Talk:Zika virus outbreak timeline

Timeline vs List

The precedent seems to be the use of lists of outbreaks of a disease rather than a timeline. See the pages in Category:Medical outbreaks. Alcherin (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A timeline is a useful data format in and of itself, as the 2009 flu pandemic timeline well demonstrates. kencf0618 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Notation of the first Zika case reported or index case is a critical marker. Many cases continue to not reported , the confirmed infections do not reflect actual current pandemic. Stardelivery (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion must include Zika transmission by mingling body fluids.
Transmission of the virus by an infected sex partner is greatly under reported. Stardelivery (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Potentially useful article

Probably this is all covered already, but Reuters published a nice little timeline a couple days ago. I didn't see it in the references. — Gorthian (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Very interesting that the first neonatal neurological cases cropped up in French Polynesia. All manner of basic research is being fast-tracked for Zika, not least the retrospective analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another, quite comprehensive, from WHO. — Gorthian (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This goes with the above. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing years in 2013-2014 section

In Zika virus outbreak timeline#2013-2014, there are not years stated for the 2nd through 4th bullets. I believe the intended year is 2014 for all of them, but looking through the article in the {{main}} link, I didn't prove (or disprove) the point to myself. I suggest a year be added at the very least to the 2nd bullet, if not to all three, since it might be reasonable to conclude they are chronological, and so the year is implied on the 3rd and 4th. You can't really make the presumption that the 2nd bullet flows chronologically from the 1st, though, since the 1st bullet mentions dates both before and after March 2014. Adding the year to each of the bullets seems better still to me, but I can see the argument for not having as much repetition. —Salton Finneger (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, that section needs a cleanup - there shouldn't be four separate entries for French Polynesia at all, and the information needs to be condensed down into a summary paragraph. However, the main article doesn't mention the perinatal and hematospermia cases, and if the details on these cases are removed from this article, then the details need to be added to the main article. Alcherin (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit accordingly, folks! I've held off on adding to the timeline on a daily or even weekly basis precisely because I wanted processed information to allow for some perspective, so feel free. kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)