re-added to the title?

Well, it appears there is a lot of disappointment about the word swine being dropped from the article title. It wasn't clear that there would be disagreement at the time of the move, so I can't fault the admin who moved it. Now the question is should it be moved again to 2009 swine flu pandemic or be left as is?--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

1. I think the current title is fine, but the protesters do have a good point in that the previous consensus was the keep the word swine in & the move arguments were not really about dropping the word swine. Thus, there wasn't actually proper consensus to drop it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - What are you talking about? The previous move arguments are about dropping the word 'swine'. You may argue that the initial rename request was only about changing 'outbreak' to pandemic, but after my comment the subsequent discussion shows a very consistent preference for 2009 flu/influenza pandemic, without the word 'swine'.

   And please, stop disenfranchising the opinions expressed in the previous discussion (which mirrors the consensus in the previous naming debate), not withstanding your current attempt to establish new 'consensus' by holding yet another voting spree. --Aeon17x (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Your assumptions of bad faith are totally unwarranted and not appreciated. I certainly wasn't trying to disenfranchise anyone. In fact, I made this section a subheading of the existing discussion. The point was to make it clear where people stood on the specific question of another rename since there were a lot of related, but different, questions floating around in the debate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2. As stated above. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3. As above. Most common folk don't know the difference between an office sickness, an outbreak and a pandemic. They know that the "common flu" has been around for ages and every year it goes around. However, the "swine flu" has only very recently come into the public consciousness. They know that in 2009, swine flu broke out. Article is about an event and should be named to reflect the common name used by the public. –xeno^talk 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
4. per my comment above, ". . .[the previous] discussion . . . appeared to only change the word "outbreak" to "pandemic" . . . Since all of the previous discussions kept the word swine in the title. . .I didn't follow as closely as I should have. . . Swine flu is the most common way to refer to this, it should be in the title." R. Baley (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, as above, I too vote for the much clearer 2009 swine flu pandemic  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Put "swine" in the name, and use lead paragraphs to explain. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Second verse, same as the first. Swine flu per WP:COMMONNAME. Oren0 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   8. Yes, as it appears clear that there wasn't consensus to remove swine when the outbreak was declared a pandemic. -Pecoc (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   However, at the time of the move, there was. See the section further up this page & the archives. Notice the timestamps, as well, as comments are not always in chronological order (with the whole indent level thing). hmwithτ 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   I disagree. The move/rename was too bold and did not reflect consensus, in my opinion, because as I've stated above, the tag stated[42] "Recent debate has resulted in no consensus for any change to the article's title. Please read through the previous debate before proposing a name change." Thus, I, along with other editors, was under the understanding that no serious (dropping swine in the pandemic to outbreak move) rename/move would occur. The section that discussed the move/rename does not have a robust (consensus representing) discussion in my opinion, evidenced by the person who moved acknowledging their WP:BOLDNESS with the rename. Thus, a bold rename back inserting swine is perfectly appropriate. -Pecoc (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   You were looking at the wrong section. Twice. First, the tag linked to the archive name change debate and was not pertaining to the active discussion in the talk page. Second, as I've shown you before, there was a clear consensus established in the rename all articles proposal, with a clear preference for pandemic over outbreak, and flu/influenza over swine flu. --Aeon17x (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   There is a bit of an echo chamber that develops on Wikipedia on the weekends. Right now, there's no clear consensus for either version of the title, so I think it makes sense to give it a few days, and sometime later this week reassess where consensus is. Of course, if it continues to be very close, that'll be an issue, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Yes, as "swine flu" is specific to the strain and the common name for the virus behind this event article. Currently, the title looks sterile reads inefficiently by having to clarify that yes this strain is called swine flu. -Pecoc (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it at 2009 flu pandemic

1. Leave it as it is now, 2009 flu pandemic. Although I'm starting to get !voter fatigue here. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Change it to 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. Lets be nice to the piggies. h1n1 is used the media also. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   "H1N1 flu" is no clearer than just "flu", as H1N1 also causes seasonal flu.  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Is it a swine flu or is it a human flu?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neither. Swine flu is flu from a flu strain endemic (epidemiology) in pigs. Human flu is flu from a flu strain endemic in humans. Pandemic flu is a novel flu strain spreading world-wide in humans. This strain is a pandemic flu. There is no evidence for this strain being endemic in pigs. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Would you consider compromising and using the current basic title? There are some people who want swine flu, some who want H1N1 flu, and some who want Mexican flu. hmwithτ 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that was my initial intention, but my wording may have indicated otherwise. I also support adding H1N1 or some derivative to the name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I prefer this. "flu pandemic" is clear, concise, and avoids the somewhat misleading connotations of "swine flu". It's not the end of the world to call it "swine flu pandemic", but I do think it is a better title without the "swine". Obviously, the "swine flu" name would still be discussed in the lead regardless. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Spanish flu => 1918 flu pandemic
   Mexican flu => 2009 flu pandemic
   Should followed the same naming format for pandemic flu. Mexican flu outbreak should be used in the first place, not Swine flu outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernvale (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 June 2009

   Whatever this is named, Spanish Flu should be Spanish Flu. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Per all my points earlier:
   • (1) previous consensus - let's not forget the opinions of people who mentioned them earlier;
   • (2) precedence - explained right above this;
   • (3) compromise - no one has been able to agree on whether to use swine/H1N1;
   • (4) WHO - they don't use "swine" anymore; and
   • (5) WP:MOSMED - says to go alone with WHO. hmwithτ 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
   • (6) WP:COMMONNAME - says to follow other naming conventions before referring to it (as mentioned by Sceptre). hmwithτ 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Once more... Compromise is the key here, 2009 flu pandemic is unambiguous and avoids the discussion over whether to use swine, H1N1, influenza A(H1N1), H1N1(swine), etc. This is a non-issue as all the redirects are in place and the current title is immediately recognisable. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:01, 14 June 2009 (GMT)
7. MOS:MED, MOS:MED, MOS:MED. "Swine flu", while the common name, is not the name WHO are using, which means we shouldn't use it. Also, this choice quote from COMMONNAME: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the subject of the article" (emphasis mine). Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Support keeping the name as it is currently, for the reasons I voiced previously and that Spaully summarized well. Cochonfou (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Leave as is, there was only one flu pandemic this year, it is unambiguous. Swine is used the intro, which seems like adequate acknowledgment. H1N1 is even worse as it is very ambiguous. cyclosarin (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support "2009 flu pandemic" unless and until there is another flu pandemic this year, in which case "swine" and "bird" or "monkey" or whatever can be added to distinguish them. Edison (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

• As (ironically) ThaddeusB. Consensus on the current name or not, I believe there should be some sort of cooldown between naming changes unless major developments occur that warrant an immediate discussion for a potential name change. Having round-the-clock votes on this issue just causes voter fatigue on both sides and comes quite close to gaming the system as the consensus you'll get depends more likely on which participants will be up on the time of the voting, and doesn't reflect the general will of the editors involved in this article. --Aeon17x (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• While I have "voted" above I agree with Aeon17x that continuous votes and discussions are not useful. I would encourage any admin to leave it a while before evaluating consensus. There is no harm being done with the article where it is. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:04, 14 June 2009 (GMT)
  • I admit my bias, as I was the moving admin, but I also agree. I don't think it should be moved right now. People get tired of voicing their opinions nonstop, especially in the constant polls on this page for names. hmwithτ 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that this is the first such discussion in quite some time. The "vote" was merely a continuation of the existing discussion to get a better idea where people stood. It is quite a different situation than the daily debates that were taking place when the article was brand new. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the comments above are rational and there seems no clear harm in leaving the article name as is. I say "most" since the first one is ridiculous on its face. First, the title is clearly absurd as a statement to have anywhere on the planet, but to put it as a section title here? The accompanying paragraph is likewise loaded with non sequiturs: there is no clear connection between "voter fatigue" and "gaming the system" (aka voter fraud), which depends on who's online at the time, and therefore "doesn't reflect the general will of the editors." It's an embarrasment to have this section as part of this article, and as an official member of the Voter's "axis of evil" I think Aeon17 should delete it. Should we vote on it? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, not interested. Although to humor your call to have it not count as a vote I'll turn the number sign to a bullet. --Aeon17x (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Google factor

For whatever it's worth, I was curious about how the recent news might have affected search engines so here are some results of the number of searches for each of the following phrases over the last 24 hours: (note that the quotation marks mean that the words are kept together in the articles as quoted.) Totals rounded off:

• "Flu pandemic" - 7,000
• "Pandemic" - 21,000; (excluding the word "swine" - 4,000)
• "Swine flu pandemic" - 3,500
• "H1N1"- 109,000 (excluding "swine flu" - 7,000)
• "Swine flu" - 54,000 (excluding "pandemic" - 34,000; exlcuding "H1N1" - 17,000)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be called the porky flu, because those who have died if they didn't have significant prior medical conditions then they where obese. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Too similar to 1982 Porky's flu outbreak, that one nearly killed me. Of course then the egyptians went overboard and put a ban on showering that continues to this very day... but I digress. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it just became a pandemic, so there wouldn't be many links on it yet, as opposed to just "swine flu" or "H1N1" in general, which are viruses that have been around for a long time. Also, most pages that talk about the pandemic are going to mention swine somewhere, just like we do in this article. hmwithτ 04:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Google joining forces

From the June 22 New York Times:

"Recognizing that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is increasingly used by the public as a news source, Google News began this month to include Wikipedia among the stable of publications it trawls to create the site. A visit to the Google News home page on Wednesday evening, for example, found that four of the 30 or so articles summarized there had prominent links to Wikipedia articles, including ones covering the global swine flu outbreak and the Iranian election protests." "Google Starts Including Wikipedia on Its News Site"--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... Is this supposed to mean that everyone here is doing a good job? Jozal ^(talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)