Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

A Chart Suggestion- Infections Over Time

I hate to suggest this, but given the daily changes to the table on the article page, what I would think would be more useful than the geographic maps would be a cartesian graph with X being the date (days since "case zero") and Y being the number of reported infection per region/country/city/etc. Thus a line showing number of infections over time could help visualize the rate of infection. Different lines could be used for different countries or to show total infections vs. terminal infections. I picture something like dshort's economic Four Bad Bears graphic. Such a graph may also be useful to visualize "waves" of reported infection as well as illustrating how the rate of infection may differ between countries, or, if the data exists, between other epidemics/pandemics. Eventually (but hopefully not) such a graph may need to be adjusted to account for population rather than raw numbers. Or maybe a logarithmic version would be useful as well. Such a graph may be generated with Calc or maybe the Bar Box Template (or another Wikimedia template). If such a copylefted chart doesn't exist already (I'm guessing it does somewhere), this might be a good place to get it started. Any thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I made a crappy version of what I mean. I'm terrible with Calc, but this is the general idea. The source for these numbers are early reports on the forum at Flutrackers, a Huffington Post article about patient zero (suspected to be at least two weeks before April 13, or about April 1) I found, and the NYTimes timeline. Probably should have connected the dots better, and scaling the Mexican suspected cases crushes the US cases, but hopefully someone can do a better job of this with a sophisticated database/spreadsheet.

Template:Image

--Replysixty (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart Suggestion:::

If you want to send along the spreadsheet for the data, then I can help make a chart. I think it would be best to upload to wikimedia commons. That way people can edit and update easily.Enviropearson (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a spreadsheet expert- basically I have 3 rows- days from "case zero", US infections, and Mexico infections (we could add more). As the numbers came in on that day (and numbers were changing per-day), I picked one report, noted the source, and then put it in the box. Then made a clumsy graph of that. I know we can do better. We would need to decide methodology, since the reports are varying, and even within a single day the numbers increase. If Wikipedia supports graphs (which I couldn't find) we'd be able to do this a lot easier. Otherwise, we need to find a centralized point to collaborate (Google Docs doesn't support graphs... does Zoho?). Maybe a mysql-backed database that could generate graphs on-demand..? ie, mapview, by country, by demographic etc. This will require good solid info. Maybe the CDC could be the central source? do they provide this raw data already? --Replysixty (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracking table update time request

Moved to Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

World Organization for Animal Health

The OiE put out this released today in Paris clarifying that "There is no evidence that this virus is transmitted by food." I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. LeadSongDog come howl 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This has also been cofrimed by other sources. It is mentioned in one country where they banned North American Pork (Really how much pork does Romania import from North America?). It could be mentioned there or in a trade section if the bans become a widespread or sustained response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added something to this effect in the prevention section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany: the 3 possible cases no swine flu

As of the german newspaper "Maerkische Allgemeine" the 3 possible cases in germany are now proved to be NO swine-flu infections. -Validom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Also, in Spain there are 26 possible cases, not 35, plus one confirmed.--Fryant (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There had been lots more "possible cases" in Germany, but all negative. Currently there's only one possible case in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/47/466627/text/ —85.179.140.94 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rate of death in Mexico compared to other countries

Reading the article, I wasn't able to find exactly why the rate of death in Mexico is so much higher than in other countries. Is this solely because other countries are more developed with better medical care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.250 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it has had more time to incubate in Mexico as it originated there? --Vessol (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one hospital in Mexico initially lacked antiviral drugs and most stay-at-home mild cases are likely not getting reported. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard much more dire news from Mexico, as in the number of dead being much higher, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for anecdotal evidence. --Vessol (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the high level of air pollution in Mexico City is so high that it weakened people's lungs. Resurr Section (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be temperature related. How does Mexico differ from the US? Mexico is a lot hotter for one thing. And for a virus that spreads through the air and attacks the lungs, air temperature is most definitely relevant.Hawthorn (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's pure speculation and contradicts material on the transmission of flu on the generic influenza page. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware many of the deaths in Mexico appear to be from pneumonia which could be from a secondary or co-infection. This could be an existing problem in Mexico that is spreading there but not elsewhere so far (which could also be related to the quality of healthcare there, environment etc). It's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware of but the poorer quality of the detection systems and healthcare, the fact that it's only recently been detected et al mean that many of those with lighter symptoms who had the disease were not detected. See [1] for some discussion Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They could potentially have a higher rate of survival, and we wouldn't know it if they underreport cases (common amoung the poor who would not be diagnosed/treated). We have weeks or months to get the information. Anything now is speculation. Stick to the available facts. --MartinezMD (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean by 'it's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware' Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is total speculation, but haven't the US cases been mostly children? The 28 at that one school in New York represents more than 1/2 of confirmed US cases as of yesterday I think. If like the 1918 infection this one tends to kill people with mature immune systems (see Cytokine Storm), that alone could account for the discrepancy. Also, if we assume this has been in Mexico longer, say a month or so, it's had much longer for those deaths to accumulate (how far back in time does the Mexico "attributed" mortality list go?) If we're looking at the "tip of the iceberg" for each country's infections, I suspect the base of Mexico's iceberg is much broader than that of the US. As the virus spreads in other countries and a broader swath of the population is infected, my non-educated guess is the larger sample will result in a wider spectrum of severity. Like I said, total speculation. --Replysixty (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the virus is always changing when it's circulating in human bodies. As higher the virus population is, as higher the mutation rate, too. And the virus population in Mexico is far more higher than elswhere. For example, I chatted with a friend from Mexico yesterday and she said that she had fever, and her grandfather, too. A lot of people in Mexico don't go just to the doctor because of fever, and other cases have shown that the virus can disappear quickly with only mild symptoms. That means it is not adapted to humans well. On the other hand it is quite possible that the dark figures of infection are far higher and only some of the virus strain are leading to death. It needs some time to understand the virus. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets not speculate about the mortality rate based on mexico - currently there is so little information available. Two things: 1: there are suggestion the epidemic started all ready in february, , with all ready 1800 cases in a small town, leaving a a bit more than 100 for the currently confirmed cases. 2) There are fatal cases in various regions of mexico, which is highly likely to requires lots of cases even with a mortality rate of 10%. For me enough reason to believe there is a fair bit of under reportage. Therefore, I think, no good estimation can be made of the case fatality ratio or what so-ever. Lets wait for reliable data on this issue. You will need a good case definition and reliable data, both not available at the moment. Maybe there should be a statement that it is discussing the difficulties of estimating such a rate. On top of this, treatment, age, quality/access of health care, environmental factors etc. will make this ratio very time/place/situation dependent - even with the exact same virus. (AJvH (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

South Korea

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

timeline?

I think a useful section would be a timeline for the disease. People in the far future who are dealing with another outbreak will want to use this entry as research and being able to see how the disease progressed would be very useful for them when dealing with something similar.

It would also be useful for now because people who want to look to see if something major has happened they can just check the timeline without having to parse through all the entries in the history. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested graphing the rate of infection and created a (lame and poorly researched) example above. I may move those comments down here as I just picked a random spot for it, but if you scan for the graphic, you'll find it. --Replysixty (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Except the data we have is about when reports of infection were published. In many cases, those reports do not mention when the person's symptoms started, or even the date on which the sample was taken. Case in point is the little boy living near the pig farm: he got sick and recovered weeks ago and as of last night his sample was reported to be the oldest found so far in Mexico, but from context it appears the sample was obtained some time in April. The first spikes in influenza-like illness were first detected in Mexico in mid March, so a sample collected in April tells us little about the origin of this outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed cases.

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the Top

Discussion about why this article is larger than Spanish flu article - not really productive here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is now bigger than the 1918 Spanish Flu article. Around 60 million people died in this one. Is this outbreak really more serious than the one in 1918? Wallie (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Just because the 1918 Spanish Flu article was more significant in terms of death rate it does not mean this article should not be bigger. Many things are different between now and then, now there is more information readily available then there was back then, due to globalisation this swine flu can travel between countries a lot faster and there are more people in the world now that will become affected. Therefore more information is warranted, wikipedias purpose is to ensure all information about this can be accessible in one location, if you have any issues with that you need to speak to the media to stop reporting, therefore the page will not be updated.121.221.95.47 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC) OK. On that reasoning, if this 2009 version exceeds 60 million in deaths, I guess you will still think that the "death rate" doesn't matter. As for countries affected, I can assure you that many countries were affected in the 1918 outbreak. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Also think about the amount of sources this article has. In pure article text, the article isn't even that big. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Sources? The article should be NPOV. If there are 60 million killed, the same coverage should be given to both events. I just think that the POV is sometimes pushed by the younger folks. Some who were around in 1918 might have a different POV. After all they are living through both the 1918 and 2009 outbreaks. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The scope is different. Now news travel immediately, before it took days before they were published. Comparing events happening almost 100 years in between is even malicious. There wasn't internet, there wasn't Wikipedia, there was a global war, healthcare wasn't as developed as today, and viruses didn't travel as fast as today. There are too many differences to compare them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Why is it malicious? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a current news service. I just disagree with some people. I think the 1918 incident was more serious than the 2009 one is now. Others may think that the 2009 one is more serious. Wallie (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 1918 was 90 years ago; of course there's going to be more information on a current flu epidemic than an historical one. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC) An encyclopedia is supposed to present a balanced view. I would have thought that 60 million deaths was significant. Older people used to think it important. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to younger folk in the 21st Century. That's the way it is I guess. :( Wallie (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Nothing prevents anyone from improving the 1918 flu pandemic article. If you think that one should be longer, fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died. The old guys who lived through it think it was important. Does that not mean anything? Wallie (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Of course it should be bigger than this one. Read up on it and be bold. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Moni3. :) Wallie (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a paper document, and articles can be of any length. We don't set lengths for articles based on how important some people think the subjects are - "It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died." They should all be as long as possible, within our content guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, WP:VER and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia suffers from recentism, and from the desire of editors to be part of whatever is currently in the news. Every blurb on TV sends people scrambling to their keyboards. Eventually it may get pared down (and the 1918 article may get improved). The 1918 epidemic poses no threat to my family's health, but this one might, so it is of concern. This a consequence of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" compared to "an encyclopedia with an editorial board." Wikigroaning" refers to noting things like the coverage of Outer space versus Star Wars. Things in pop culture or in the news get far greater coverage than important historical things. Edison (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Animate the map?

Just an idea to animate the File:H1N1 map.svg to show reports of infection. I can't animate, but... thought someone else might be able to. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a static image is preferred in case, per WP:ANIMATIONS. However, if you're suggesting to keep the main map at the top, and just adding another version of a map (an animated one), I'd say that's a wonderful idea. hmwithτ 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Face mask comment by UK health secretary

J removed a paragraph regarding a statement by the UK health secretary:

"However, in the United Kingdom, Health Secretary Alan Johnson told MPs on April 27 that, "Although we are aware that facemasks are being given out to the public in Mexico, the available scientific evidence does not support the general wearing of facemasks by those who are not ill, whilst going about their normal activities."[120]"

J's explanation was "Prevention and treatment: Rm nn quote from someone with no medical background that may, in fact, be quite inaccurate and, I regret, dangerous if people are searching Wikipedia for advice."

Firstly, the health secretary of the UK is almost certainly acting on scientific advice so its dubious to claim that his advice is dangerously inaccurate (and misleading to say he has no medical background). Secondly the article is not giving medical advice but reporting that of others (amongst other things). If there is a notable criticism of the health secretary's statement then that could be included. Otherwise I think it should stay. I've reincluded it. Barnaby dawson (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Its more imporatant to include information that goverment officals make then for us to try and determine what is medically best. And if you think the UK's director of Health has no medical expertise, well your going to love the fact that there not one of the 20 US Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, Surgeon Generals, DHS) is currently filled by a Senate approved nominee as directed by the US Constitution. Which means the response is currently being run by Dept of Homeland Security; 'Hey, if we can screen luggage, we can call ourselves medical experts.' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile 5/8 DO NOT have the flu

Reference:

Blopa64 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile has now 18 Unconfirmed or suspected cases

Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blopa64 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China, new case reported

A new case has been repoted in china. We should update the main page. --Ken Durham (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly are you seeing this on CNN? I can't find any indication of swine flu. See e.g. [2]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hand washing

When are you suppose to wash your hands?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main page is already out of date, and needs to be unlocked

64.105.0.160 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With the amount of traffic this page is getting, it's best that it is locked. We can't risk vandalism giving readers untrue information. You can use {{editprotected}} to request edits in the meantime. hmwithτ 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Map "H1N1_map.svg" incorrect

The map H1N1_map.svg is not is up-to-date according to the table "Cases by country". There are no confirmed nor suspected cases in Costa Rica as erroneously the map states:

Costa Rica Free Of Swine Flu, But Maintains Alert --Ornitorrinco (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved. Thanks for the notice. CB...(ö) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it has not been resolved at all, the map still states that Costa Rica has susspected cases, which is wrong.--Ornitorrinco (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one confirmed case in Costa Rica.[3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More recent comment re portugal moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the maps gone now? The external maps used to be linked underneath the orange/red/dark red map. But now there is only one link in the 'external links' section. The other map link has been removed. Unfortunately, it was the other map that is far superior in its depiction as well as being up to date. - However I do not recall the url for that map any longer, it was the second google map that used pins with numbers of deaths indicated per region. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The section for the United Kingdom shows a map of the Republic of Ireland with the caption "currently none". As the RoI is not part of the UK, can't this section be renamed "UK and Ireland" OR can the map be re-captioned? doktorb _words^deeds 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, its misleading to say the least. Ireland has 6 suspected cases at the moment.--78.16.190.221 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more cases to the Mexico Column

Mexico in all probability has many more cases than it is reporting. It should at least be 630 more. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-flu29-2009apr29,0,5107384.story

What about putting an asterisk or a plus sign by the number to indicate that there are probably more cases than are being reported? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate removed from article

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 was the most serious influenza pandemic of modern times. An estimated 50 million people died worldwide.

I added the image at right to this article under the section Pandemic concern. It seemed very relevant to include an image of the most serious modern flu pandemic in the section that already specifically mentioned that previous pandemic in the same section: much like the deadly Spanish Flu of 1918. Shortly afterward, Calliopejen removed this featured picture candidate with the edit note "rm irrelevant image - not related to this disease"[4] I believe this removal was made with a mistaken rationale, and would like to reinstate the image. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully agreed; the image should stay in the article, especially considering the widespread comparisons between this outbreak and the 1918 pandemic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it should not be here. Yes this outbreak may turn out to be like the 1918 epidemic but it might also turn out to be like the SARS outbreak or other much less severe flu outbreaks. Why aren't we putting a picture of SARS or the Hong Kong flu in the article? It is silly to include a photo of a completely separate flu outbreak here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The swine flu outbreak hasn't been compared to SARS nearly as much as it's been compared to the 1918 pandemic. See [5], for example. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's largely because it's much less dramatic. (To the extent that the viruses themselves are similar genetically I still don't think that justifies including this photo.) And in any event this photo is just of nurses doing some sort of demonstration. Nothing historically important is going on in the photo. (And to boot the caption was totally misleading by not explaining what's going on, because it looks like there's a dead body on the stretcher.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is of high historical significance. Moreover, an incorrect caption should be simply edited, not completely removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just changing the caption isn't necessarily sufficient if the image looks like a dead body and most people will just skim over it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) The section is called pandemic concern. Surely it's appropriate to illustrate the 1918 outbreak; the image itself is fairly mild: a demonstration of public health measures taken at that time, not long rows of hospital beds etc. It is relevant, and not alarmist. Would it help if the caption specified more clearly that this was a demonstration photograph? Durova^Charge! 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the image need, the disease as yet only has the potential to become a deadly pandmeic. No deaths have occured outside of Mexico and the vast majority of cases are limited to those who have had recent travel to/from Mexico. While I agree with the need to detail the potential and to compare and contrast the outbreaks; comparisons of the current situation to the 1918 pandemic take a substantially different human reaction given a visual image. At this time, that comparison is premeture, unwarrented and is borderline Inducing Panic. It is the visual equivilant of showing the WTC in every article on terrorist bombings in India. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with image need in its relevance to the article. While it absolutely gives historical perspective there is no spot in the article that currently involves historical perspective in any great detail. Simply drawing parallels to the 1918 pandemic does not warrant this picture's inclusion. If a section were to be created specifically to draw contrasts and comparisons of this outbreak vs. previous outbreaks/epidemics/pandemics and draw historical perspective (a totally different discussion) then I can see where the inclusion of this image may be warranted. In the current form of this article though I don't see how this picture could provide useful insight into the current flu outbreak. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article split

I see someone split out the country-by-country section, which I think was probably a good decision as a general matter. Now, however, we need to rebuild the section in this article. I think a good approach would be a focus on countries where actual cases are suspected or confirmed, a only brief mention of the various restrictions on travel and pork import etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should only be a summary as usual for main/daughter articles.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too short now. While the "one country, one single-line paragraph" approach wasn't the best, we need to have a summary of at least the effects in North America (whether more granularity is needed is debatable, although I'd be in favor of it) and Europe. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Table needs to be updated

According to the "2009 Swine Flu Outbreak in US" article, there are 70 proven cases and 200+ possible cases in US whereas the table in this article shows 68 and 300+ respectively. Which number is correct I cannot tell, but the other table should be updated.

The same thing also goes for Spain (2 proven, 40 possible in the main article, 3 proven, 32 possible in this article).

Sincerely, 88.233.100.240 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That table is transcluded from another page. Information for the table is being gathered on Wikipedia here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia

Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia. Looking for source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[6] SF Chron quotes the LA Times ""Coroner's Capt. John Kades (KAY-dis) says tests are being run on two bodies to see if swine flu was a factor in their deaths, but there is no confirmation that the disease killed them. Kades offered no other details of the men."" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[7] ""Coroner's spokesman Craig Harvey said Bellflower Medical Center reported the death of a 33-year Long Beach resident Monday afternoon from symptoms resembling swine flu. It's that diagnosis that needs to be confirmed," Harvey said. "An autopsy will be performed to establish the cause of death."" --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for archive?

Could someone with the experience please archive this talk page? It's getting way too big. I'd do it myself but don't know how to, yet. Thank you! Jozal (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This happens automatically on coversations that are 12hours old. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the enlightenment. :) Jozal (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of manual archiving while we wait for the bot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. The page was getting massive. hmwithτ 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

California Governor declares state of emergency

Just pick this up from here. [8] -Xavier Fung (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confermed with CNN--Ken Durham (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added on US page with Reuters source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

added man made theory

plz improve it.added with a lot of proof. dont del it just cuz it is loony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Please recheck your article and post non-youtube references.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this user failed to sign, but regardless of that, I've deleted the section. It was clearly original research and relied upon self-published sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He failed to sign so that we could not report his vadilisum.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) You can look at the edit history to see who added it. Not sure it should be considered :vadilism." The "man-made" claim was referenced to a Youtube video of a "9/11 Truth Investigator" and journalist named Wayne Madsen. Youtube is not usually permitted as a reference. But the section included other well referenced information CNN about missing virus samples and Times of India about how "Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic" from March of this year, thus not directly related to the present. Putting this info out as a possible cause of the present epidemic would be original research and synthesis. We should not get ahead of the scientific and news reporting community in being "disease detectives," but neither should we censor inclusion if any reliable sources examine the genesis of the outbreak and look at accidental or intentional creation and release of the virus. Edison (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is reason enough; these sources are not exceptional. In fact they are barely tangental. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it violated our content policies. You're right, it's no way vandalism (spelling notwithstanding!) and I think that Ken went way out of line giving a vand-warning to the user concerned. But there we go... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Calm talk}}

I am just a little touchy about people posting things without any kind of proof at all. I do NOT consider youtube to be a reliable reference! How was I out of line?--Ken Durham (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line because you accused a user of vandalism, when in fact, he just breached WP:NOR. Perhaps you should re-read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF before leaving threatening messages. In future, {{uw-nor1}} {{uw-nor2}} etc. may be of use to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Check Google News for reliable sources discussing whether the flu could be man-made: The Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, said on April 28 the "deadly swine flu virus could have been man-made." The same statement was reported by Agence France-Presse. Telegraph.co.uk has an article from April 27 "Beware of swine flu conspiracy theories." The responsible route is to have a section stating the conspiracy theory, with countervailing statements to the contrary. We do not have to maintain an artificial implication that opinion of experts is equally divided. There is not a huge amount of material at this point on the question one way or another from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

how was I threatening? tell me that!--Ken Durham (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very tone of voice there is threatening. Tell me that! is threatening. What you should be saying is, "I didn't consider what I said to be threatening, what specifically were you referring to?" And what I was specifically referring to is/was this - it says that the section was deleted marked as vandalism (untrue: I deleted it, and said nothing of the sort) and that it was a "false section"... I'm sure that the user thought they were behaving appropriately.

All I'm suggesting is that you need to calm down a little, and refresh your memory of what vandalism is. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what. I think I am letting the wikistress get to me. I should take a wikibreak, don't you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Durham (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist (April 27) had the article "Is swine flu a bioterrorist virus?" with a discussion of how the odd combination of viruses could have arisen through normal processes.They discuss the conspiracy theories. They say "Yes, it's possible that this virus was created by a mistake at a research laboratory or a vaccine factory." But they say it is more likely a result of how we operate farms. Edison (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well that several events gave some power to this hypothesis, specially the cnn article: "Army: 3 vials of virus samples missing from Maryland facility". Echofloripa (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Split "Atribbuted Deaths" column

You can split this column in two (confirmed and posible deaths) like "posible and confirmed cases", this make the information more readable, and dont mix cases, that is important. And in the Mexico row there is only 20 confirmed deaths showed in the references, you could update the link with the information of 26 deaths or fix the error. --Programacion en Estado de Ebriedad 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The map

I like it! One person has been caught coughing in Russia, and so they chalk up one suspected case - so most of the top of the world gets to be painted bright orange. Wallie (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the map is intended to show what countries have been affected, meaning colouring all of Russia yellow is an unavoidable effect. Cordovao (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have an easy solution but I don't think Putin would like my Siberian Liberation plan. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Major facepalm right there. However I see where you are going with this. Perhaps we should break larger counrties up based on existing social, natural, or political lines. If you think you can do it pig, go ahead. If not, shoot me a message and I'll see what I can do...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you google it, theres a much better map, with dots pinpointing individual cases. It seems the flu is staying away from extreme cold as its furthest north suspected case was moscow. and that was a passenger from mexico with a fever, so its probably not even that far north. Alaska, is a major tourist area despite the extreme weather conditions, and they have no cases, suspected or otherwise. I have a feeling if this does turn into a full pandemic they will be telling people to run to the north. Or for people on he southern hemisphere, run to the south! Also, hawaii hasn't been hit yet despite our(yes, i ive in hawaii) high velocity of tourists. Hopefully it stays that way, but its probably only a matter of time.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his point was that it is a rather misleading map. When you're talking about cases in the hundreds it seems ridiculous to label a country of tens of millions as "affected" when the handful of cases in that country are not even confirmed. The country-wide shading lends disproportionate weight to what is so far a very minor outbreak. Remember, hundreds of thousands of people die from influenza per year anyway. We certainly should keep the page current but I'm sure there is a way to do that without joining the moral panic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thats why I told him if he can do the coding to go ahead and do it. I even volunteered to do it if he couldn't. I was just pointing out an interesting fact.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Container Explodes on Train

IMHO it should be at least mentioned in this article: [9] --romanm (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. As the article says in its introduction, "the virus was not the mutated swine flu that has killed around 150 people in Mexico and that has already spread to parts of Europe." As a result, I believe the incident is not notable enough for inclusion into the article. Thank you in any case, though. Cordovao (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also says "the dry ice melted" which I sincerely doubt, and which makes me question the reliability on scientific matters of the writer. Edison (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article said that the government claims it was not the same one. However, a few paragraphs later it says there were five cases of H1N1. The virus in mexico. I think their governement is telling people its not the same to avoid panic. Also, if dry ice isn't handled correctly it can melt causing sever gas buildup. Check out any of the millions of "Dry-ice bombs" on youtube and you can see just how easily this can happen.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many different strains of H1N1, one of which is the subject of this Wikipedia article, another different one that was involved in the train accident. The viruses on the train and in Mexico are not the same. Cordovao (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Update maps

The maps should be updated, there has been one confirmed case in Costa Rica, and unconfirmed cases in other states in the US.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the use painted in dark red??? are those deaths confirmed by the California Health State Department??--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The two recently deceased people have not been confirmed as having swine flu. Cordovao (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't appear that Russia and Thailand still have suspected cases. (Perhaps it was updated and someone just forgot to remove these?) --π! 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Careful what we say.

We must be very careful in what we write. Someone put a WHO heading and wrote in the first sentence "The World Health Organization (WHO) saw no need at this point to issue travel advisories warning travellers not to go to parts of Mexico or the United States."

Some people just read parts of Wikipedia. The CDC advises NO TRAVEL to Mexico unless essential.

We must be mindful of what we write. Maybe a warning on top or write carefully like saying the WHO didn't advise but the CDC later came out with a warning. Swine flu is no laughing matter. We'll see thousands dead. We could see millions dead. Dying is not funny, despite what vandals do. User F203 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not say "We'll see thousands dead". There is no proof of that. I do see your point regarding relating the WHO and CDC responses. Cordovao (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a resource for coordinating responses to emergencies. Both references should be included out of interest but not as a reference in an emergency. Also, stop being so melodramatic about it, I'd be incredibly surprised if we see even ONE more death from this Virus. 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are already over 100 deaths from the virus. rootology (C)(T) 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I said one MORE death. With the actions that governments are taking, the situation SEEMS under control. I'm not trying to troll or play the thing down, I'm just stating my opinion 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion shows how serious the situation is. People think only 100 dead. We will definitely see thousands dead. Just look at the common flu every winter. That kills thousands in the US and 250-500,000 worldwide (see this article, someone else found this figure). This flu is more worrisome that the yearly flu every winter. Therefore, at least a few thousand dead is a certainty. Hopefully, not millions dead. User F203 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I apply "We must be very careful in what we write", something you wrote, to something else you wrote "at least a few thousand dead is a certainty. Hopefully, not millions dead." Anyway, please read WP:NOTFORUM before making any further comments on what you believe will happen. Thank you in advance. Cordovao (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that lots of people will die is not the main point. The main point is that we have to be careful and not be a WHO spokesman. The CDC does have travel advisories. This distinction is important in an article about something that is going to kill many people. Everybody knows many will die, just not how many. I hope it's not as many.User F203 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that many will die? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the major point of this thread. However, over 100 dead already. Every winter, 250,000 to 500,000 people die (source=Wikipedia). The common flu in the winter isn't deemed an emergency but this is. So the proof that many will die has already been proven (100+ dead) and there's no proof or hint that the deaths will stop at what it is. :( This topic sickens me, I'm leaving now. User F203 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no such statement has been made by an external source, and certainly not with that level of certainty. Neither Avian Flu, nor SARS ever broke 1000, so time will be a better judge of that possibility. Point taken on the 'be careful anyway' as it is a serious topic, but the WHO did say they didn't believe it was containable. The reactions by individual governments has differed including a complete travel ban by Cuba. The WHO comment could be put in a section about reactions to the potential epidemic, but shouldn't be at the top of the page given the disagreement in related official sources. The thousands comment has already raised alarms on this talk page alone, so I think it's safe to say it is a matter of being careful as well. aremisasling (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposition/remove chart?

The chart at the top of the article is getting a little out of hand (i.e. massive). Would it be better to remove the chart and only have it in the subartice 2009 swine flu outbreak by country? Or should it be moved? (Maybe to the by country section?) The problem with moving it is there would have to be a big space because the table is much much longer than the by country section now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes, a further column was added, that's why. Better is to delete a column, either Confirmed or Attributed deaths. We don't have much figures to fill the columns. -- Grochim (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We can fix it/format it better (we have enough smart people for that) but I'm still opposed to removing it from the top of this main article. It's an invaluable resource, and the best single focal point for where things stand. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We could hide it in a collapsible box. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, imo, Juliancolton. Cordovao (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the map at the top and the collapsed chart next to the by country section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the table should remain at the top; it is a much better reference than the map since the map shows no differentiation between countries with many confirmed cases and those with only 1 or 2. My suggestion would be to split the table in two, with one table for countries that have confirmed cases and a second, collapsible table with possible cases below. Another alternative is to only have a table with confirmed cases, since it's getting to a point that every time someone gets a headache in a country it gets reported as a possible case. Wine Guy Talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Map Colours

Can we please bring back the original black/red/yellow scheme. The current colours are pretty poor, plus it will be harder to distinguish between the colours as the affected country gets smaller.

Agreed, we also already know the ocean is blue. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah leave the oceans white.

I agree that black/red/yellow was better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms

Nowhere does this article specifically discuss the symptoms of this disease (except the picture). If they are the same as every other swine flu, then maybe a sourced statement to that effect should be added. (And maybe a brief summary of the symptoms with a pointer to the complete article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico case count?

Any sources on these counts? It's been at 1995 for some time--has there been no new news out of Mexico? rootology (C)(T) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico's offically returned to the thrid world. Their Dept of Health has put a defacto ban on letting health care workers talk with the press and put an end to press confrences. Likewise the Mexican press has the crack investigative journalism skills of Channel One. Don't expect much for the next few days. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me augment my comments. The Dept of Health is still giving press confrences but is (accoring to the transcripts I've found) not mentioning numbers at large, only a few particular cases here or there (~of these 26 cases on this date 5 were postive, ~of the 24 cases on this date 3 were positive). IMHO when you have 1000s hospitalized and probally 1000s more at home trying Tamiflu and Tijauana knockoffs, the response to whitewash numbers is just pathetic. The Mexican style of press conferences isn't the same as in the United States, its more standing up infront of a crowd of photographers letting them snap pictures for 15 mintues, giving a 30 minute speech that contains more praises for goverment workers than useful information, and maybe taking one or two questions from friendly reporters. As far as the ban on letting workers talk to the media, that came from Anderson Cooper 360 on April 27th, I can not find a transcript though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the Mexican government has banned all contact with the news media? That sounds insane. rootology (C)(T) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so that is the case, then? I saw talk of adding a note in the table that Mexico is known to be underreporting. If this is an established fact, it should be clearly pointed out. --π! 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you establish it? It would bascially require a reputable source discounting the Mexican goverment. Frankly I don't think Janet Napoletano, who is more interested in keeping guns out of Mexico than stoppig people who have the flu from crossing the border, is going to do that. As far as the American media, they're too busy covering Britians Got Talent. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact the information of Mexico are quite poor, in comparison to the United States. I miss for example the current number of the laboratory confirmed cases and deaths. We had at first 20 confirmed cases, and then there was from one day to the another 172 confirmed cases. I think in a week more they will suddenly publish 2000+ cases or more. Is it so difficult to publish the current cases? For Mexico, apparently, yes. -- Grochim (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the CDC has a count tracker right on the frontpage of their site, since it updates based on state Dept of Health statements and CDC testing its not always the first updated but it has a timestamp and is updated consistantly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatality rate

This article is saying the fatality rate is 7%, 4.5% higher than Swine Flu. It cites "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society", a quarterly philosophy journal. The actual report is based around Spanish Flu, and has nothing to say about swine flu whatsoever. Where did they get this figure?

I'm guessing they got it by dividing the total deaths by the total cases? --π! 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know the total number of cases. We have numbers from various sources we post, but no one really knows. 273 dead out of 2528 gives you a mortality rate, but not the correct rate. What if there are an additional 2500 we don't know about or an additional 25000? Fact is until it burns out in at least one area, having infected as many as it will, we just won't know. I vote we stay away from mortality rates until a very reputable primary source(like WHO or CDC, not like the Daily Mail or CNN) puts a number out there. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against putting together "information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources." A health official stating a mortality rate would be legitimate for the article. A Wikipedia editor dividing a number of attributed deaths by a number of estimated cases,to arrive at a mortality rate would not be appropriate. Edison (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

'Hundreds Of Kids' Have Suspected Swine Flu

"Many hundreds" of schoolchildren in New York are sick with suspected swine flu, according to the city's health commissioner. [10] -- Grochim (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many columns in table; suggested merging of refs

I think there are too many columns in the 'Cases by country' table, perhaps the references should be merged into the other columns such as the table in 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States? This would also make it clearer which reference is for which number in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nskrill (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I second this. Someone want to be bold and fix it? hmwithτ 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way it was yesterday... does anyone know why it was changed? --π! 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd check the edit history of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. In the meantime, I made the refs column thinner. hmwithτ 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be easter for the reader, because they wont know which reference is the right one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I separated the confirmed and suspected deaths because three editors separately suggested it. You can change it back if you want; I'm indifferent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nskrill (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 cases in Venezuela

Can anyone add Venezuela and update the map?? And Uruguay has one case, here are the references, they are in Spanish Venezuela, Uruguay--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are suspected cases for those who don't speak Spanish, but yeah, let me add them there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

To all who have contributed positively thus far, I wanted to say well done. The outbreak is a sensitive and fast changing issue, and the quality of the article at the moment stands as a testimony to the value of the Wikipedia community. Thank you, and let's keep it up. Cordovao (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed! Though I haven't personally contributed to the article(s), I've been watching them progress and maintain a high quality despite the huge amounts of information flooding in. Well done, everyone. Jozal (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We're all going to die. 75.164.159.67 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But the article will survive ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, great response Grochim. Cordovao (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grochim gets a point. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia longa, vita brevis, mutatis mutandis. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful and not just focus on the WHO. Those who want WHO's viewpoint can go to their website. The WHO and CDC are starting to have separate opinions. NPOV requires that WP not be a WHO spokesman. I see no problem now but let's be mindful when editing. User F203 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDICAL applies here?

Is there a template we can use to advise of this disclaimer? Seems appropriate here.  GARDEN  20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did but someone removed it. I'm not going to fight over it even though it should be there. User F203 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Use one at the top of the talk page if you want, but not in the article per WP:NOT and WP:NDA. Cenarium (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the info.  GARDEN  21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The no disclaimer is not policy, just a guideline. I don't favor huge banners that say "this article may be full of lies and may be wrong" but I've seen warnings in articles of active hurricanes before. User F203 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from the policy guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles:

There are a few exceptions to this: ... * temporal templates such as {{current}} or {{future film}}. These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia ...

Seems quite applicable in this case. Readers should be advised that available info is in flux. Plvekamp (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to 2009 H1N1 Flu Outbreak

It is clear that pigs only play one part in this disease, and their place in the transmission chain is no longer a threat. Humans are now primarily transmitting this disease, and thus a normal flu name would benefit Wikipedia's community better. In addition, a governmental agency (USDA) requests that it be referred to this way. Wikipedia should stand for official sources, and not what independent media stations are saying. Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name you are suggesting? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most sources call it "swine flu", so we should use that per WP:UCN. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

However, many people are confused as to whether pork spreads this disease. It does not, according to multiple sources. If Wikipedia clears this confusion by changing its article name, then its community will benefit. In addition, swine flu is a misnomer because this strain contains avian, human, and swine components. Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So? It's the name it is commonly known as which is the most important thing here. What one government agency (that I for one have never even heard of) says is unimportant in this case.  GARDEN  21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO and the CDC continue to refer to it as Swine Influenza (Flu). Those are the most official sources there are for this. Wine Guy Talk 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We reflect the sources. . .why would we care about what the USDA wants to call it? It's NPOV that's reflected here, not the view(s) or agenda of a gov't agency. Move back to original title unless a case can be made that this new name is more common (unlikely in my view). R. Baley (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion in this thread, the article is currently at 2009 swine flu outbreak.  GARDEN  21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

according to an AP article, Israel claims the name is offensive to jews and muslims and should be changed to Mexican flu (one can imagine the people of Mexico would be none too pleased with that!) for better or worse, I think it should remain with the name it started with. sherpajohn (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The best common name for this is disease is "Mexican flu". People have named earlier epidemics of the influenza virus as "Spanish flu", "Asian flu" and "Hong Kong flu, based on the area in which they may have (but not necessarily did) first appeared. Wikipedia should therefore use the name "Mexican flu" for the current epidemic.Corker1 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent Avien Flu outbreak would be a counterexample to that. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone actually calling it that? We're not prescriptive here; we should use the name being used. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Every source I've seen so far including several in other languages, calls it swine flu. It's common to the point of regular translation. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" may not be the usual name for the disease much longer. Farmers are complaining that the name may hurt their businesses. Corker1 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As this situation is rapidly developing, I revise my earlier suggestion. I propose not to immediately change the article's name, but instead to wait 48 hours and see what is happening then. Nintendo 07 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press article that I cited above contains the following information: "We're discussing, is there a better way to describe this that would not lead to inappropriate actions on people's part?" said Dr. Richard Besser, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "In the public, we've been seeing a fair amount of misconception ... and that's not helpful." The European Union's health commissioner has suggested the virus be renamed "novel flu."Corker1 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth including a section on the virus's name somewhere in the article. I've seen a number of news stories about proposals to change it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The LA Times is reporting (via Reuters) that Israel is now going to call this the "Mexico Flu". I'm thinking that this what we should be calling it from now on. All previous flu outbreaks have been referred to from where the outbreak began (think Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, etc.) It's only a matter of time (I think) before the major media outlets call it this, and it also falls more in line with how these flu outbreaks have been handled in the past. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that, as long as the media is still using the name "swine flu", it's what we need to go with. Until sources are more consistently using the term "Mexico flu", it doesn't seem practical to use it in this article. You may very well be right that the name will be changing soon, but we should wait until we cross that bridge. DreamHaze (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Data Needed

• The layout of the article and chart deliver a 'snapshot' perspective on the outbreak. It is very difficult to see how things have evolved over the past several days, which in turn makes it difficult to estimate where they might end up.
• The page needs to offer a better "outbreak-over-time" experience. Right now the only way to get a feel for where things are headed is to look at previous revisions.
• As officials have stated infection is 'unlikely to be contained', this outbreak could last a while, and therefore additional incentive exists to add time data to this article.

Attributed/Confirmed Deaths Confusion

May I suggest that the "confirmed deaths" be incorporated into the "attributed deaths", since confirmed deaths are by definition attributed? So still have two columns, just have the confirmed deaths added to the tally of attributed deaths. Or add (unconfirmed) to attributed. It's a little confusing as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.165.37 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

US Attributed Deaths

Resolved

I noticed that the attributed deaths column has "Two" listed under the US. I feel this is very misleading considering the original source states that these two deaths were likely NOT attributed to the new swine flu strain.

I think that when writing about the first attributable US deaths, wikipedia must be VERY careful in what it writes. The first US deaths is an extremely significant event and needs to be checked and re-checked before that first "1" is put up there. I suggest that the attribtued deaths column entry for the US be reverted to "zero", until there is serious speculation among experts that a death is attributed to the new strain of swine flu. I will not edit myself as I am not that experienced but I suggest that someone change it. Vihsadas (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This has since been fixed, but I do not know what the proper protocol is in marking this complete, or removing the topic heading altogether... Vihsadas (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Genes From Pigs Only, Not Humans or Birds

See http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/swinefluupdate/. I would update the article with this information, but at the moment I'm occupied. Emw2012 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's confirmed by more sources. This journalist can't even spell the University of Edinburgh correctly, which makes me severely doubt the quality of his research. Many other sources have claimed that it has the human/avian/swine components, so I think we ought to make sure that's thoroughly debunked first.62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen this is both true and false. There are 8 pieces of RNA in the virus, of which between 2 and 5 came from European pigs and between 3 and 6 came from American pigs. Of those 3-6 pieces from American pigs, one most closely matches bird flu RNA in simple homology searches, and one most resembles a piece of human influenza RNA from a strain circulating around 1993. (These are two basic polymerase genes, PB2 and PB1 - which can have an important effect on species specificity [11][12]) The simplest explanation is that many flu strains in pigs have come to include bits of bird and human viruses - the "mixing vessel" idea. But the homologies between these sequences and other known bird, human, and swine sequences are not really that different (see [13] #20), and only members of GISAID currently have direct access to the sequence. Until we see a published molecular taxonomy of these sequences it might be premature to say whether a gene came from a bird or a pig based on the top BLAST match. Nonetheless, some people have made these statements, perhaps based on careful analysis, and for now we should cite all the reliable sources we can find without choosing one favorite interpretation. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps need to be updated

The maps need to be updated, i see that not even Costa Rica wich has one confirmed case has painted in red, and Honduras and Venezuela has new cases Honduras.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC

CDC vs WHO

When there was a SARS outbreak, the WHO issued travel advisories to certain cities (ie Toronto). The CDC issued a similar statement saying that traveling was fine. Respiratory therapists considered the reaction to be overblown. WHO is used in this article, I suggest the use of the (more level headed) CDC. Any comments? BFritzen (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we tell people what they both say. There is no need to choose one over the other. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a global perspective on all events, and when we're dealing with an international disease outbreak, this is particularly important. Why use the CDC when we have a perfectly decent, authoritative, official global authority? Turkmenistan, Armenia, Bolivia etc may also have a particularly level headed health department, but using their advice as the benchmark would be absurd. Why should this change for the CDC just because the USA is a larger country? 62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the argument that a global issue such as this requires a response by a global organization not to be secondarily placed in the article to a national organization's response. Cordovao (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You realize your arguing a point nobody will ever get?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I was arguing a global organization's responses takes precedence over a national one. Cordovao (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm not sure it's worth having a whole independent section for the WHO. Maybe it would be better to integrate that info as appropriate throughout the article. Maybe some sort of omnibus response section that incorporates the WHO info as well as info from the 2009 swine flu outbreak by country article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how often that is not true.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the WHO can't even manage to pack dry ice around Flu Samples to keep them from exploding... [14] I think I'll take my hand washing and travel advice from someone else... 'Hello Mom?' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Map problem

Portugal has NO confirmed cases. Should be white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.11.67 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the legend again and realize your error. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have any suspected cases either. (I'm assuming he means it should be gray.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are also assuming he is a he. I learned the hard way to never make such an assumtion. ;) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A safe assumption it turns out! (Preliminary user survey says that only 12% of wiki editors are female. :( ) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Userbox

Use this template to put the userbox on your page{{Template:Userbox Swine Flu}}
If you have swine flu use this template {{Template:Userbox Swine Flu2}} Drew R. Smith(talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A Pig

This user has NOT contracted Swine Flu.

Template:Userbox Swine Flu2

This box needs a {{fact}} tag.... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A wha? This is more for amusement than any scientific uses.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

All we need is one that says they have and they might haved and we shall be fine.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Working on them now...Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Got the "Have swine flu" box up. Probably not going to do suspected box. seems like a waste...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion on this page limited to discussion regarding improvements to the article itself. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm invoking WP:IAR here. There are a lot of editors working very hard on this page, and a bit of harmless, light relief never hurt anyone. Well done so far, and keep up the good work guys. Manning (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

More cases in Nicaragua

OKay, 3 posibles cases in Nicaragua has been confirmed, now it supposed to be in red (can anyone add it to the tabl?) here is the reference in Spanish.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wearing Masks

Some physicians in the US are recommending the use of masks when in public.[102] The purpose of a face mask is to effectively cover a person's mouth and nose so that if a person is around someone who is infected

Could this be changed to uninfected,

Table formatting problem

"United States" and "United Kingdom" are breaking over two lines in the table for me, but the counts aren't, causing the counts to not properly line up with the countries they refer to. --π! 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that same thing happens to me. It needs to be fixed. hmwithτ 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed I changed it to say US & UK. They're pretty common abbreviations, and they link to the articles. hmwithτ 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The same thing is happening with New Zealand now, but I'm not sure if there is any come abbreviation that would work.--69.148.8.183 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zlnd.? Haha, come on. There has to be a better way. Can someone give that column a fixed width? We should take this to the template's talk page, although it only shows up incorrectly when transcluded on this article. rhmwithτ 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Table discussions should be held at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. (There's a very small "d" link at the bottom of the transcluded table.) --Zigger «º» 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it just got started here because the problem only existed on this page, but good idea. Discussion directed in that direction. hmwithτ 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"swine flu" is obviously wrong

Is the english wikipedia the last one which changes the lemma? It's not a swine flu, because it has genes from swine, bird and human influenza. It isn't even proven if the virus can infect swines. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Our naming conventions say to use the "common name" for things. Right now, that is how it is commonly known. hmwithτ 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Common names not necessarily are the most used names in the media. Because the most media simply multiply terms without reflecting. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let us all take the enlightend view then pride ourselves in our enlightenment... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CNNm, yahoo, google, every other news, the government, all call it swine flu. I think thats the media adopted common name...--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SARI

PAHO's Influenza cases by a new sub-type: Regional Update (28 April 2009 13:00 WDC) (Epidemiological Alerts Vol. 6, No. 14) describes the early Mexican illnesses as SARI (severe? acute respiratory infection), but also mentions "SARI/ILI" in the surveillance section. SARI is currently absent from the 2009 flu articles. Does anyone have more information on this? --Zigger «º» 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be severe acute respiratory infection.[15][16][17] Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move page?

Should I move the page to "2009 H1N1 outbreak"? According to NBC Nightly News, the government is starting to call it the "H1N1". --Goldblattster (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better to wait till more sources are calling it H1N1. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has happend before; though the outcome may change. The government (Janet Napoletano, DHS secretary that has been doing most of the Press Confrenses on the outbreak) also refers to terrorism as 'man caused disasters', and the Global War on Terror as 'Overseas Contingency Operations'. I highly doubt the WP communitiy has the consensus to follow such name changes. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone already moved it (see discussion on WP:AN#Swine flu article just moved). Consensus was to move the article back and move protect it. hmwithτ 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the Move History of an article? I remember when it was the 2009 North America Swine Flu. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Logs showing two recent moves: [18] [19] --Zigger «º» 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, see #"swine flu" is obviously wrong 2 sections above this one. hmwithτ 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the feedback. I will not move it. I realized that so far, the US is litterly the only country that is calling it the H1N1 2009 outbreak. :-) --Goldblattster (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Source 8 bunk info

I don't edit Wikipedia because it's scary, but I thought I would let those who do know that source #8 links to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081755.html , which is an editorial that is unrelated to the swine flu outbreak. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.158.48 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually its source 9 right now... The headline is correct "Authorities fear third and fourth cases of swine flu in Israel" but the url should be http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081774.html --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Deaths new number

Actual Deaths from swine flu in Mexico is not 20, but 7 according to WHO[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.249.29 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map difficult to read?

It seems to me that his newer map is difficult to comprehend as a lot of the countries blend together, because they're so small. I know you can just click on the map to make it larger, but the olded map seemed a lot more easier to read to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.2.171 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Name section

Seems like it might be worth writing one. Sources: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New possible cases in Colombia

The total number is 42. Source: Las autoridades vigialn 42 posibles casos de gripe porcina en Colombia [27]--SaitoK (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)