Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Majority of cases in gay and bisexual men (MSM)

Various government health organizations have reported the link between new transmissions and male-to-male sexual contact.

The majority of cases have been in young men, many self-identifying as men who have sex with men (MSM), and none with recent travel history to areas where the disease is endemic. Most cases presented with lesions on the genitalia or peri-genital area, indicating that transmission likely occurs during close physical contact during sexual activities. This is the first time that chains of transmission are reported in Europe without known epidemiological links to West or Central Africa, where this disease is endemic. These are also the first cases worldwide reported among MSM.

— European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

with recent cases predominantly in gay, bisexual or men who have sex with men (MSM)

— UK Health Security Agency

It’s not clear how people in those clusters were exposed to monkeypox but cases include people who self-identify as men who have sex with men.
Epidemiologic Criteria: ... Is a man who regularly has close or intimate in-person contact with other men, including through an online website, digital application (“app”), or social event (e.g., a bar or party)

— Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

However the inclusion of this information seems to be a battleground here. Many of the reverts seem to be, lets say... politically influenced. We should come to a consensus whether to have this information in the article in order to stop the edit wars. --Databased (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely include this information. We should stick to more WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and follow their wording, including use of MSM. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nearly every public health source has mentioned the prevalence of MSM in the early outbreak. The largely successful attempts to keep it out of the article make Wikipedia look bad. Palpable (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, clearly this is relevant: it's the first known outbreak of monkeypox linked to sexual networks, specifically amongst homosexual men. ElleTheBelle 17:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a single sentence to the lead here:

"The current international outbreak is unprecedented in the developed world, and, unlike the typical transmission of monkeypox in Africa through contact with wildlife, appears to have spread primarily through sexual networks, specifically by men who have sex with men (MSM)."

Only to find it almost immediately reverted here by Alexbrn. The claim was that my edit involved:

• "unreliable sourcing"—are the AP and CNBC no longer considered RS?
• WP:LEDEBOMB", an essay by the very same Alexbrn, which asserts that material not in the article shouldn't be added to the lead, despite the entire section "Transmission changes" which is all about MSM transmission.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on medical sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The AP article is sourced to the former head of the WHO emergencies department, the CNBC article is specifically about CDC guidance. WP:MEDRS specifically states that: "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for… current-affairs... in a medical article"—precisely how it's being used here—as well as admonishing editors to "use common sense". The articles here are obviously not the sort being cautioned about it WP:MEDRS and are literally sourced to the major health organizations:

• "Many of these global reports of monkeypox cases are occurring within sexual networks." Source: CDC
• "Cases have mainly but not exclusively been identified amongst men who have sex with men (MSM)" Source: WHO

Again, this is non-controversial, factual information that is mentioned in the article—so why the strong urge to suppress it with Wikilawyering? ElleTheBelle 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be included in the lead. It's accurate, not excessive, and follows WP:MEDRS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The "reports" are from within "sexual networks", which you've reinterpreted in a novel POV way, while sidestepping "Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can spread monkeypox through contact with body fluids, monkeypox sores, or shared items". This is not true to the source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• What's the difference between "within" and "through" sexual networks? If there's a significant one, I'm all ears. But I certainly wasn't trying to express the factual information in a "novel POV way"—which is a strange and strained assertion.
• There's nothing about including the fact that mostly gay men have been infected that suggests others can't contract it—indeed, by definition, "primarily" means "not exclusively".

Again, what's the issue with including one of the most obvious and salient facts about this outbreak: that, in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person and mainly among MSM? Clearly you want to suppress this information, and I'm genuinely confused by and curious as to why. Explaining that would be a lot more productive than continuing to lob up nonsensical objections. ElleTheBelle 20:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Because that's not what the sources say. Given your bad faith, it's probably time to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Failing to AGF is a serious error on your part. As to sources, see the ECDC report referenced below, the second paragraph of "Key Messages":

• "Monkeypox (MPX) does not spread easily between people…. The predominance, in the current outbreak, of diagnosed human MPX cases among men having sex with men (MSM), and the nature of the presenting lesions in some cases, suggest transmission occurred during sexual intercourse."

Then, later:

• "Particular sexual practices (e.g. having multiple casual sexual contacts and/or multiple sexual partners, attending chemsex parties) that may be present within some parts of the MSM community could further facilitate the transmission of monkeypox. Outbreaks of other sexually transmitted infections among MSM can be linked to travel abroad and to social and mass gathering events (e.g., pride events). Several such events are taking place in Europe over the spring and summer months, which can contribute to further accelerate the transmission of MPXV. In addition, smallpox vaccination, which confers cross-protection, has been discontinued since the 1980s and only a small percentage of military and frontline health professionals have been vaccinated in recent years. Therefore, a large part of the population is vulnerable to MPXV. The probability of further spread of MPXV among persons with multiple sexual partners in interconnected sexual networks (including some groups of MSM) in EU/EEA countries and globally, in the coming months, is therefore assessed as high."

That seems pretty clear to me, and certainly falls within WP:MEDRS, no? Or is the ECDC also acting in "bad faith" here? There's an obvious good-faith reason that every major medical body is highlighting the prevalence in MSM—to warn those most at risk and prevent further infections. More to the point, it's scientific fact that should in no way be purged or censored from our encyclopedia. ElleTheBelle 20:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It was you you wrote "Clearly you want to suppress this information" which is an ad-hominem, bad-faith argument. It is also wrong. The article mentions the MSM aspect, including sourced to the ECDC so it not "suppressed". However, over-amping speculation from less-than-stellar sources is not great. Where are you getting "in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person" - isn't person-to-person spread a well-known (and observed) phenomenon from the past? Alexbrn (talk) Alexbrn (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: MEDRS-compliant sources clearly support a significant link with MSM. This should be in the lead. If you are concerned with the wording used in prior edits, perhaps you could work to improve the wording? You could propose your own version of the wording...? It is definitely important we get the wording right. If you are concerned other editors are acting in bad faith, I can't comment on that, but I note that I have published extensively on pandemics and I have published on LGBT+ health: I am acting in good faith. Bondegezou (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think faith is in question (except when editors base their argument on it, as above), but the article mentions MSM several times (including well-sourced mentions). I am concerned about giving too much weight to one strand of speculation about how the outbreak started. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a developing story, but I think the high involvement of MSM is not one strand of speculation: it is a central part of MEDRS reporting. I thus believe it warrants greater coverage than in the current version of the article and greater coverage in the lead. (There's plenty of non-MEDRS citing in this article than I'd happily see cut.) Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. My worry was more about the idea monkeypox had "morphed" into an STI, or the speculation about particular raves. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important that we make clear that monkeypox is not (primarily) an STI, but appears to have been spread by close contact during sexual activity. Speculation about particular raves seems mostly to be in non-MEDRS-compliant sources and, thus, should be avoided. I've just re-jigged the transmission section drawing on two academic papers. See what you think. I think some summary of what is said there could be included in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Then should the MEDRS reporting be restored to the lede then? Databased (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's what Spanish health authorities say about this:

[..] sobre 51 casos de MPX [...] Un total de 49 eran hombres y en 2 de ellos no consta esta información; la edad oscila entre 22 y 58 años, con una mediana de edad de 38 años (rango intercuartílico: 35-42 años). [...] El mecanismo de transmisión más probable en 43 de los 47 casos de los que hay información disponible fue el contacto íntimo y prolongado durante las relaciones sexuales.

[...] out of 51 MPX cases [...] a total of 49 were men, and there is no information on record for 2 of them; age ranges between 22 and 58 years old, with a median age of 38 years old (iter-quartile range: 35-42 years old). [...] The most likely transmission mechanism in 43 out of 47 cases with available information was the intimate contact and prolonged during sexual relations.

— Ministry of Health (Spain), 6 June 2022
Source: "Informe de situación: Alerta sobre infección de viruela de los monos en España y otros países de Europa y del mundo" (PDF). Health Ministry of Spain (in Spanish). 6 June 2022.

I think there is some more specific information from Madrid regional government, I'll post it if I find a good source. At least in Spain, it seems quite well-established that a significant part of the outbreak in the country so far has been related to MSM. MarioGom (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: the source I posted above is not about MSM, it just clarifies that most (if not all) cases are men. My later claim was about other sources. Some of which have been posted in this talk page before. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a mention of this to the lead in these revisions: Special:Diff/1091852734/1091858528. I have reproduced the exact wording used by the WHO on its outbreak page (that cases so far have been "mainly but not exclusively" been identified among MSM), and also added a clause on the emphasis that authorities (including WHO) are placing on the fact that anyone can catch the disease with close contact. This presentation seems best in line with MEDRS reporting across the board at the moment. — Goszei (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's an update from health authorities of the Madrid regional government:

Todos los infectados de Madrid son hombres, salvo una mujer, conviviente de uno de ellos (el 1% se declara heterosexual). El 70% tiene menos de 40 años y el 21% entre 41 y 49 años. Ninguno estaba vacunado de la viruela humana. El 48% tiene infección por VIH y el 6%, mascota. En sus relaciones sexuales no usaron el preservativo. [...] 170 casos confirmados [...] son hombres que mantienen relaciones con hombres, a los que la mayoría no conoce. Encuentros sexuales mantenidos fundamentalmente en domicilios y fiestas particulares (también en una sauna, ya cerrada,y en la fiesta gay de Maspalomas, Canarias), facilitados en páginas webs de encuentros para tal fin.

All infected in Madrid are men, except one women, co-habitant with one of them (1% of cases self-declare heterosexual). 70% have less than 40 years old, and 21% ranges between 41 and 49 years old. None of them was vaccinated against human smallpox. 48% are infected with HIV, and 6% have a pet. In their sexual relations, they did not use preservatives. [...] 170 confirmed cases [...] are men who have relations with men, the majority of them not knowing them before. Sexual encounters maintained primarily in private residences and particular parties (also in a sauna, now closed, and the gay party of Maspalomas, Canarias), facilitated by specialized dating websites.

— La Vanguardia citing Elena Andradas, Public Health Director of the Community of Madrid, 6 June 2022
Source: "La mayoría de los contagiados con la viruela del mono mantuvo relaciones con desconocidos" [A majority of monkeypox infected had relations with strangers]. La Vanguardia (in Spanish). 7 June 2022.

--MarioGom (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I noted this info at 2022 monkeypox outbreak in Spain § Outbreak characteristics. MarioGom (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak in (state)

I think we should start articles about monkeypox in the states of the US as many states have more cases than some of the countries infected. I would like to see if any of us agree, and just for an example of this. We have the COVID-19 pandemic state articles for example.

• COVID-19 pandemic in California
• COVID-19 pandemic in Connecticut

I just want to get advice and maybe we can start working on these (state) articles. 2601:186:4500:83A0:A0B5:F3F5:9FD1:5158 (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I would start by expanding 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States, which is still a pretty short article. You can always split some states if there is enough content and sources for a standalone article. There is no point in creating many stubs for sub-national divisions when national-level articles are sill barely stubs. MarioGom (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice I can´t create any articles but I´ll try 2601:186:4500:83A0:A0B5:F3F5:9FD1:5158 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MarioGom I made the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2022_monkeypox_outbreak_in_Florida. We might need editing and Iĺl add things to 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States soon. 2601:186:4500:83A0:A0B5:F3F5:9FD1:5158 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

My Wikicommons don´t work to make a Florida image or should we leave the current one? 2601:186:4500:83A0:A0B5:F3F5:9FD1:5158 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox in Asia page

I think the Draft:2022 monkeypox outbreak in Asia page is ready to be a live wikipedia page. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Graph of cases pls

Is there any where that shows a graph of new cases by date reported? It's difficult to tell whether the outbreak is gathering or losing steam. 122.107.193.252 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on implications of gay men being almost all of those infected

The fact that the current outbreak has almost exclusively affected gay men is a big part of the story here, and becoming a larger one—and not simply in the scientific context discussed above. Per a Washington Post article on 12 June, there are a growing variety of opinions on, strategies for, and concerns about how to address a public health crisis that, thus far, has been almost completely limited to homosexual men.

• The all-consuming concern about "stigmatizing" gay men is addressed in the "Social aspects" section of the article, as well as touched upon in the lead. The WaPo article characterizes this as a fear of "fueling hate" or "critics exploiting the infections to sow bigotry." This is reflected in a quote: "It’s clear everyone wants to call attention to avoiding the trap of blaming a certain population, in this case, men who have sex with men.”
• Others are worried that such a "frontlash" response to potential stigmatization will lead to "an overcorrection that leaves gay and bisexual men in the dark about the viral threat." As Dan Savage puts it: "they are failing to raise the alarm because they care about us too much, so much so they don’t want to hurt our feelings or accidentally hand ammo to anti-gay bigots.”

• An historian said fear of stigma undermines efforts to prevent infection: "Worry about allocating the resources to the gay community so they can get the word out." And there is an effort underway to focus the message where it's needed: the Grindr app, which facilitates gay sexual liaisons, is warning its users—as are volunteers at an "International Mr. Leather" convention.

• Others are concerned about the possible health risks to straight people if it's seen solely as a "gay" disease/outbreak: "heterosexual people assuming they’re not susceptible" or "closeted men in a heavily Mormon community avoiding care so they’re not seen as gay."

• Some are comparing the mpox outbreak to that of MRSA a decade ago; according to WaPo, it was initially reported as spreading between MSM before eventually being recognized as a wider threat. The hypothesis is that monkeypox may so far have been seen almost exclusively in gay men simply because their sexual practices require them to be routinely tested for various STIs more than other groups—and that this outbreak may be more widespread in other groups than currently known. It's an intriguing possibility—and I think worthy of inclusion.

• This outbreak is inevitably seen in the shadow of AIDS and the latter's association with and terrible toll on gay men. That heartbreaking history has to color every aspect of this outbreak's coverage and response—yet, bizarrely, AIDS isn't even mentioned in our article.

• Even the lessons of AIDS are being debated: a man who treated AIDS sufferers defends the concern with stigmatization: "It’s clear everyone wants to call attention to avoiding the trap of blaming a certain population, in this case, men who have sex with men.” Yet a longtime AIDS activist suggested the opposite after the current administration hosted a call about the monkeypox outbreak: “If the White House had reached out to the gay community like this with the first reported [AIDS] cases in June and July of 1981, we certainly [would] had a chance to make it an epidemic that’s the fraction of the size it ended up being in the U.S.”

As of now, there's something a bit prudish about our article: one of the most salient facts about this outbreak thus far is that it has almost exclusively infected gay men, yet this is barely acknowledged; when it is, it's heavily qualified; and editors have been making concerted efforts to excise it. Equally egregiously, the unmistakable shadow of AIDS isn't even acknowledged. This puritanical desire to avoid the "gay angle"—likely born, ironically enough, of fears that homosexuals will be "stigmatized" by their medical misfortune, the same thinking that led to so many deaths from AIDS—hardly helps to create the best article.

Anyone even slightly familiar with the topic knows it's almost entirely gay men who've been infected thus far, and that gay sex events, often involving groups and/or anonymity, were the presumptive nexus of the initial outbreak—and when they open an article that seems at pains to obfuscate or minimize those most obvious and salient facts, the only conclusion is that bias, political correctness, and/or partisanship is compromising Wikipedia's mission. We can and must do better— and I hope there are others interested in creating a section that comprises all the above bullet points, and more. "Social aspects" doesn't cut it—because there are also significant medical, historical, and other aspects to the issue.

A fine thought: while my initial thought is that this aspect is best suited to its own prominent section and further inclusion in the lead—I could well be wrong. Perhaps the solution is instead to acknowledge and include the "gay angle" in all the current sections? Curious to hear what others think and thanks in advance for any and all input! ElleTheBelle 18:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the observations regarding the gay angle as you put it should be discussed, at least, in two places: 2022 monkeypox outbreak in Spain § Outbreak characteristics, and a new section about LGBT stigmatization, under the heading of Social aspects. At least, that's how I started to organize it in 2022 monkeypox outbreak in Spain. But you can be bold and start changing the article in the direction you're proposing. We can discuss further if/when anyone has any objection. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is quite discussed throughout the entry, but to be precise, at best we can say that they are "almost exclusively" men, since women will be 1%, but not that they are homosexual men, partly because trivially there is a part that would not admit it anyway. More correct to speak of "mostly" or "the majority." Emanuele676 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Table changes in Canada and Italy

I am not sure that this change particularly works.

The number of cases in the table is for the whole nation, but then sources are given for individual regions, which is hidden information, and is only useful for users who edit the table to mark cases to add up.

But some sources are national. In the case of Canada it is easily solved since Canada's national data is also divided by individual regions, that there are only four, and in three out of four cases we use institutional sources, so you can use the national source for individual regions as well, but in Italy the cumulative data is not divided by individual regions, so the source reporting 20 national cases a few days ago was deleted.

There are now 8 different sources in Italy, with data even divided by province in some cases, because the national source on the 20 cases was deleted and then some sources were put back into the 20 cases. In Italy there are 20 regions and 107 provinces. If a national source comes out tomorrow, I imagine it will replace all eight sources. But if a national source comes out tomorrow and then also a source that adds another case, what will be done? Emanuele676 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally I notice now that the sum of the 8 notes still makes 24, there are still cases missing to get to 31, it is necessary to include more sources still... Emanuele676 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Canada is ok because, as you noted, the national-level source has a per-region breakdown, so they can be correlated. But Italy... it's a mess. I agree we should do something about it. I have spent a lot of time trying to find a good up-to-date national-level source, but I couldn't find it so far. Emanuele676: What would you propose? Reverting back to 20 cases and switch back to the date of the last national-level report? I would agree with that. MarioGom (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think in the current situation the best thing is a mix of the two solutions, divide not by regions but by day, obviously starting from the day we have the last national update, so currently June 1 onwards (although maybe ECDC or WHO have a more up-to-date national count, I would have to check) Emanuele676 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be done, but the sources would probably still be a mess. Even regional reports are very scattered. Like New case in X city, but they do not even recap on how many cases were in that city or region before.... MarioGom (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if on June 1 there is a national total of 20 cases, and on June 2 there is a report of a new case in a region, it is almost certain that there will be 21 cases from then on. And so on and so forth. I don't think we can do better in this situation, unless we have older data and wait for national reports from WHO, ECDC and rarely Italians. --Emanuele676 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be ok. It would be important to check the text of the source for an approximate date of confirmation. Let's say there's a 20 cases on June 1, and the following sources on June 3:

• Yesterday [June 2] a case was confirmed in Padova probably ok.
• Last Thursday [June 1] a case was reported in Padova maybe ok, maybe not... we don't know.
• There is a case in Padova, patient is 21 years old. No idea.

As time passes, it is less likely we have problem with this, since the last national update is quite old. MarioGom (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In this case there is the double check with the individual regions that we keep hidden in the table,, so far it has worked, when the deputy minister said there were 20 cases in Italy, the sum of individual regions also made 20 cases. If it had made 21, we would have known that the news of that hypothetical case in Padua would be after the minister's announcement, or vice versa. Unfortunately, until they have a national count, we cannot do otherwise, other than leave the figure out of date. Emanuele676 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Italy 8 June 29 confirmed Emanuele676 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected case in Bahamas left the country

Emanuele676: I removed The Bahamas from the table (diff) because after the suspected case patient left the country, there is officially no case under monitoring in the country [1]. If the patient tests positive in their home country, it'll most likely be counted as a confirmed case in that country, not in The Bahamas. As far as I can tell, there is no country tracking cases which, upon a positive case, attributes the case to a different country. MarioGom (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The sample taken is being tested in the Bahamas through the Caribbean facility. The person is not missing, just returned home, his case cannot disappear.. He is not the first foreigner tested abroad and I don't think he is the first one to randomly return, the only difference is that he returned before the test even gave a result. Emanuele676 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the case does not disappear, but it's unclear where it will be tracked, since officials say there are currently no monitored cases. I've missed where the sources state that it's being tested in a Caribbean facility. Anyway, if it's still monitored in The Bahamas we should see some news sooner than later. MarioGom (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Further update: the person left to Florida, and there is a sample collected in The Bahamas [2]. MarioGom (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Spanish Ministry of Health now publishes region breakdown

As of 9 June 2022, the Spanish Ministry of Health publishes per-region breakdown of confirmed cases [3]. In previous discussion, I said we could not mix data coming from regional and national reports, because it was not possible to correlate them reliably. However, with the data available today, it is possible to do so. See 2022 monkeypox outbreak in Spain for a full breakdown.

As far as I can tell, Madrid and sometimes the Canary Islands give updates ahead of the Ministry of Health, while other regions might lag behind.

I think it is still not appropriate to mix sources for the same region at the same time. For example, mixing the number of confirmed cases from the Ministry of Health with a number of suspected cases from the press or regional government for the same region is not reliable, since we don't know if these suspected cases are already counted in the confirmed figure or not (we would incur in double counting).

Emanuele676: Tagging you here since we discussed this before. MarioGom (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If, for example, for the national data in Madrid there are 50 confirmed cases while for the regional data in Madrid there are 40 confirmed cases and 20 suspected cases, better to use only the national data. If for the regional data the confirmed cases are the same or higher, then it makes sense to use the regional data. Emanuele676 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that we can use more up-to-date reports for regions, given that we can correlate them. As long as we don't mix confirmed and suspected cases from different sources, it would be doable. But I'm also ok with maintaining only the Ministry of Health count in the table here... it's simpler, and it's usually around 24 hours lag only. MarioGom (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Emanuele676: Heh, I didn't read your comment properly before. If for the regional data the confirmed cases are the same or higher, then it makes sense to use the regional data. Yeah, I think that would be the idea. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also because I tried to look for a source for Madrid and it tells me that there were 275 cases in Madrid, more than the cases reported for all of Spain, 275 instead of 194 according to the state report. Am I wrong or is the regional data much more up to date, at least for Madrid? Emanuele676 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Madrid recently started doing PCR on its own, and they are publishing results daily, maybe with less than 24 hours of delay since confirmation. On the other hand, Ministry of Health figures have a minimum of 24 hours of delay (the time between data collection noted in the report itself and the time it is actually published), and more likely 48-72 hours because of the logistics and reporting steps. MarioGom (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If someone has the will to check individual regions as well, for me there is no problem in cases like Madrid. Emanuele676 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The reporting situation is getting a bit weird. According to Oriol Güell, the El País correspondent covering the monkeypox outbreak in Spain, cases that are confirmed by PCR tests in regional labs are not reported in the Ministry of Health figures [4]. This seems to be consistent with Ministry of Health statistics not covering any new case since Madrid started doing their own PCR tests. MarioGom (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think for the two regions we should use the regional reports, the actual data are practically double... Emanuele676 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. Catalonia was updated by Ministry of Health 14 June report [5], but Madrid is still not updated since 10 June. I'll add Madrid cases to the table. MarioGom (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you already did it. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that soon the two data will coincide, so we may return to the previous situation, in a few days, I think. Emanuele676 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Flags

I think flags should be added. It was removed by an editor saying that flags aren't necessary. But in pages like COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, flags are used. So, I think flags should be added again. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the change was made without any previous discussion, and goes against established precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the flags were a useful and convenient visual reference. Uhooep (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've undid the edits I could (that removed the flags), but the first big one was "un-undoable" ... I started readding by hand, they're back in the nations section, but most still need to be added to the tables, sorry :/ .

This is the edit that still (mostly) needs to be reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_monkeypox_outbreak&diff=1093243170&oldid=1093242757

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I guess I'll drop the editor a line pointing out this was pretty painful to undo...

Please read MOS:FLAG. We require that flags aren't just used for visual reasons. You don't just get to retain flags on pages because they are "useful", or they exist on other pages. The flags are purely decorative, and I've given you an example where the article fits the manual of style. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to at least keep the long name of the countries, which is hard to tell what GEO is if you are reading the wikitest or checking the latest edits... Emanuele676 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As I've said in the last discussion: I have no strong opinion on this. IMHO it's just not decorative, but I can find countries much faster in a long list with the visual aid. If that's actually not ok with MOS:FLAG, I'm ok with removing them. But please, let's agree here, or even start an RFC if needed, rather than edit war over it every few days. The back and forth changes are disruptive when updating the table. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to speak out and support the `visual aid' argument. As a person who constantly check this page these days, I realized that it took a rather long time for me today to find each country after the flags were temporarily removed. Though I am not part of the editing team, I think the wikipage is, after all, for display and for people to read, so as a reader I would hope that flags not be removed. Chbe113 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

In terms of WP:ACCESS, which is our policy for sight issues and screen readers, there are issues in how they are displayed for screen readers. Realistically, the MOS says these are not suitable for a variety of reasons.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Do we want to protect this page to autoconfirmed due to this being in the news and lots of people will be looking at this article? Cherrell410 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not why we protect pages. We do it to prevent further vandalism for the most part. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Uruguay

Doesn't look like a confirmed case to me. Maybe a suspected? I don't know the specific case history here. Uhooep (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It is unclear, out of 4 suspected cases, 1 was ruled out as dengue fever, 2 tested negative, and 1 is unclear [6][7]. I don't think current sources are strong enough to infer that the remaining case is already classified as confirmed. MarioGom (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think it is a confirmed case Emanuele676 (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the case to suspected per [8]. The confirmation was previously based on a news headline (see WP:HEADLINES) but not really supported by content in reliable sources. It could be confirmed but pending sequencing, or not confirmed. There's sequencing going on at Institut Pasteur de Montevideo, so there will probably be a proper update soon. MarioGom (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lithuania

Is there a source for Lithuania in the suspected case timeline. I don´t remember seeing it. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping to Zeeshan Y Tariq: I think you worked on these tables? All content requires citations, including listing a country in a timeline for its initial date, as well as the date the case was discarded for suspect cases. MarioGom (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t add Lithuania, and I don't remember if anyone added that. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think at some point some user, apparently a vandal, was adding and removing countries randomly from the timeline. MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It was introduced at Special:Diff/1093322452. I removed it. MarioGom (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WHO Concerns about names and photos

• WHO to rename monkeypox virus to avoid discrimination, Guardian 15 June.
• Urgent need for a non-discriminatory and non-stigmatizing nomenclature for monkeypox virus virological.org 10 June
• The Foreign Press Association, Africa registers its displeasure against media outlets using images of black people alongside stories of the #monkeypox outbreak in North America and the United Kingdom, Twitter, 21 May.

The Virological.org statement says:

In the context of the current global outbreak, continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate but is also discriminatory and stigmatizing. The most obvious manifestation of this is the use of photos of African patients to depict the pox lesions in mainstream media in the global north. Recently, Foreign Press Association, Africa issued a statement urging the global media to stop using images of African people to highlight the outbreak in Europe

The Foreign Press Association, Africa, statement is linked above, makes a similar point, about a outbreak spreading in the UK and North America.

I have removed the photo of lesion development, which depicts African patients. I don't think it is relevant to this article, which concerns the 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Readers wanting to see pictures of monkeypox can of course read the monkeypox article. Wikipedia is more limited for stock photo choice than mainstream newspapers, which can pay for or commission photos. Still, there doesn't seem a compelling reason to include this photo in this article. I know some may cite WP:NOTCENSORED. But that doesn't mean we can't exercise editorial wisdom and choose to agree with the virologists and press staff who have raised these concerns.

We'll have to see what WHO decides to call the virus and the clades. -- Colin°^Talk 15:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand on what basis we decide the "nationality" of people whose skin we only see two centimeters (based on the fact that it used to be more prevalent in Africa?), but in any case the UK has updated the photo it uses. There are also photos of the countries' scientific reports, I think Spain or Italy, I don't know if it is possible to upload them to Wikipedia. Emanuele676 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The photos were taken by a doctor in Lagos, Nigeria, so we aren't just speculating about the nationality of the people based on a skin sample. Those photos were commonly used outside of Wikipedia too. I think it is fair to say those were among the "photos of African patients to depict pox lesions" that were being complained about. -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the image on the previous slide has the CDC as a credit, and after some slides there is an image that has a Singaporean TV station as a credit, my guess is that the doctor took the images from the Internet and then the U.K. took its slides in turn, but as I said, now the U.K. images are different. Then, of course, most likely these are images of patients where the disease was endemic. Emanuele676 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be both proactive and helpful to include the "hMPXV clade 3" nomenclature alongside West African Monkeypox.

Quite a lot of media says it's a certainty, and it can't hurt to have the info up on this page.

Sorry, I forgot to include this, which has all of the subtypes listed such as "hMPXV-1A" along with a map.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nextstrain

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.185.177.195 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Countries in suspected timeline after confirmed

I think countries reporting suspected cases should remain in the timeline. We have the confirmed timeline also. People can understand that these countries reported suspected cases and descarded those before they confirmed cases. Just like Morocco, Brazil, Greece etc. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure the suspected timeline is that useful. It is information that could be due in Timeline of the 2022 monkeypox outbreak's prose, but the table here might be just confusing readers. MarioGom (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MarioGom. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well it's true. I guess we should transfer this 'suspected' chart to Timeline of the 2022 monkeypox outbreak. But I think people can use this chart to make outbreak map timelapse videos, so we shouldn't completely remove it. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with moving the two tables. Emanuele676 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So can tables be moved? Emanuele676 (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there's a fair consensus. I would move each of them to a template, and then transclude templates to Timeline of the 2022 monkeypox outbreak. It'll be easier to reuse them or move them again if needed. MarioGom (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Serbia

Update the map, Serbia has confirmed it's first case 185.100.244.183 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. MarioGom (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Liechtenstein to 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Any better source for Liechtenstein? I see no source stating that there is one confirmed case, and the mention at the current source ([9]) is quite vague. MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay Iĺl try to see still keep Liechtenstein as it was because it was by a German doctor and the country is German speaking. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia colored separately

It seems these two breakaway regions are separate on the map, so I think they should be un-shaded just like SADR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Any reliable source for this? Uhooep (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t find any. I think it's better to remove KSA? Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

But it´s the only source that talks about a possible update of monkeypox in Saudi Arabia I think we should keep it. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Which source? MarioGom (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Israel first case

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-707283 In most of the reports, it says the first case was detected in Friday (20 May) evening. In the report by Haaretz, it says the case was confirmed the following day. So it's a bit confusing, when was the first case detected? 20 or 21 June? Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

On the 21st, the source mentions Saturday, and the ministry website has May 21 as the date of the announcement of the first case. Likely the 20th was suspected and the 21st was confirmed. Emanuele676 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Then should we Israel to the suspected timeline chart? Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

ECDC-WHO/Europe monkeypox surveillance bulletin

ECDC has issued a bulletin for monkeypox.

There are a couple of countries to which we can update the number of confirmed cases, and I think we can also update the last update date for those that still have the same number of confirmed cases, because it is a reliable source.

It also contains data on sex, general orientation, age, symptoms, and other such things. Emanuele676 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding a note under cases chart

On the page COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania, there's a note under the statistics chart, and I think we should also add a note like this. The note in that page: Note: The statistical information in this table may vary from official reports and WHO data, and is known to inconsistently include historical and suspected cases which may have returned a positive diagnostic test result. In some cases, these positive test results were reported by the media and/or by the relevant health authorities as confirmed cases, but this is not necessarily indicative of active SARS-CoV-2 infection due to most COVID-19 tests analysing past presence of the virus through the detection of relevant antibodies or through the detection of one or more viral fragments which are slowly shed during or after a person's recovery. These viral fragments are not indicative of whether that person has a current presence of the virus and are not indicative of infectivity. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't think the same disclaimer applies here. Since COVID-19 spread was at much larder scale, testing never really caught up. And it was also severely lacking in the initial data. At the moment, as far as I can tell, every country seems to be reporting on similar WHO criteria for confirmed, probable, and suspected cases. It seems most reports we are using are sources explicitly mention PCR testing. Also, testing on possibly asymptomatic do not seem to be a thing so far.

That being said, I'm not opposed to add explanatory notes if due, but not blindly copying them from COVID-19 articles. MarioGom (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Name change to ¨(2022 monkeypox pandemic) URGENT¨

As we knew the World Health Network offically announced that monkeypox is now a pandemic across 58 countries? we have to update the 54 number of countries to 58 urgently also. Here are the sources I have to prove this. (1) (2) 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(3 this one to 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NORUSH. This is definitely not URGENT. MarioGom (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should wait until WHO's statement about this. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

OKay still keep in mind this is a world-science commitee 73.126.133.15 (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Map Update

Somalia needs shading (suspected). South Africa needs shading (confirmed). Abkhazia and South Ossetia are colored separately as countries with confirmed cases, so they need to be un-shaded. @Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk)

Also Bulgaria (confirmed) and Zambia (suspected). Uhooep (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done for Somalia, South Africa, Bulgaria, and Zambia. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I found a citation for Colombia I say´s it´s a possible case but I read it, it´s not. (11) 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia still separately colored. And Fiji needs to be shaded (suspected). Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done for Fiji.

I know Abkhazia and South Ossetia were colored separately in many COVID-19 tables. In fact, I supported that back in the day, because they were always reported completely independently by their respective authorities, and reliable sources also seemed to report separately. I'm going to try to do this change. If someone has any objection, feel free to state it here. MarioGom (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

I would like to make the table of number of cases more accurate, from the CDC map https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/world-map.html and fix some grammar that may have been gone unnoticed. Radicalred05 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Make pictures for location articles

Could we make pictures for the location articles as the pages need updates etc. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

please let me uptade the 2022 monkeypox outbreak with making 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United Arab Emirates it really needs a spot in the see also tab. AZwildfire (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

removed racist slur

I removed a racist in the first line of the article. I don't know how to find the person who put it there to report them.Elinde7994 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Elinde7994

Elinde7994: Thank you for cleaning it up. It was introduced by an unregistered user, so there's not much to report. It is now hidden from the article history too. Best, MarioGom (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the page continues to be vandalized in the same way. Semi-protection did help against anonymous user, but it has now been removed. Hetsre (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Was the case discarded? On the suspected timeline table Bangladesh is still there without any discard date, and I can't find any source which discarded any suspected case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There was an initial case, which was discarded, and then another one detected. But I have found no further information about the second suspect case. This is why it's important to keep all info sourced, included countries in the timelines (discarded or not)... MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

updated deaths (where endemic)

Some sources report WHO Director General stating "72 deaths this year" (other sources say 79?). [10] In "Cases in endemic area" we currently state 62 deaths; we may want to update this. But also, "endemic area" does not ring right, does it? It is infections which are endemic within a certain population (or, more in general, species can be endemic), not areas. -- 147.156.224.2 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, WHO has eliminated the distinction between endemic and non-endemic countries. Emanuele676 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

WHO has now reported one death among non-endemic countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.136.163 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it's in Nigeria. --Emanuele676 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I posted the link originally when the WHO hadn't listed the country where the death occurred. I had assumed they were only listing outcomes related to the outbreak in non-endemic countries. I'm now confused about why they included that death in the rest of their coverage. In any case, I think the number of deaths should be listed as zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.136.163 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WHO decided to eliminate the distinction between endemic and non-endemic countries. Emanuele676 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cayman Islands

Can we have an explainer in the Timeline of suspected monkeypox cases by country or territory, since this territory keeps being removed from the main case table. What was the outcome of that suspected case? Uhooep (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The test was negative, as stated in the source, they estimate it is chickenpox. Emanuele676 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

But on a report on 25 June by Cayman Compass, it says the test results didn't come back from Trinidad and Tobago. And, they are 'suspecting' that the case was chickenpox, but they are still not confirmed. I thinks we should again add Cayman Islands because they are actually updating about the case. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you both add here the URLs to the sources you're talking about? MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no known cases of monkeypox virus detected in Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands now have the capacity to diagnose Monkeypox at the Cayman Molecular Laboratory. This means that the laboratory was able to confirm a negative diagnosis for Monkey pox for the case of the young, male patient, who came to the attention of the Health Services a couple of weeks ago. This negative laboratory result, further supports the clinical diagnosis of Chicken pox for this individual. Emanuele676 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Emanuele676: I agree with you then. The source seems pretty clear. Thanks. MarioGom (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding column “Recoveries” to table

Has any country reported figures for recoveries just like they do for covid? Pyruvate (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates did, on 7 June they reported that two patients did recover, but since then they didn't any more reports. And most of the countries aren't reporting recoveries, and also not WHO. So I think we should bot add a column for 'recoveries'. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Andalusia (Spain) has, but it is still very rarely reported. MarioGom (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Map edit

Add Estonia it has confirmed a case. [11] 2601:186:4500:83A0:CC76:43AA:ABA2:8D06 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also Slovakia needs to be un-shaded, and Turkey and Puerto Rico needs shading Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. MarioGom (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Map edit#2

Add Saint Lucia it has reported a case (MagneticMediaTV) 73.126.133.15 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A crew member on a flight to St Lucia tested positive for the monkeypox virus. [...] "The crew member did not disembark from the flight," Dr Belmar-George said. It seems the case was tested in the US, and the person did not disembark in St. Lucia. MarioGom (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Source: Loop News, also mentioned in the link you posted. MarioGom (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please change Australia to 15

Australia

As at 4 July 2022:

There are 15 confirmed and probable cases of MPX in Australia. This includes 5 in Victoria, 9 in New South Wales and 1 in South Australia.

https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/monkeypox-mpx/about#current-status

(About)

https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/monkeypox-mpx

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianchan (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Map edits, edits needed etc.

• Ecuador has reported a case of monkeypox. (English News Canada)
• If I read the title right it says there is a case of monkeypox in Malaysia. (The Star)
• And according to the CDC:(CDC)
  • Estonia has reported two cases of monkeypox.
  • Hungary has 22 cases of monkeypox.
  • Germany has 1,304 not 1,242 cases of monkeypox.
  • Israel has 55 cases of monkeypox not 52 cases.
  • Mexico has 27 cases not 13 cases.

73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Map shading

Panama, Ecuador, Slovakia, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic now have confirmed cases. Uhooep (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. MarioGom (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Countries with suspected cases for weeks

There are countries that have had a suspected case for weeks, almost a month, and it is still not confirmed. I would propose to eliminate them, how about that? Emanuele676 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, I wouldn't remove merely based on a time limit. Some countries, in particular in Africa, but also in Latin America to some extent, have taken 1-2 weeks to send samples abroad and confirm (or discard) in foreign laboratories. But we should definitely review these countries without updates for: a) further updates (e.g. The Bahamas), or b) check if the initial sources were reliable in the first place. MarioGom (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed The Bahamas suspected case, since further update on a confirmed case did not contain any mention to the suspected case that fled the country. MarioGom (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So we need to look for updates for, at least: Haiti, Uruguay, Somalia, Libya, and Zambia. MarioGom (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Uruguay had 4 suspect cases, 1 ruled out as dengue, 2 tested negative, 1 is still unclear as far as I see, but the lack of update is weird. [12][13][14][15] MarioGom (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Haiti cases discarded [16]. MarioGom (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Bosnia

Bosnia confirms it's first case 185.100.244.225 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Death toll reporting

The quality of the healthcare system is an important determinant of the CFR. Noting in which country the 3 deaths so far occurred will make it easier for page visitors to judge their risk, and see the part of the world most affected. For that reason, I noted that the 3 deaths so far occurred in Africa, keeping the link to the by-country breakdown. I suggest keeping this system as long as it's practical. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that the African countries where deaths are listed in the infobox are NOT countries where the West African clade is considered endemic. Congo Basin clade is endemic in these nations, but not the clade that is causing the current outbreak. Therefore, it is not correct to describe them as "endemic" African countries, and I've eliminated that descriptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllAmericanBreakfast (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

New paper

"Demographic and clinical characteristics of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in individuals attending a sexual health centre in London, UK: an observational analysis" looks relevant for this article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

CDC data for other countries

Is it correct to take data from a US institution as a source for numbers from countries other than the US? Okay that 99% are correct and that the WHO has not updated the numbers in a long time, but do we really have to? Emanuele676 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's a reliable source. As far as I can tell, it's pretty conservative, and it's probably a good source in the absence of more up to date local sources. That being said, I doubt there's a lack of national reliable sources for figures published by the CDC. I would prefer national reports, which are likely to be equally or more up to date. MarioGom (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found a couple of cases of European countries with the CDC, when there's the ECDC for European countries, it seems to me that it's a bit much, also because the ECDC publishes an update every week, it seems quite... Emanuele676 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

reported transmission due to clothes at a shopping mall

there was an unconfirmed report of a local transmission in the greater LA area, with a man who went to a clothing store and tried on a shirt and then was hospitalized with monkey pox, this fits with transmission routes common to the disease with contaminated clothing. Should that be added to the article? 2600:1702:9F0:D140:B9F3:65A1:9:7E43 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States

I realize this is the wrong article, but I assume this talk page has more watchers. The 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States article is quite bad, with some extraneous, non-encyclopedic info in it and a poorly fleshed out history section, which includes some confusing sentences. It's beyond my ability to improve article and wanted to flag the issues here. - Mainly 16:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As the person who made the article. I'm extremely disappointed with this comment about my article, the history is mainly the start of the outbreak in the United States. I've been trying to make ideas for new things to add into the article to improve it more, the confusing sentences are something that I have to check even tho I don't think there is any.

- 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox outbreak task force

Since the article was posted to ITN, I wanted to do a quick head's up that the WikiProject of Current Events began a task force dedicated to this outbreak. Feel free to join here. A shortcut is also WP:Monkeypox. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"In the News" as of now

Article just went "In the News" on the main page :) ! (due to decleration of PHEIC).

Regards Sean Heron (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(hope people have not made a mess of the article since I last was on it, but quick glance seemed to look ok :P.) Sean Heron (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The vandalism is starting to come in. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen a bit. If it gets too bad, we can request protection. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Monkeypox Outbreak

A Public Health Emergency is also a pandemic. 174.252.131.24 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The title will stay as it is now until WHO directly states it is a pandemic. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That I've checked most PHEICs turn into "epidemics" or "pandemics". In this case this is officially a pandemic. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Most does not mean it is official. Based on your statement saying it is "officially a pandemic", I would ask you provide a source from WHO that states it is a pandemic. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on the Public Health Emergency of International Concern article, all of the outbreaks always turned into "epidemics" or "pandemics". I've checked an I'd say this outbreak was a epidemic and some sources I collected and found say so as well. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter per WP:OR. Until it is a "pandemic" from WHO, it is an outbreak. Refer to the FAQ at the top of the talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

COVID is literally a "public health emergency of international concern" as well! 73.126.133.15 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we call this EPIDEMIC now instead of Outbreak?

It's clearly gone way past a single localized outbreak. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:3CDD:FB97:AB0E:ACCD (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's quite obviously a PANDEMIC now. 94.10.1.94 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Only if or when that's the common term used by reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally agree this should be called a pandemic. The WHO declared this a "public health emergency of international concern". It's pretty obvious it is now. And from what I see most sources call this an epidemic or outbreak but mostly epidemic. I agree that this should be a pandemic. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ linked at the top part of this talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead needs overhaul

Right now the lead suffers from some real problems:

• It's totally disorganized. Why is the general description of pox—"Monkeypox is a viral infection…" at the beginning of the last paragraph, mashed together with the demographics of the current outbreak? This is totally confusing—a general description, if needed, should presumably be the second paragraph.
• The first paragraph is weirdly detailed and yet uninformative. Why list each continent individually—rather than just saying it has been found "worldwide, but mostly in Europe" or similar?
• "although it has been suggested that cases were already spreading in the previous months" is redundant given the following "more recent statement acknowledged that undetected transmission had occurred for some time."
• "Cases have mainly but not exclusively been identified amongst men who have sex with men (MSM), but health authorities emphasized that anyone can catch the disease" is almost identical to the later "anyone can get monkeypox, the overwhelming majority of cases have occurred in the community of men who have sex with men."
• Why does the lead end with: "The CDC has emphasized the importance of reducing stigma in communicating about the demographic aspects of monkeypox"? It's fine to include, I suppose, but it's hardly the way to end a lead about an ongoing viral outbreak.

I'm happy to do some reorganization, but there's some confusing stuff in there—like "<!–"—that I don't have any familiarity with, so I'd appreciate some help—as well as any thoughts on the subject. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 22:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The <!--words--> is for in-line editor messages. Editors can use that to leave notes to other editors. Normally, it is done to make sure a format is not broken or to direct people to a talk page discussion or to explain what some complicated template/code does. Anything between the "<!-- and the "-->" are not visible to readers, and only visible to editors. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and tried to reorganize it a bit. The bit about stigma is mine. This is an attempt to thread the needle on using language that accurately reflects the important fact that around 90%-99% of cases are among MSM, while addressing the potential concern that emphasizing this fact could cause stigma against this community. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"99% of cases are amongst MSM" is a highly dubious, and contentious, claim. Especially when this isn't a sexually transmitted virus to begin with. 174.75.27.69 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave a range, but even 99% is neither dubious nor contentious, and sexual transmission is described as "highly likely." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.27931

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147330992200411X "Monkeypox virus infection was confirmed in 54 individuals, all identifying as men who have sex with men (MSM)"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445322004157 "We extracted data from 48 patients, all cisgender men. The median age was 35 years (IQR 29 – 44), and 87.5% were MSM."

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.24.2200448?crawler=true "As of 31 May, 31 monkeypox cases were laboratory-confirmed by PCR in the country. All cases were men and identified themselves as MSM, and the age range was 23–64 years old."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125251 "MPXV infection was confirmed in 54 individuals, all identifying as men who have sex with men (MSM), with a median age of 41 years (IQR 34-45years)" AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/monkeypox-outbreak-technical-briefings/investigation-into-monkeypox-outbreak-in-england-technical-briefing-3 "There is considerable data lag. Of cases with information, 97% (681 out of 699) are in gay, bisexual and men who have sex with men (GBMSM)." AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"As of 23 July, there have been a total of 17,186 confirmed cases"

Is literally in the header, so.... That's not 99%

Which then leads into

"health authorities emphasized that anyone can catch the disease, particularly if they have close contact with a symptomatic person"

Which further debunks the "Well this is mostly due to MSM" issue. It may have started as one, but this goes beyond MSM and should be reported as such. 174.75.27.69 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the quote I pulled, "there is considerable data lag." At the time of the briefing, there were 699 cases. If you have a better source with more up-to-date numbers, please include it. I will no longer engage with you on this debate until you do so. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If Pandemic is off the table for now, what about Epidemic?

This is clearly a rapidly spreading and worsening thing. Perhaps Pandemic is too soon, I read that part, I get it, but what about epidemic? Outbreak(in common usage) suggests it's a small localized thing on a town or county level with cases in the 100s, while Epidemic conjures images of entire countries or regions being effected, which is much closer to the current situation. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:D98F:9B1C:1633:E26B (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The latest WHO statement still calls this an outbreak.[17] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Some news sources call it's pandemic 73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Also recent epidemics have only been in a few countries not regions affected. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd call this epidemic or "pandemic" the third largest outbreak or what I said before a (epidemic or pandemic) of our century. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

73.126.133.15: You said some sources are calling it a pandemic. Can you link the RS news articles/press releases calling it that? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The situation would only become an epidemic if infections started occurring among many people who were not close contacts of event attendees..[18] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Log scale graph please

The curve in the cumulative cases graph is now looking exponential. A logarithmic scale graph would make this clear. Bob (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It is still unclear whether the increase is indeed exponential or not, some at WHO think it is not,[19] so this change could be a bit misleading. Better wait. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Pandemic?

Now that this is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (i.e. the same categorisation that the COVID19 outbreak got on 30 Jan 2020), we might want to consider changing the title of this page to 2022 monkeypox pandemic CT55555 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree 73.126.133.15 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It cannot be moved until WHO directly states it is a pandemic. Whether or not this compares to when COVID was classified as a pandemic is irrelevant. So, to not violate WP:OR, it cannot be moved until WHO declares it a pandemic. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WHO does not make pandemic statements. There is no agreed definition of a "pandemic". PHEIC is the highest level of emergency that WHO declares. " Unlike the PHEIC, 'pandemic' is not a defined declaration, and countries haven't agreed to take any actions once it's used." CT55555 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WHO did make a statement declaring COVID a pandemic. CNBC says "The rare designation means the WHO now views the outbreak as a significant enough threat to global health that a coordinated international response is needed to prevent the virus from spreading further and potentially escalating into a pandemic," explicitly distinguishing PHEIC from pandemic. I've looked at about 7 major news articles on the PHEIC declaration and all of them (besides the CNBC article) use the term "pandemic" exclusively to refer to COVID-19. Between the presence of a WHO COVID pandemic statement, the absence of one for monkeypox, the explicit distinction CNBC draws between the terms, and the lack of use of "pandemic" to refer to monkeypox in current major news sources, I don't think we can make the call to start using the term here.

P.S. Since multiple talk page discussions have been created over this topic, I created an FAQ, which is now linked at the top of the talk page which explains why it cannot be called a pandemic on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If we used your rubric, the COVID19 pandemic might not be called a pandemic on wikipedia, as the term is not officially used by WHO, see above. I would encourage you to avoid making unilateral decisions on this, and to discuss, try to reach consensus. CT55555 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

So you could argue, for example that it's the COVID19 Public Health Emergency of International Concern and that this should be the Monkeypox Public Health Emergency of International Concern, but the common name for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is a pandemic and we tend to name things as per WP:COMMONNAME CT55555 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Based off what everyone says, WHO doesn't make that call, but Wikipedia cannot either. If you can find multiple RS that describe it as a pandemic, then WP:OR would not be violated in a renaming. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WHO didn't declare pandemics until the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And according to Google Trends, the term "monkeypox pandemic" has been used by 26 of the 50 U.S states. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS is needed, and for a possibly controversial move to rename it as a pandemic, numerous articles need to describe it as a pandemic. Google trends can help as a final factor, but articles can't really be moved just on google trends. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Not yet, but it might become one soon.[20] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and the HHS is thinking of declaring a "public health emergency" for the U.S possibly a quarantine 73.126.133.15 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Super Polarizing article?

The article is just incredibly polarizing, if not contradicting itself. In the first paragraph alone you have

"health authorities emphasized that anyone can catch the disease, particularly if they have close contact with a symptomatic person"

followed by

"The overwhelming majority of cases have occurred in the community of men who have sex with men, especially those who have multiple sex partners."

and then by

"The US CDC has emphasized the importance of reducing stigma in communicating about the demographic aspects of monkeypox"

And the entire article just keeps going back and forth about MS and sources saying not to stigmatize. 174.75.27.69 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The article could be improved, but the above are not contradictory. It is true that anyone can catch it. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of cases to date in this outbreak are MSM. It is also true that we should reduce stigma. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We certainly don't need to wikilink every single instance of MSM, which we currently do. WP:MOS says to link the first occurence only, though it also says it's okay to link it both in the lede and in the first instance in the main body of the article. MeegsC (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To me it seems to be the opposite, although it could be improved to avoid misinterpretations. The article tries to stay in tune with the authorities: the outbreak has been observed mainly among MSM, but not exclusively, and there is still no study confirming that MSM are more susceptible than other people, so it is possible that the current situation is due to chance (an early outbreak in that group). Everyone is trying to present the facts while avoiding the kind of stigmatization of LGBT people (particularly gay men) that occurred at the beginning of the ongoing HIV/AIDS pandemic. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think, unfortunately, the incoherence of the article reflects the incoherence of the public health response. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

“Gay disease”

I think it is very bold to assume that all of the cases are from people who have sex with men. This is not true, and this is the same biased logic of considering HIV/AIDS a “gay disease”. I don’t see the point of having these statements on the page, as all of the sources that are cited seem to be tabloid-inspired publishers, which are not reliable from what I’ve seen. I hope that this will be contested because it seems it will be a scapegoat for when the outbreak gets worse. 2607:FEA8:FE10:8045:948B:A0B4:4176:F96F (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, HIV/AIDS is not a "gay disease" but it's pretty clear where its most predominantly found. It's the same with this, you can't just hand-wave the fact that a large majority of cases are currently being reported to be with men who have sex with other men. The stigma sucks but being dishonest about it doesn't help anyone either. 98.197.188.101 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Experts are still not sure whether the disease is prevalent in the MSM group due to chance (it first spread there, then continues to predominate there) or due to a change in transmission patterns (a new risk inherent in this group) . The reader should understand this from the article without jumping to conclusions. But it is also important not to omit information. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Your two key claims - that the article "assumes all of the cases are from people who have sex with men," and that sources are "tabloid-inspired publishers" are wrong. The sources about the proportion of monkeypox cases among MSM are from mainstream media, universities, and scientific publications (at least in the headline). The article condenses the statement from a mainstream press release on a statement from the WHO director that 99% of cases are among men, and of these 98% are among MSM, to state that 97% of cases are among MSM. 97% != 100%, and the article also states that anyone can catch monkeypox and immediately stacks this statistic with the CDC's anti-stigmatization statement.

If you can identify a tabloid or "tabloid inspired" source, please let us know so that it can be changed or removed. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any claim in this article that "all of the cases" are from MSM. What I do see is reporting from reliable sources (none of them "tabloid-inspired" as far as I can see) that ~97% of monkeypox cases from this outbreak have been from MSM. That is in no way suggesting that this represents "all of the cases," and in fact is far from it. Furthermore, the information about who is primarily getting sick has allowed health authorities with very limited vaccine stock to prioritize and get it to the people most likely to be at-risk for this disease. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

community transmission in family

A report of possible aerosolized transmission happened in the US. a young boy came back from Turkey from Vacation and there is no other explanation. 2600:1702:9F0:D140:5CD8:351:872B:E2AB (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Tedros overruling the comity of experts

Please at a statement that illustrates that Tedros overruled the comity of experts, where 9 out of 15 voted against declaring the outbreak a public health crisis. For a source on this, Reuters has an article with the very misleading title "WHO's Tedros acted as tie-breaker to break disagreement over Monkeypox designation". Source; https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-tedros-acted-tie-breaker-break-disagreement-over-monkeypox-designation-2022-07-23/ 89.239.195.102 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I never engage on Wikipedia, but this article must be amended. It stands to do great, real life harm.

The opening paragraph of this article, listing the extremely contentious and downright homophobic claims propagated by some of the spokespeople addressing the monkeypox outbreak, is going to add to the malevolently weighted information connecting gay men to this outbreak. Already conservatives in America, the U.K. and other places are using this outbreak to generate another situation like the AIDS epidemic, blaming gay men for spreading a virus that is not an STD, and we know from prior (and present) experience that homophobic rhetoric like this leads to real life violence against LGBT individuals. Already, sitting U.S. representatives, newspeople, and journalists are framing the outbreak as occurring at the hands of gay men, and even connecting the spread to alleged pedophilia, misconstruing the outbreak to be spread wholly or primarily through sexual contact.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2207323

The study upon which this WHO official's claims are based does not objectively state that "About 97% of cases outside of endemic regions in Africa as of 23 July have occurred in the community of men who have sex with men." (Study linked above.) The study itself cites its severe limitations, one of which is where the study was conducted: sexual health and HIV centers. Centers whose patients are undoubtedly -dominantly- gay men to begin with. The study even makes a point of saying that 41% of those tested are also living with HIV--something that today would predominantly be found in gay men. Of the small 528 sample size of this widely spread study, at least 41%, if not a majority, are gay men.

The study also lists that those affected were 75% white. Also a seemingly statistically significant number; yet this is not in the information at the top of the article. A very curious discrepancy in what information is given weight, and what is not.

In any case, the decision to put information connecting or even blaming the 2022 outbreak on gay men is not a journalistic decision of integrity. All facts are not equal. Emphasizing this information where casual article-clickers will see it and assign great importance to it will fan this wave of homophobia. It threatens to contribute to real, tangible violence to LGBT persons who are already seeing threats from enraged victims of misinformation on social media, and that contribution would make Wikipedia very -not- neutral in blame. Gay men are already being widely blamed for this outbreak, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that they will be the absolute last to be given adequate care and treatment by medical providers of the world.

The comment at the bottom of these first two paragraphs regarding the CDC's message on stigma is appreciated, but this is the same CDC who is quoting the study above and framing the message about monkeypox either carelessly or with extreme prejudice against gay men, in a country where gay marriage is now again in question and LGBT persons face heightened statistics of violence already. This article must be reviewed and amended, with careful attention to the impact of its words and how it frames an extremely delicate and contentious issue. Since all is idle (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points: Firstly, Wikipedia is not censored, and we are not here to right great wrongs. The fact that the 2022 outbreak is concentrated primarily among MSM is something discussed frequently by reliable sources, including the WHO and CDC, so it is something we need to discuss in this article and reference in the lead. Wikipedia isn't here to cater to sensitivities around information some consider to be offensive or socially dangerous, it's here to document information.

Secondly, I think your concern about what will and won't harm MSM and "fan [a] wave of homophobia" is misplaced. There are lessons to learn from the HIV/AIDS crisis here. As Owen Jones (a gay man) points out in his article in The Guardian, the greatest danger gay men can face here is that of ignoring the elevated risk they face. MSM are currently most at risk, and so need to be at the front of the line for prevention efforts; that means getting vaccines out to MSM first, etc. To quote from Jones: the lesson of HIV/Aids is that those most at risk should be protected without stigma. Censoring these facts, as you advocate for, only hinders our ability to target health messaging and vaccination efforts towards at-risk communities, harming gay and bisexual men more than the truth ever would. Endwise (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article cannot state anything that is not reported by a reliable source. Reliable sources report that ~97% of monkeypox cases in this outbreak, thus far, have been found in men who have sex with men. It's not being selective to say this; it's what the scientific data that we currently have consistently reports. It's not homophobic or stigmatizing to do so. And while yes, it's sadly true that homophobes have been misusing these facts to propagate their bigotry, I really don't think the response you're suggesting would be an appropriate one. We have to use the facts that are available.

When public health officials consider their responses to this outbreak, and figure out who should be prioritized in having access to very limited vaccine supply, the fact that such a high proportion of cases are from MSM is a relevant fact that has informed their efforts. For Wikipedia to censor this would be to stand at risk of helping spread confusion and/or misinformation about this outbreak, by withholding information that's currently available—information that can perhaps help readers understand why public officials have been responding to this outbreak the way they have.

There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by obscuring the facts or claiming they're irrelevant, as Endwise says in the reply above me, and Owen Jones says in the article they cite. It's absolutely critical that people understand if they themselves are at risk of getting sick from this. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The study upon which this WHO official's claims are based does not objectively state that "About 97% of cases outside of endemic regions in Africa as of 23 July have occurred in the community of men who have sex with men." (Study linked above.) The study says Overall, 98% of the persons with infection were gay or bisexual men. This matches the supporting reference in the article, which says WHO’s top monkeypox expert, Dr. Rosamund Lewis, said this week that 99% of all the monkeypox cases beyond Africa were in men and that of those, 98% involved men who have sex with men.[21] The 97% figure was derived by multiplying 99% by 98% when the text mentioned this statistic as a global statistic. Now fixed.

The study also lists that those affected were 75% white. Also a seemingly statistically significant number; yet this is not in the information at the top of the article. A very curious discrepancy in what information is given weight, and what is not. True, fixed. Statistics are facts that can be misused. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I added demographic statistics to the lead, but not everyone agrees they should be there, so I moved them to 2022 monkeypox outbreak § Outbreak characteristics. The lead should not fail to mention the main controversies (MOS:LEAD), and I think it should present the most important statistics, those that apply to a large number of infected people; in this case, sexual orientation, ethnicity, HIV status (emphasized in the study), and perhaps adherence to PrEP (over 50%, although this may just be a correlation between MSM in rich countries and access to PrEP). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The main/only criteria we should use for deciding what demographic info to include is what's commonly reported by official, reliable sources. We don't do original research and analysis.

However, the talk page here can also be used to explain why that info might be chosen by those sources. This might be beneficial for people with concerns like yours. So I'm going to do some original analysis, just for the purpose of illustration, as we've fielded a version of your complaint several times now.

You view these statistics as being about "deciding who to blame." I'd encourage you to view them as being about "deciding who needs the most protection," by identifying who is at greatest risk. I don't have a problem with reporting accurate racial statistics, but let's show why the sexuality statistics are particularly important relative to the racial statistics for this particular event.

Frace, Germany, UK, USA, and Spain are the five countries with > 1,000 cases. As of the data on this page today (27 July), these 5 countries have had 14,252 people infected with monkeypox, or 73% of cases total. As such, the demographic issues in these five countries comprise the majority of the demographic issues in the outbreak as a whole, and it's meaningful to focus an analysis on them. We're going to do some simplifications and some reasoning under uncertainty here. A more precise analysis is almost certainly possible, but I am aiming for "good enough to make the point here in this context."

The high range of estimates on the fraction of the population who are MSM is about 6.5% in both the USA and Europe.

France is 85% white (of 67 million people), UK is 87% white (of 67 million people), USA is 60% white (of 330 million people), and Spain is 85% white (of 47 million people). Germany doesn't collect ethnic/racial identifications on its citizens. The weighted average of the 4 countries reporting their racial statistics is 69% white, which we'll extrapolate to Germany.

If 75% of monkeypox infections in these five nations are among white people, then that's a 1.09x elevated risk among white people, as opposed to the 1x elevated risk we'd see if monkeypox was infecting racial groups at identical rates. These two numbers are not the same, but they are very close, meaning that race is not a very important risk factor.

By contrast, with 97% of infections among MSM, who comprise at most about 6.5% of the population of these nations, that's a 15x elevated risk among MSM. That is *huge.*

This is why, beyond the emphasis on the sexuality aspect of MPX in mainstream sources, I don't find it "curious" or "significant" that the statistics about MSM were originally included in the lead, while the racial statistics were originally not included. This is fundamentally the same type of statistical approach that lets us note that, say, rates of suicide or violent death are higher among the trans population than they are among the non-trans population, and we do it for the same reason - to mobilize protective public health resources against a real threat to an endangered group, and enable members of that group to understand the risks they face.

You might object that both public health officials and the MSM community understand these risks, and thus that there's no need to talk about it further on Wikipedia. This is where we come back to "Wikipedia should report the information conveyed by mainstream news media." That's the true reason for why we include this statistic. The previous analysis is just to help you understand why the rate of MPX among the MSM community is "significant," while the rate of MPX among white people is not particularly "significant" from a public health perspective, except in the fact that the very definition of this as an outbreak in non-endemic countries is because MPX is currently spreading in countries that are majority white in a way that it hasn't in the past.

As a final note, I will no longer be responding to or reading further versions of this critique, including replies to this comment. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Taiwan is a province of China and it should not be written in the country section. 203.198.239.124 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see most recent consensus here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30#RfC:_Taiwan,_%22country%22_or_%22state%22 Cannolis (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect statistics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The previous statistics have been restored and they are not true. Also they are outdated 21st July was nearly two weeks ago.

I suggest the salty homophobes back down because media are fighting against it right now.

Factual evidence on Wikipedia only!! 98% is no longer accurate! Ayshdbd (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Updated statistics are demanded! Over two weeks out of date! Ayshdbd (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: ftrebien

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is clearly adamant on posting edits that are clearly charged by homophobic intent and it is not acceptable for a neutral public domain like wikipedia. I find the behaviour of this editor quite frankly barbaric.

I have the right to report abusive behaviour it is not acceptable and it needs investigating! Ayshdbd (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to report a user, you may do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or one of the off-branches like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I personally do not believe Ftrebien has a “homophobic intent”, but if you believe so, I first recommend you discuss with them the issues, or if discussion does not work, reporting. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum, so please provide a link to a specific edit or edits when you make any and all reports/accusations. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reporting now I want this to stay up until it is complete. Ayshdbd (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems a bit extreme. Remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't waste your energies with this report. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

And so does 98% of cases are gay men when has history ever given such a ridiculous number!? Do these gay men have zero contact with straight people!? How does it knows to only infect gay men!?

User is persistent on pushing out of date and harmful statistics it is not ok. Ayshdbd (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: move stats to a template

As for the Omicron variant, I would like to propose that we move the case statistics to its own template to facilitate maintenance, see Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant/Archive 2 § Proposal: move stats to a template for the rationale and SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant § Reported cases for viewing the new access links at the top of the table. Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Total is mispelled as Todal

Can someone please correct this? VioletTheMess (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Mebigrouxboy (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Column on Deaths

I saw that more deaths are being reported. Should there be a column of deaths were cases per countries are? 2601:C6:C87F:9520:84D9:E8A3:55FE:17E0 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak in New York (state)

I really need some help with this article, i'll be appreciative if you can help. PopularGames (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please capitalize the title

Please Gristle McThornbody (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Lowercase is correct, see MOS:TITLECAPS. Endwise (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the Articles for countries and regions section

I recently tried a WP:BOLD removal of that section as it is, in a way, duplicate links that are at the bottom of the page (and every page listed there) in the Template:2022 monkeypox outbreak. My removal was undone without an edit summary, so I am starting this section to ask why we need to duplicate links in the article as a weirdly constructed "See also" section. COVID-19 pandemic & the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine do not have super large "sub-article link sections" within the articles content, but rather use templates at the bottom of every page. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree it would be best not to have such a list there. A list article similar to COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is probably better for navigation, readability and maintenance. Then, this article would link to the list article from the See also section. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the section has now been removed. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Automatically updating data?

Hi there! I'm Tol, the operator of TolBot, which automatically updates COVID-19 pandemic data (Template:COVID-19 data). Would anyone here like me to implement a similar system for this outbreak? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful and beneficial! I am all for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright; I'll get to work! I think I'll also use this as an excuse to finally rewrite the COVID-19 task, too (I think I can write something to do both simultaneously; hurray for code reuse)! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Deaths from the outbreak

Please leave this section in place to inform future editors of this article.

Monkeypox has two clades: West African, and Congo Basin. As per the WHO, this outbreak is caused by West African clade, not Congo Basin clade.

Each clade is endemic in a different set of countries. "Endemic" means that the disease is regularly found in that nation.

The current West African clade outbreak, which is the subject of this article, is defined as the spread of monkeypox infections in NON-endemic countries. In other words, what makes this an "outbreak" is that we are finding the disease in countries where it is not usually found.

For this reason, it is incorrect to list infections or deaths in countries where monkeypox is endemic. It is also incorrect to list infections or deaths due to the Congo Basin clade, which is currently limited to countries where Congo Basin is endemic, and is not part of the outbreak. Only deaths caused by West African clade monkeypox in NON-endemic countries should be listed here.

It is important not to mix this up, because it will paint a deeply misleading picture of where, and, by implication, why people are dying.

The most recent source I have found for deaths caused by West African clade monkeypox in NON-endemic countries is from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), which states that 5 deaths have been recorded so far, all in African countries where West African clade is NOT endemic. This is the correct data to use. When it needs to be updated, make sure to use an updated number for West African clade in NON-endemic countries only.

The latest WHO report on July 25 shows all 5 deaths are in endemic African countries (Central African Republic and Nigeria). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.229.61.114 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right (the WHO itself lists Nigeria and CAR as endemic countries, while the Wiki article on MPX has only Congo Basin clade endemic in CAR). The CIDRAP article does link the 5 deaths in Nigeria and CAR to the outbreak. I decided to lean on the side of deferring to CIDRAP and including these deaths. Very much support switching to better/newer/more consistent data if we can find it. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the 5 deaths in Nigeria and CAR (endemic) in order to be consistent with the rest of the article. Cases in endemic countries are not counted here, and as such the summary table just reports 5 deaths instead of 10. Hetsre (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we can cite sources like CIDRAP which are explicitly distinguishing between endemic and non-endemic deaths. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Could we please keep a note next to deaths section stating that these deaths occurred in non-endemic countries? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge endemic country and non-endemic country case numbers into the same table

Do you think we should merge endemic country and non-endemic country case numbers into the same table? For example Liberia reported its first case since 2018 during the current outbreak, but it appears in a separate case table to non-endemic countries. Given the total number of cases and countries now affected, this decoupling is starting to make less sense. Uhooep (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes! And I recommend when you do it update the (countries and territories) 2601:186:4500:83A0:41E2:694C:3DA6:D6C0 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way i'm 73.126.133.15 I'm gonna be back to my old IP soon 2601:186:4500:83A0:41E2:694C:3DA6:D6C0 (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Hetsre (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm back. I agree 73.126.133.15 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Structure of article is confusing and needs rewriting

In my opinion, the structure of the article is confusing: some sections are too thin and could be combined, while some subsections are out of place.

In particular:

• Deaths outside of endemic Africa should not be in Background;
• Outbreak characteristics, Initial reported cases in the United Kingdom, and Multi-country outbreak could be condensed.

I will try and simplify, feel free to revert. Hetsre (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete “the”

Quote: “ the unexpected appearance of monkeypox and the wide geographic spread indicate that the it might…” Change to “geographic spread indicate that *it* might…” Dstuhlsa (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Done! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Still not clarified enough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can not reply to my previous message? The numbers are too low to add up to 98% in total something has gone wrong here it does not take a mathematician to work it out? Also these numbers do not fit in with general demographics they seem massively inflated. Why are these the only two sources we can refer to? Bearing in mind how often they have got it wrong (miscalculated) in the past such as saying COVID 19 was not an epidemic when it most certainly was and was easily foreseen by most others. 109.158.18.139 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not directly replying to your questions, but you said that reliable sources “got it wrong (miscalculated) in the past”. Do you have a source for that, because any sources that the Wikipedia community decided produce factually/accurate information would almost not have “got it wrong”, especially since you are referring to RS. Also a note that Wikipedia does not accept or allowed original research, so whatever the reliable sources say is what must be used in the articles. If something is wrong, you should provide a reliable source that says it is wrong. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradicting statistics.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it 98% gay men or 99% men with 43% gay? Neither of these numbers fit any demographic anywhere in the world by the way not that many men are gay so a source other than CDC or WHO would benefit.

Clarity please! 109.158.18.139 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There are three statistics:

1. 98% in MSM (gay, bi and others) so far, according to Tedros Adhanom in a WHO press briefing on 27 July;
2. 98% in MSM, up to June 24; this is from a NEJM study published on 21 July reporting on 528 cases in 16 countries in 4 WHO regions (Europe, Americas, Western Pacific, and Eastern Mediterranean) and excluding endemic areas in Africa;
3. 44% in European individuals known to be MSM and 53% in European individuals with unknown sexual orientation, up to 2 August; maybe they didn't ask, maybe the individuals opted out of disclosing that information, we can't know; this is from the Joint ECDC-WHO Regional Office for Europe Monkeypox Surveillance Bulletin reporting on 15,624 cases in 32 countries and areas in Europe. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to clarify that passage adding the numerosity of the samples and slightly rewriting. Hetsre (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two differing total death graphs

There's a graph titled "Deaths outside of endemic Africa" in the Background section (where it absolutely does not belong) and another graph titled "Total deaths outside of endemic Africa" in the Statistics section. The two graphs differ. One of them should be removed, preferably the incorrect one. In the Statistics section, there is also a graph titled "New deaths, per day outside of endemic Africa" which is incompatible with the other two graphs. AxelBoldt (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Hetsre (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hetsre: Thanks much, the structure is a lot better now. Maybe it would be a good idea to mention in the "Statistics" section that detailed links to sources for these graphs are given in the "Cases per country and territory" section. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested sources

There have been eight review articles published in MEDLINE-listed journals in the last year.

PMID 34563454, PMID 35760647, and PMID 35833402 are paywalled. PMID 35894184 is in Chinese. Of the remaining four that most editors here will be able to read:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321130/ – broad overview in decent journal with mediocre publisher
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278444/ – mostly about virus evolution, vaccines, and treatments
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9272466/ – not likely to be useful in this article (looks at older outbreaks to see how often healthcare workers get infected on the job)
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870502/ – most likely to be useful for pre-current-outbreak background information

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)