Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

See also: Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table, File talk:H1N1 map.svg, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country, and Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline

Smithfield Farms from Virginia in Veracruz

It is not Smithfield Farms the one who has to say they are not the cause of the problem, OMS should confirm that. Because in 1985, Smithfield Farms received what was, at the time, the most expensive fine in history – $12.6 million – for violating the US Clean Water Act at its pig facilities near the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia , but when NAFTA came into effect 1994, Smithfield Farms moved its harmful practices to Veracruz, Mexico so that it could evade the tougher US regulators. Reporter Jeff Teitz reported in 2006 on the conditions in Smithfield’s US facilities: " Pigs are artificially inseminated and injected with antibiotics to bear the sicknesses they have. They are fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals became lethal and pigs start dying."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

Consider what happens when such forms of massive pork production move to unregulated territory where Mexican authorities allow wealthy interests to do business without adequate oversight. What happen when a lagoon is near, filled with all that shit and flies transport their sicknesses to the people.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=opinion&article=020a1pol&partner=rss http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

cnn breaking news.

i've just seen a developing story from cnn, they show more evidence towards the threat level rising to 5 within the next few hours and patient zero has been discovered as a five year old boy from Mexico. Since Obama's last visit to Mexico it has been reported he has contracted swine flu.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.0.250 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball. We need to wait for clear evidence of a WHO announcement. The supposed "Patient Zero" is already in the article and some of the problems with this identification are discussed above. Rmhermen (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

International press reporting W.H.O. saying Level 5 close and imminent [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.51.25 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--If the WHO announces a level 5 it's rumored most U.S. schools will shut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolOne99 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to report rumors, or even initial reports. We are writing an encylopedia article based on the best information available from multiple reliable sources. Let's not fall into the trap of the newsmen who must report quickly and so sometimes report incorrectly. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to illustrate how ridculous that rumor is... The United States is a nation of 300 million, it has a shit-ton of schools (the dept of Education now teaches shit-ton measurments instead of the metric system). The overwhelming majority of which are over 100 miles away from an infection. Infact of the 263 cities with populations over 100,000, the vast majority are over 100 miles of a confirmed or even suspected case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rmhermen. If level 5 is reached we will enter that information into the article, but not before. Cordovao (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is easy to get carried away sometimes. However, we also don't want to be an out-of-date encyclopedia, so we should be on the ball when the facts become evident. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is the place to write breaking news stories. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO is holding a press conference right now to announce level 5. Plenty of sources should be available shortly. And yes, wikinews is the place for breaking news, but once sources are available it should be added to this article. Wine Guy Talk 20:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

Resolved

In the first paragraph of the introduction, it says "Despite the scale of the alert, the WHO stated on April 29 that the majority of people infected with the virus make a full recovery without need of medical attention or antiviral drugs." "with the virus make a full recovery" doesn't make sense; does it mean "with the virus will make" or "with the virus have made"? I checked the cited source, but it didn't clarify from what I could tell. Cordovao (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads as a continuing? tense (My 7th grade english teacher is shouting in my head right now). Its based on past evidence but is general enough to assertain WHO's theory of how the rest of this will play out. The majority people who become infected, make a recovery with without drugs. WHO applies to all the people that have become infected, are infected now, or will become infected. (Unless the virus changes again) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we shouldn't really make such sweeping predictions, I've changed this to read "have made", since all we can really say is that is what has happened so far. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is a bit awkward, but we have to distinguish between virulence (level of lethality) and epidemicity (how easily the virus spreads), and all in the context of epidemiological known unknowns, to coin a phrase. There are many variables, but part of the problem is that we're dealing with the law of large numbers. A tiny percentage of a very large number is itself a large number, such that a global pandemic of low lethality shall generate a lot of dead people —even a flu virus can win the lottery. Hence the WHO's caveat —most people shall recover, savvy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 5, how to approach

Please do not adjust the article to say level 5 has been reached without citing a reliable source. We know the level has been reached, but please cite to a reliable source nonetheless. Thank you in advance. Cordovao (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN has it. I'm not great with editing so I'll leave it up to some of the more technically inclined people to do it. I'm more here for fact checking. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Added. Good to have you here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome. :) Thank you for your source, and thank you Tim for adding it. Cordovao (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO link in the lead needs updating as well but I can't currently get their page to load. Rmhermen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally got the WHO page to load, but they haven't updated their Current Level illustration. We will need to update our link after they update theirs. 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Level 6

Actually, I heard on the news today that it was raised to a level 6. I'll try to find a source for that. hmwithτ 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, it is confirmed 35 minutes ago at press briefing at WHO it was raised to 5, I don't think they raise it to 6 in under 30 min. _→AzaToth 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

NO, it's on CNN right now and it was raised to a level 5. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, the news was wrong. Wow, I almost want to call in and complain. I literally just heard it moments ago. I looked, and I can see that this is totally false. They must have accidentally said "level 6" instead of "level 5". That's a big mistake. It was only local news (Columbus, Ohio), but I'm going to call the station and make sure it gets corrected. hmwithτ 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens, with how fast updates are coming. New Zealand announced "six dead" in the US 48 hours ago... rootology (C)(T) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to interfere with your non-Wikipedia decisions, but may I venture it was an accident as you suggested. All humans make mistake, and so long as they said it is level 5 later on I do not believe a complaint is necessary. Cordovao (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Its important to remember that the WHO director is the director of an international health organization. Her comments are primarialy directed at national leaders; national health organizations; and medical centers. While we record her comments in an encylopedia nature and the press covers it, her comments are not directly intedended for private individuals. Wash your hands, cover your mouth when you cough, and prepare your zombie defense kits. Its not yet time to start looting or shooting people in the head. For most of us, nothing actually changes from 4 to 5 to 6, only the wikipedia article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as level 6?

RE: Pandemic_Severity_Index#Guidelines

I am confused, this section of wikipedia only goes up to level 5, and the graph, from the CDC, only goes up to level 5, quoting the CDC:

Future pandemics will be assigned to one of five discrete categories of increasing severity (Category 1 to Category 5)"

Can someone clarify in the Pandemic_Severity_Index article? Ikip (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer: Yes (level 6 is a pandemic). hmwithτ 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better Answer: The CDC classification is diffrent from the WHO scheme. This page uses the WHO scheme. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a much better answer. Any ref for the WHO scheme. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:FedFluPandemicResponse.png This page has an image of both side by side. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect I should have named that WHOFedPandemicResponse! I hadn't expected the image to be cropped, so the original name is a bit of a misnomer now. kencf0618 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

WHO director Margaret Chan refers to it as such: [3]

For the first time in history, we can track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time.

WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

The biggest question, right now, is this: how severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?

JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - should be 2009 flu pandemic as per 1918 flu pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO is now labeling this a pandemic, then we have to as well. Subjective severity or where it ends up doesn't matter, and is WP:OR. Note that I protected ALL of these articles earlier against non-admin moves as possible vandal targets. Once we have confirmation and broad consensus, any admin can move these--I just did all the ones linked off off the outbreak template which needs renaming then as well. We have a LOT of valid redirects here as well--all of them will need to be redone. Since (as ever with these articles) this is time sensitive and literally is a black and white binary decision, let's just poll and do this efficiently. rootology (C)(T) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming these articles to -pandemic per the WHO

1. Per the WHO, use 2009 flu pandemic as the top-level naming structure going forward once the WHO begins calling it a pandemic in public documents/statements. If/when the WHO calls it a pandemic, it's 100% not sensationalism for us to do so as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Once WHO officially calls it one, it is one. Move when needed. hmwithτ 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. When it gets to level 6 on the WHO scale then move. I don't think it's there yet.  GARDEN  21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, and why

1. Not at WHO level 6 yet: which most closely matches the deifintion of a Pandemic --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. No yet. No sensationalism please. Yug (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Not yet. Just because WHO uses the term does not mean that it is the Common Name per our policies. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Not yet. Margaret Chan is referring to the 'coming Pandemic'. Phase 5 represents an imminent Pandemic, but not one in progress. It is not yet a Pandemic and the WHO is not advertising it as such. Addendum: And what, dare I ask, is wrong with calling it an 'outbreak' or 'epidemic' anyway? Both are blatantly more applicable. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
5. It's not of sufficient scale in two WHO regions yet. http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html kencf0618 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia follows the health authorities, who have not moved it to level 6 yet, and reliable news media. We should not strive to be tabloid journalists. Edison (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   WHO called it a pandemic. See the beginning of this section, or this link. I'm about to be bold and move it. hmwithτ 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   too bold. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, I wasn't being totally serious, but I don't understand why people don't want to move it. WHO is the ultimate authority on this, not Wikipedians or our opinions, per WP:OR. hmwithτ 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Beware ultimate authorities. The WHO statement when they updated to 5 was for nations to get ready for a pandemic. The WHO always assumes that each outbreak will reach pandmic because that is how they operate. Its better for them to be safe than sorry. But WP operates diffrently, we wait until things 'are' rather than 'might be' or 'will be'.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm aware of how Wikipedia operates. My point is that when it's called a pandemic by WHO, we should move it. Most people are opposing based on the fact that they don't think it is one yet. However, if you read the first supporting vote (by Rootology), this poll is simply saying that it should eventually be moved there when WHO calls it a pandemic... not necessarily that it should be moved now. hmwithτ 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Not yet. While it is clear that the WHO is anticipating a pandemic, and that we are watching the likely evolution of one, we are not there yet. When and if the WHO goes to phase 6, I will support renaming this and all related articles. Wine Guy Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. According to the WHO guidlines, set forth by who, this is not a pandemic yet. As wikipedians we are supposed to only post verifiable facts. Also, for the dabate as to "swine flu" or "H1N1". Swine Flu is the common name. As wikipedians, we are supposed to use the common namesDrew R. Smith (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
9. No, let's avoid sensationalism. Also WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Too early to conclude it is a pandemic. Move if/when this is confirmed by the WHO. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support removing "swine" from the page name

The statement by the World Organization for Animal Health that this strain has not been isolated from swine anywhere[4] persuades me that it is not swine influenza. Rather, it is human influenza that has acquired elements of avian and swine influenza. Also, given that at the time of discovery the strain was already in circulation in both Mexico and the US, I am in favor of calling it 2009 North American flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous comments from doctors on television and print (I'd honestly Google them up but there are dozens+) is that it is from swine. I've seen comments almost daily from such animal activist type groups. If the WHO (and WHO > WOAH) calls it swine flu, so should we. rootology (C)(T) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain either, but that is still what it's most commonly called. And I agree with T too, that if the WHO calls it swine flu, then we should too. --Cessator (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the WHO is calling it Influenza A(H1N1) --Jay Yang (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's change the name. WHO has changed it, and clearly after Egypt it's obvious "Swine Flu" is just causing a lot of misunderstandings out there. I think it's time we follow suit. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rename article to either "2009 flu outbreak" or "2009 flu pandemic"

The fact that it traveled through a bird and then a pig is meaningless now that the flu is spreading person to person.

Currently it is not yet categorized as pandemic, thus keep it named outbreak but please remove the work swine from this article. Mineralè (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Read above, this is quite a heated issue.  GARDEN  21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if we did we would have to have a 2008 flu outbreak, 2007 flu outbreak, all the way back to the first strain of flu(dont ask me when that was, I have no clue), as flu does not refer to this particular strain. Moreover, the commonn flu claims hundreds of thousands of lives every year, so ANY flu strain could be considered a pandemic. The only thing that makes this one so dangerous is the fact that it was previously thought to exist only in pigs, therfore no vaccine was created to combat it in humans.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to report new cases

Is there a place to report new cases, or do we just sit back and wait for it to work its way through the system. I'm referring to http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/042909kvue_Lucy_Reed-cb.26f0453.html (Austin, TX school closed because of probable case) Victor Engel (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table for the standards we use. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan name?

I hear Japan was calling it the 'North American Flu' or something. Should they be at the top as an alternate name with the others? Lemniwinks (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't list all the names people call it, only the most common ones to help people find the article and avoid confusion. Actually I think the four names there is too many already. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create a bunch of redirects though. That way, everyone who wants to find this article can. hmwithτ 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect talk page should contain an explanation, otherwise it may be deleted at WP:RFD, if the term isn't in this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be consensus to delete a redirect to this article based on a noncontroversial alternative name. A talk page clarification would help though. hmwithτ 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO Phase 5 - Not a Pandemic

WHO Phase 5 does not represent a Pandemic, but a likely Pandemic.

Phase 5 is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short. -[5]

The UN's World Health Organization has raised the alert over swine flu to level five - one short of a full-blown global epidemic, or pandemic. -[6]

Thus I shall be removing erroneous references describing the current WHO classification as a Pandemic. Please comment as appropriate. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your WHO reference. It suggests, visually, that the so-called "phases 5/6" are in fact "pandemic". It's right there on the image. It's even circled! Need more? The entire ranking scheme is titled "pandemic influenza phases". Phase 1, phase 6, it's all a pandemic to them. Or so it would appear. (I can't even discern a substantive difference between phase 6 and 5.)

Even the CDC's hurricane-style rating system is all pandemic. A feeble CDC class 1 pandemic is, as far as I can tell, always running. Everywhere. All the time. 24/7 for the last 10,000 years. Are you running screaming for the exit yet?

But I still support your mission of removing every last trace of pandemic from this article: it is abundantly clear that the very word "pandemic" is being intensely abused by almost everyone involved in this media and medical fiasco. Up until a week ago, you ask a random person on the street about "pandemic", and you would get a description of mass death and human suffering on unimaginable scales. Well, I guess we are all wrong on that count, aren't we? It's really just the system state of a medical bureaucracy. Feh! The news media has an excuse for propagating this nonsense -- they have money to make. I suggest that Wikipedia rise above it all, WP:NOR et al be damned when there are massive, blatant, NPOV violations in the very sources used to make up this article. mdf (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion over what the WHO alert scale is actually about. Having worked in developing software for managing pandemics within the British NHS, I've done plenty of extended reading to familiarise myself with national and international procedures regarding pandemic continuity planning.

The WHO system is an 'alert scale'. It represents the planning stages to be utilised in individual country's continuity plans for dealing with a pandemic. As the stage increases, each country is expected to adopt a different set of procedures relevant to that stage of a pandemic. However, the confusion therein lies in the fact that WHO clarification includes planning for a pandemic. WHO Phase 5 refers to an 'imminent pandemic'. It is assumed, at this stage, that a pandemic is about to occur and that countries should plan as though one were inevitable. However, it does not represent an actual, on-going pandemic.

You have to bear in mind that the WHO's scale is not for general consumption. It is aimed at informing branches of national governments which measures of their comprehensive (or otherwise) plans they should be enacting at any given moment. Notice how the text is written and who the intended audience is.

The WHO, confusingly, uses the term 'pandemic' in many different contexts. The outbreak itself is not labelled as a pandemic, but the procedures being enacted, and the status assigned to them, are those of a pandemic (literally: pertaining to a future pandemic). Phase 5 refers to a localised series of community level outbreaks. By its very nature, a localised outbreak cannot be a pandemic. It would be a contradiction.

Addendum: "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness." [7]

"The World Health Organization has raised its alert to level five - one short of a full-blown pandemic." -[8]

Both the WHO and the BBC refer to Stage 5 of the plan (that image aside) as an epidemic leading up to a pandemic, not otherwise.

For the record, text is always more authoritative than an associated 'dumbed down' image. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the confusion comes from the WHO itself. One reason is that the scale is named the 'WHO PANDEMIC ALERT' scale. Once people see the words 'pandmic alert' they think were in one even though only the 6th stage is the actual pandemic. The second reason is word choice. In the US our goverment leaders traditionally avoid the 'Recession' word so much that when they acutally say it: its a big deal. In contrast the WHO director is extremely open (perhaps too open) in refering to 'a pandemic' or 'pandemic flu' though if you read the words carefully she never calls the current H1N1 outbreak a pandemic or refers to 'the pandemic'. Perhaps the problem is the WHO director isn't a politican, we aren't used to people talking openly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between 5 and 6 on the WHO scale is that someone else get sick in another WHO region. If that hasn't happened yet, it probably will by the time I click on "save page". This entire alert/warning/whatever system makes a mockery of what most people think of as a "pandemic". Maybe it should have been called "WHO International Medical Clusterfuck Index"? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO system is "not for general consumption", then is it appropriate to refer to it in a general encyclopedia re: naming the article? mdf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Not only is it appropriate, the chart is as authoritative as the WHO itself. There are other charts (the U.S. is still at Stage 0 http://www.pandemicflu.gov/ http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/federal/fedresponsestages.html), but only one pertinent global bureaucracy. kencf0618 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we record things that are said by notable people, but not all things that are said are relevant to people everywhere. People should read press statements and wikipedia with salt. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The devil's in the details —there's always some context to be considered. kencf0618 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But we don't record notable things by record people umm...... BFritzen (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Discussion of how WP:NPOV governs article content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some persons think that the flu pandemic is a lie and that the frequency of deaths during this period is the normal frequency of people who die of pneumonia. I do not think so, but I also consider that we should give a place for conspiracy theories if we want to present the multiple points of view of this outbreak.--Fixvon (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Multiple points of view is diffrent than NPOV. Its also not what we do here. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. Per neutral point of view policy we present the mainstream view. At present none of these very odd alternative ideas have achieved any prominence, so per WP:UNDUE it would be wrong to include them in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I find it a bit unusual that what would otherwise be called a null hypothesis is now referred to as a "conspiracy theory"! mdf (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Hypothesizing a vast media and governmental conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Sometimes people pride themselves on knowing concepts and being able to wiki-link those into an argument. Sadly, that ability does not turn straw into debate gold; nor does not get you laid. -sigh --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Who said it did? Regardless, the baseline model is that all these deaths are unremarkable. mdf (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Other than the fact that all of the deaths have occurred in people under 50, mostly young, otherwise healthy adults? Sbw01f (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) And that a new virus has been isolated from the dead? 164.107.200.228 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Occam's Razor ViridaeTalk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration in words

In the intro someone put many schools closed and I changed it to a few. Then it was changed to numerous schools, then I changed it what I counted from the references to be 18. What do you think is the right thing to do? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently 1 in NYC and one in Onondaga County (Central New York State). That is all I know of in NYS. I am probably wrong, there could be more. BFritzen (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Panic vs Facts

Shouldn't this article include (mayhap I have yet to see it) the normal death toll of influenza? From WHO:

In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections. Hospitalization and deaths mainly occur in high-risk groups (elderly, chronically ill). Although difficult to assess, these annual epidemics are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. Most deaths currently associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among the elderly over 65 years of age.

So, 250 000/ 365 = 685 500 000/ 365 = 1370. So, according to statistics, between 685 to 1,370 people die from influenza every day.... is this really all that different. Shouldn't we put forth the "disclaimer" that strains of influenza cause X amount of deaths every year/ or day at the top of the article in order to put this into perspective? BFritzen (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seems to be right for now. Now, my grand mother should be a little affraid by the common flu, and not by this far-away swine flu. I noticed that a noticeable part of 'suspected cases' then switch to 'no, it was nothing'. It seems that the 'suspected cases' also include people who got the common flu in mexico.

The only thing we are currently sure is that this is a new strain. We can't say yet if this strain is contagious, or very virulent (deathly), etc. since we don't know the number of people affected. That may be 10.000, with 7.000 asymptomatic, 3000 with symptomes, and 150 death. If such, then that's almost a common flu. Medics are worry, but frankly, we haven't yet enough data to say 'this is dangerous'. We don't know, and this is the terrible side of the story, currently. Yug (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea!--201.153.40.28 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but we don't do disclamers. We don't engage in sensationlism; but we don't purposly try to stop it from happening elsewhere. Just write a good informational article and let the panic blow over. People will wake up next week and realize they're not dead. I got killed by the ozone hole, killer bees, global warming, sars, bird flu, Miley Cyrus, monkey pox, and watching that video tape of the Ring.... each time I got better. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We know it is both contagious and virulent, and since it is a new strain, it will most probably infect a large proportion of the world's population. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason for serious concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not any more or less virulent and contagious as the "regular" flu. There is no way of knowing that right now.BFritzen (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually since its flu the infection part may well become unverifiable or may not even be relevant. Most people that have mild flu never even know it, mistake it for something else, or don't seek medical treatment. The WHO has already stated on swine flu that the majority of the people infected recovered without medical treatment. Unless CDC or WHO releases estimates the actual number of infected (and therefore the mortality rate) will likely be unknown.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer per se but I did include the WHO quote to give unbiased perspective, just straight forward. I "block text"ed it in order to have it stand out a bit, but I think that it only adds to what we are trying to accomplish. Reading those first paragraphs (as a current event) may prove to be unintentional sensationalism (and only because it is current). I think the paragraph I added puts perspective. Oh and to continue on your train of thought: do we pile the bodies next to all the AIDS and SARS victims? I remember when AIDS was first talked about and the sensationalism that made us think bodies would be lining the street, "The new Black Plague" they called it. (I am not making fun of the victims just our ability to sensationalize.) BFritzen (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prior influenza season section has already had these statistics for a number of days, and supplies context effectively as the first section. Wikipedia articles make little allowance for the level of excitement or firmness of opinion in readers. (Editors are another matter…) Intros need to concisely include the significance of the topic, which currently in this case comes from the warnings of major health authorities, the actions of various countries, and the wide media coverage. --Zigger «º» 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe move those stats up then. It is relevant to an article including the term FLU (as short for influenza). Wiki does make little allowance for excitement and therefore this tempers said excitement.BFritzen (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did move them and it reads better, flows nicely. BFritzen (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This detailed background quote seems too large for the intro, mispositioned, and now no longer covered in the initial section. Can you it summarise it and place it closer to the facts that you think need the context? (I have no idea which part of the intro, if any, has people so concerned.) --Zigger «º» 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Chan quote, as it's about "a pandemic", and so not specific enough for this intro. The quote being deliberately alarmist but out of context also wasn't good. It may have a place elsewhere in this or another article. Was that the concerning part of the intro for others? --Zigger «º» 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the background flu data from the intro to the first section again. --Zigger «º» 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines you need consensus. I understand that you think this has to do with NPOV. It is the point of Wiki to provide such information as users need. There is no reason to edit my contributions. It is NPOV balance, which is acceptable. Also, the info that you reverted isn't attributed to WHO in article, rather the only mention is of the CDC. If you don't like that quotes are block texted, then change that, but you can't do a revert and blank contributions made by others. I would revert this had you done it to someone else. There is no reason not to include global statistics on influenza. Further, the CDC paragraph reads better without the WHO reference in it. BFritzen (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I couldn't copy-edit the quote because those who raised the issues in this talk-section had not explained what it was in the intro that concerned them. I asked & waited. I made an assumption (the out-of-context Chan quote) and checked here and waited. I reverted your changes and explained (poorly) on your talk page that I removed the Chan quote to restore "impartial tone", and I felt that this was a better approach than "balance". Again, what is it about the intro that you feel requires balancing data in that location? --Zigger «º» 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have only skimmed this section of the talk page? There is no problem with the content and adding information on Influenza as it impacts the world adds balance to the article. Since this is a current event, the introduction by itself leads to unintentional sensationalism. We don't want that. I have no problem with the Chan quote being changed. But my addition is completely relevant to this article. To have it included in the "Prior year" section really doesn't make sense because A) it is an annual statistic, B) it is from the WHO and not the CDC though that section only refers to the CDC, and C) The "Prior" section reads better without that aside. The section is about the previous flu season (in the USA) and nothing else. If you have an objection to part of an article, you probably should start a new topic and ask if it should be nixed. As such, I included this new topic with the idea of adding for balance. In this case, other users agreed because given the current context (it is a current event) it should be included. Further, the purpose of wikipedia is to inform, not alarm. These are the reasons for inclusion fo the quote from the WHO. Taken in context of the current situation, the mention of this particular strain of flu seizing headlines, wikipedia's popularity, and people's wish to be informed, the paragraph about annual flu statistics is included to balance that of the 1st paragraphs in the introduction. Read by themselves, they reiterate much of the media hype, even though factually based. They state simple facts as does my contribution. BFritzen (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the quote to the middle of the introduction and (right after the explanation that it is a new virus). So it is sort here is the new virus. Here is what the old virus does. We don't know what the new virus does and here is what is going on. I think it helps the readability. Hdstubbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

New map

See "Alaska included as confirmed death?" for relevent discussion. I will begin working on a new map now, seeing as there were no objections. I will post the finished product in a new section before adding it to the article.Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it an infected county map? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is infected. ;-P BFritzen (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the map just supposed to indicate the country? I mean, if you're going to remove Alaska, will you also remove Montana? What abut Siberia and Svalbard? And what about New Zealand, are we sure the confirmed cases are on both the North and the South Island? --Cessator (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The confirmed cases in NZ are 4 or 11 students (depending on what you mean by confirmed) from the same school and therefore all in Auckland, part of a group that visited Mexico recently together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if one was going to remove Alaska, then one should also remove the South Island. And then one should also change a lot of other things. Best to leave it alone on the world map, I say. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the South Island cf the North Island is comparable to Alaska cf the rest of the continential US Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If we just invade Canada or just 'bus some ill people up to Vancover for medical treatment' then we could bridge that unsightly gap. Or we could just accept that sometimes we all get blamed for a few bad apples. If the world map bothers you so much, just look at the North American one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The world map doesn't bother me. I'm saying, let's not remove parts of countries. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the point is moot. The map turned out to be a pain in the arse, and I eventually gave up. What I was going to do is divide the largest countries i.e. america, russia, and china, along pre-existing political boundaries to make it a little easier. For the U.S. that would have been every state getting its own infection status. Not sure how russia and china would have worked, dont know the boundaries there. But as I said, it's a moot point, and I couldn't even get america to work that way. I was trying to modify the map using the window program paint, but the states boundaries are just too complex for that. maybe someone with some programming knowledge could giv it a more "sophisticated" attempt.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the guys updating the US map how they do it... (File:H1N1 USA Map.svg) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given this article's global focus, the granularity of the map is ipso facto national. As the epidemic continues, smaller political units shall receive their own articles, subsections, and maps. There are already several maps down to the state/province and county level. (How often have you seen a map of the states of Mexico, or the provinces of Spain?) If the epidemic gets really bad, I suppose we'll have large-scale maps with the granularity of ZIP Codes. kencf0618 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after that the "pig flu google map" app will come out for the Iphone. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although technically not a strain of swine influenza..."

The second sentence of the lead currently reads that the outbreak is not swine flu, but it is my understanding that in fact the flu is a mixture of several virii viruses and is at least partially swine. Is this correct and if so should this sentence be modified? Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. [[9]] --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ECDC is calling it Novel Influenza A(H1N1), which is more accurate than anything else I have heard.BFritzen (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question though. One issue is what the page should be named; that has been discussed ad nauseum. The second question is whether it is correct to say that the outbreak is not swine flu, when in fact it partially is (as I understand it, obviously I'm no expert as I can't even pluralize 'virus' correctly). Oren0 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That does answer it. It is really a new strain of H1N1 (which is found in every source we seem to be using.) It is also novel (read: new/ different) and it is influenza. This is very important if you think you are getting the right vaccine! Vaccines will be labeled with the strain they are used to fight. BFritzen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second question: I've seen no source that says it is NOT connected to swine in any way. My understanding is that these livestock viruses live in animals then infect humans. It is still the same strain of virus while its in the new host, until it makes some change that then allows it to pass from human to human. That is when it becomes a new strain of virus. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that. The strain is a reassortment of human, avian, and swine strains, and the strain has not been isolated in swine anywhere in the world. Nor has the world animal surveillance network detected any surge in influenza in swine. Swine influenza is influenza endemic in swine, and this strain is not swine influenza. Many people call this strain "swine flu" but it is increasingly apparent that the name is a major source of misunderstanding (countries proposing to slaughter all pigs, countries banning import of pork meat, etc.) and increasingly other names are in use. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your OR. Please don't add such OR again particularly when it isn't supported by the rest of the article which states that some researchers consider is a strain of swine influenza and this is sourced to a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To help allay concerns about the naming in the intro, I've copied the sentence mentioning the name is disputed and then mentioned the other names. I think trying to explain the controversy in the intro will be too much but anyone who thinks they can improve it in non ORry ways are welcome Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR; swine influenza is defined (eg, in Merck Veterinary Manual) as influenza endemic in swine. This strain not only is not endemic in swine, it is not known in swine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As that source says Merck Veterinary Manual entry on Swine Influenza "Swine influenza is an acute, highly contagious, respiratory disease that results from infection with type A influenza virus."; I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That quote applies to infected pigs, not infected humans. Discussion of infection in humans is mentioned in parentheses. What I am trying to say is simple: this new strain apparently is not swine influenza, but human influenza derived from human, avian, and swine influenza strains. It was called swine flu at first because it was discovered with tests designed to detect swine flu, but as soon as its genome was sequenced it was evident that this new strain is not a swine flu. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean removal of already documented material. (I believe you are right) but that is not how Wiki works. Further, these are common names and should stay simply because it allows others to understand the etymology of the terms. Further, I think you have something important to add, please do and leave other work untouched until such a time as it is completely (scientifically) refuted. Also, please cite your source. BFritzen (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alarmism in "Genetics and Effects"

The caption to the pig image says "Pigs can harbor influenza viruses adapted to humans and others adapted to birds, allowing the viruses to exchange genes and create a pandemic strain."

The last five words of that sentence are unnecessary, speculative and alarmist. 58.165.254.91 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is no such thing as a "pandemic strain." There are just strains. Good, fix it, if you would. BFritzen (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the same can be said about humans. We too can (and in this case perhaps did) harbor influenza viruses adapted to other animals, and let them exchange genes. This new strain has not been found in swine, and it contains genes from 3 strains not found in swine in North America. What does that suggest? That one or more humans traveled internationally, picked up several different flu viruses, and brewed up this new strain. That would make this a new human influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request image change => WP:GL Yug (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage people to go to PubMed [10] and enter the quoted phrase "pandemic strain" into the query box. I understand that for the most part a flu strain isn't inherently "pandemic", because this is primarily a historical description of the public's lack of immunity - but it is still a useful idea, implying certain historical and ecological features. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but in this context, it is alarmist because, scientifically speaking (this is an encyclopedia) there is no "pandemic strain."BFritzen (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update the statistics for New Zealand...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146

16 confirmed. A further 104 are suspected cases with another 111 in quarantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A note on the 16 'confirmed' cases. 3 people in NZ have tested positive for swine flu. Another 13 have tested positive for influenza type A, and have been in and infected area (Mexico) or have been in close contact with a confirmed or probable case. These are often referred to as having swine flu, but have never had a definitive test (only influenza type A).

I think for the purposes of the table, it should use the NZ ministry of health statistics of 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 63 suspected ,or perhaps 76 probable and suspected in the ‘other suspected’ column of the table.

The following link may be more authoritative that news websites.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/mexican-swine-influenza-update-fourteen-300409?Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.147.198 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The new website has the exact same information. It has been updated... 16 confirmed, 111 are probable and 121 are suspected.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um the TVNZ site is rather confused and should be ignored completely (although it doesn't say there are 111 probable but 16 confirmed or probable). There are 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 111 suspected. While I'm normally reluctant to use primary sources, in this case it requires no intepretation or is there a risk of us getting it wrong so it's the best solution. To be fair, the MOH is partly responsbile for the confusion, they didn't initially differentiate between probable and confirmed in their reports but they do now Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a confusion in the news reports on the number of cases in New Zealand between suspected cases of Mexican Swine flu, and people in quarantine. Many of those in quarantine in New Zealand are not ill with any kind of influenza. Quite a few have simply been in close contact with others who have suspicious influenza and are taking Tamiflu and are in voluntary isolation as a precautionary measure. New Zealand is quarantining much more aggressively than most countries. Hawthorn (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican President shuts down nation & economy for a week

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53N22820090430

Just out. rootology (C)(T) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador declares state of exception because of swine flu

President Correa issued today the order, even though there are no possible cases there. Source in Spanish, from La Hora--Fryant (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming need: Name trouble (3)

Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a big template direction people to this article in the swine flu article. If people are too stupid to follow it, we probably can't help them. Anyway how do you know people were even interested in this specific outbreak? Maybe the reasonthey visited the other article is because they came to an encylopaedia expecting info about what swine flu is in general and got it... Also CNN, BBC etc are news sites. We are an encylopaedia. Hence we have an article on swine flu which is distinct from this specific outbreak which some people don't even call or consider swine flu Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't insult others please. Their naivete may contribute to their misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to be naive. It's another to see a big link directing you to another article and not be able to follow it. Wikipedia is inherently designed to be a site where you have to know how to read and click links. When you can't wikipedia can't help you. Therefore there's no point discussing ways to solve an insolvable problem. In any case, such a discussion should happen at swine flu not here Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

world view

Why is a world view important?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.227.140 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm... because we live in the world? It is a world encyclopedia? BFritzen (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The section with the Globalize template should probably have a northern hemisphere view rather than global, as that flu season is the subject. Using information mainly about the USA is less useful than regional or Mexican information, as the currently understood original infections and early clusters were in Mexico. The USA statistics are probably indicative so are better than nothing. --Zigger «º» 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that.BFritzen (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixing WHO Flu Statistics in Intro

I included this and even asked opinion in Facts Vs Fears (or whatever I called it.) Does anyone think this should be removed, kept, or edited? BFritzen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to removing it from the intro. It doesn't seem that imnportant in the grand scheme of things Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as grand scheme goes that discussion is in Panic v Facts. We have tidied it up a bit in order to make the intro better, more concise. A removal of it occurred without consensus and I wanted to know if anyone had a direct reason what this should be removed due to "unintentional sensationalism." (Again, see Panic v Facts in the discussion page.) BFritzen (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek

el:Νέος ιός γρίπης —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swineinfluenza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

protection

Not being able to edit the article makes me feel alienated from Wikipedia. Better accept the risk of a few trolls messing up rather than alienate your users. Swineinfluenza (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any changes in particular you would like to make? I would be happy to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Response

Is the response to this by the media something we should consider adding as a new section to the article? The media is giving this a lot press and I think that it might be something worth mentioning. I don't know if there are sources that we can use on the matter, but it's something to look at. My reason being that given the speed at which information can be disseminated in today's world essentially allows for almost everyone to know everything instantly. I think there could be a focus on whether the media is helpful or hurtful (spreading information or spreading panic) and especially its impact on helping people/organizations/governments coordinate their efforts so that the spread can be minimized. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I'm thinking, but I think that you get the idea. The media will likely end up playing a big role in this (especially if this turns into a full blown pandemic) so I think that we should give some sort of mention to it here. What do you guys think? Pharmaediting11 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have 'media reaction to' articles on other major topics, namely recent Presidential and National Elections. However you may have trouble getting enough sources for a good article if your trying to record assessments of the media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but there has to be something out there that is usable per WP guidelines. The media can play a huge role in inciting panic or keeping peace. And if riots happened then I think we would end up with a HUGE section with analysis on the media response. But that's something different for a different time. So far this is the closest thing to a usable source [11]. I have another one also, but it's a blog and I don't think it's usable. I'm putting it up to see what you guys think though [12].Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get some sources & draft up a section. hmwithτ 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done 2009 swine flu outbreak#Media response. Feel free to suggest/make any changes, but I feel like it's a good start. hmwithτ 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I only skimmed the source quickly just to ensure it wasen't conspiracy bunk. Whoever you are quoteing needs to be named in the article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead should be <= four paragraphs, currently six five

Per WP:LEAD: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." While this is a general guideline, I don't see a compelling reason to exempt this article. Other broader and more important topics (e.g. DNA, Virus) are able to summarize their articles' content in significantly fewer words. Emw2012 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can take a sentence from paragraph #2, put in paragraph #4 and elminiate the rest of it. Then put it in a blender so it reads like this:

The 2009 swine flu outbreak is an epidemic that began in April 2009 with a new strain of influenza virus. The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,[50] swine-origin influenza,[51] North American influenza,[52] and 2009 H1N1 flu.[50] The outbreak is believed to have started in March 2009.[53] Local outbreaks of an influenza-like illness were first detected in three areas of Mexico, but the virus responsible was not clinically identified as a new strain until April 24, 2009. Following the identification, its presence was soon confirmed in various Mexican states and in Mexico City. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries.

The new strain is an apparent reassortment of four strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1.[57] Analysis at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the four component strains as one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine).[57] One swine strain was widespread in the United States, the other in Eurasia.[57] The common human H1N1 influenza virus affects millions of people every year, according to the WHO, "In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections...which results in between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. "[58] In industrialized countries most of these deaths occur in those 65 or older.[58]

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the new strain was confirmed to have spread to Spain, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel, and the virus was suspected in many other nations, with a total of over 3,000 candidate cases, prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to change its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection" . Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Mexico's schools, universities, and all public events will be closed from April 24, 2009 to May 6, 2009.[61][62] On April 27, 2009, a few schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[63][64] Two days later the action extended to 18 more U.S. schools as the disease became more widespread in the U.S.,[65][66][67][68][69] the same day the Mexican government ordered a shutdown of all non-essential activities in the government and private sector, amounting to a shutdown of most of the country's economy.[70]

We could probably also ditch the last paragraph entirely as a different option or in addition to what I have suggested above.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Placing the final paragraph under intiial outbreaks might be a good idea. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that placing the final paragraphs under initial outbreaks would be a good idea. Hdstubbs (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 is fine. In fact, it is a consolidation of the old paragraph 6 into that paragraph. If anything is inconsistent, it would be the last paragraph.BFritzen (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing that will be useful from Para #2 is the date when WHO moved to Phase 5. In 3 months when we are looking back, I don't think it will be informative for anyone to know what happened on April 28 other than the move to level 5. Also, since it's the intro, those fine details would be better placed elsewhere. And I like the idea of moving para #6 entirely too. I "feels" like it belongs there more than in the intro. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the argument as to why the statistical annual deaths are needed in the intro. The discussion is in PANIC V FACTS. Read that and see the reasoning behind it.BFritzen (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about removing them. I was referring to the part about how on April 28 about 3000 people were infected and a list of suspected countries where the virus was at that time. I don't want to get into the argument that you're referring to at all. I'm just saying that as things are now, I think there is only one sentence from paragraph #2 as it holds now that is actually useful in the intro. After reviewing my proposal from earlier I realized that I mistakenly included the stats that I am talking about removing. I suggest that the intro be edited to read the same as I posted above, except the third paragraph read as follows:

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection". Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I don't have any qualms about that, sounds good to me. Sorry about the confusion. BFritzen (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It probably would have helped if I could type right in the first place. What about moving para #6 though (the one about the schools shutting down)? I think that idea got lost in the shuffle. I still think that's a good idea.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it belongs in the one after "Prior" (forgot the name.) I agree that you should move it.BFritzen (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm running short on time, so I won't be able to do it. But if everyone is OK with it, they can feel free to make the changes I suggested. I'm not too technically inclined with this stuff anyways. It took me ~20 minutes to figure out how to "strike" text. What's the emoticon for a sheepish grin with red cheeks? I think I'd like to insert it here.  :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead is now 4 paragraphs. The Mexico Schools paragraph was moved to the initial outbreak section. Seems to fit better there.BFritzen (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Farms closer to La Gloria?

The Smithfield/Granjas Carroll operation mentioned in the press is annotated in Google Earth, and clearly visible as a large number of CAFOs near Perote, Veracruz[13], but it is five towns north of La Gloria, Veracruz. There is a CAFO one town west of La Gloria with an obvious sewage lagoon.[14] Interestingly, there is another group of somewhat similar buildings even closer to La Gloria, but these have no sewage lagoon.[15] Since even the Michigan Sierra Club describes CAFOs with drainage tiles running into local streams, it is interesting that these buildings seem to have a wash leading into a dry riverbed which I think flows past La Gloria. Has anyone spotted mention of these closer farms in the Mexican press? Mike Serfas (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed the same thing in Google Maps. Hopefully this will be discussed in the press soon - I haven't seen anything about it so far. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No but I have seen the Smithfield mention over and over again. Blaming the American always plays better in the Mexican press. Has anyone seen anything on where patient zeros's parent/ family worked> --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NM per this: "Lezana said that none of Édgar's relatives worked near or at the area's industrial hog farms, and that tests of pigs so far have not shown any signs of the virus." --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That same source says though many of the LaGloria residents blame the open pits and sweage runoff but doctors disagree: "Influenza in pigs is a respiratory disease, so there is much less risk associated with pig waste," --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Wikipedia

Between this and other efforts like Google's Flu Trends system -- http://www.google.org/flutrends/ -- the Internet is really emerging as a great medium for real-time information exchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.98.245.197 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you :] Yug (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- Grochim (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the article much better. It is much more accurate and tells the facts in a very neutral way (particularly the description of the initial outbreaks. Great work! I like it a lot! Thanks.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism

The purpose of Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles, not news articles. I would say IMHO that the news articles referenced are not verifiable information, but fluid information that is likely to change. They are written with less stringent controls as would be published, peer-reviewed articles. A better place for all of this fluid and dynamically and increasingly "speculative" info should be placed in Wikinews, and not Wikipedia. We should be posting only verifiable information, which would include laboratory-confirmed cases and confirmed cause of death due to swine flu. Other information is just not encyclopedic. Flipper9 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — Flipper9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good point. There is some balance here and since info is so new and constantly updated/ evolving, it is very difficult to nail things down, especially since the media is sensationalizing things. Many people are honestly putting up what they consider to be facts and we may find to be erroneous in hindsight. BFritzen (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear about the inappropriate tag I added to the main article: all of the "suspected cases", "probable cases" and "probable deaths" are unverifiable information. Just because a news article says it, that is more speculative information and has no basic in something that can be verified. For example, news articles are regularly updated, retracted, and sometimes based on the flimsiest of evidence. The information gleaned from the popular press IMHO is not verifiable in the strictest sense. Yes; you can lookup the article and see that some guy at a news organization wrote it, but it's not verifiable by any authority. The only verifiable information is confirmed cases of infection and confirmed cases of death. The other columns of possible or probable cases and deaths is not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; but in a dynamically updated news article or site, hence why that unverifiable information should be placed in Wikinews or some other wiki site. Flipper9 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that we can't verify that "probable deaths" are actually confirmed, that's not our job. Here we can report that the deaths are considered probable by "reliable and published sources". Such sources include the likes of BBC, CNN etc, as is supported by the vast number of wikipedia articles that use these sources in citations. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it does matter. We are supposed to include verifiable information in articles in Wikipedia. We should be sourcing the best evidence available; which IMHO is not a vast array of speculative news articles from the popular press. We should be sourcing verifiable information from the CDC, WHO, and various other organizations which are charged with obtaining and publishing this information. The popular press just posts whatever they want on their websites, whether it be unsourced or hearsay...and that shouldn't be the basis of posting information to Wikipedia. Many news stories call a probable case as gleaned from an email sent by somebody at a hospital to someone else. It's not verifiable, and shouldn't be included in the article. Flipper9 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See Reliable_sources#News_organizations. Of course data cited by news sources deemed to be mere roumours can be removed, but it is established on wikipedia that reputable news organisations are reliable sources. It has been suggested here many times to only use WHO figures, but it is always decided not to beause they do not reflect the current situation accurately due to delay. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can be reliable and more up to date if they are porting verifiable facts such as confirmed cases or confirmed deaths. But the information given on unconfirmed cases, suspected cases, and unconfirmed deaths, be definition, is not verifiable. That information must be removed. It is not sourced in the strictest sense as nobody knows if it's truth or not. Someone says we have unverifiable information; how is that sourced? It's not. It may be said in a news article, but it's printed as unverifiable and is thus not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here: we are reporting the verifiable fact that these unverified cases exisit. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is an unverifiable fact? There is no such thing. It's hearsay, original research, unpublished information (and IMHO just because it's said in the news doesn't make it published). It has no place here in Wikipedia. And reporting the news is not the job of Wikipedia...that's Wikinews' job. Flipper9 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations. We wouldn't be sourcing hearsay from the popular press, unless they were just parroting what the major health organizations were saying. Flipper9 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When the WHO and peer-reviewed literature have caught up with the actual facts now as reported in other reliable news sources, then they can be cited in preference. Until then we have to use the most accurate and up-to-date sources available, which tend to be trusted media organisations (often quoting WHO or other government officals). --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A "suspected case", "unconfirmed case", or "unconfirmed death" will never catch up. They are unverifiable information and have no place in this article. If a news organization has an update from the WHO or CDC (or other health organization) that hasn't be published yet, then include it. If some guy on some news network heard that somebody has the sniffles, it's not verifiable even though it's published and can be referenced. Flipper9 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pontificalibus, this arcicle conforms to wikipolicy, which is relying onr reliable news sources.

RE: Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations.

This is immaterial, since we are living in 2009, not 2011. By 2011 this article will be radically different. the sources that you are say this article should have, don't exist yet, until they do, we will rely on reliable media sources. Ikip (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that referencing news organizations for the latest verifiable information follows the wikipolocy, in that case you are writing about verifiable information. However, including unverifiable informatino just because CNN or the BBC reports it is contrary to the rule that the content must be verifiable. A suspected or unverified case is just that, not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. 76.10.155.49 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on verifiable information. We require only that information be verified as coming from reputable sources (such as a news agency). We have never required "verification" that the facts being put forward are true, final, or indisputable. Since the existence of suspected cases can be verified in many reputable sources, that is sufficient for inclusion. The ultimate dispostion of those cases is irrelevant for the purposes of "verification" as the term is used in Wikipedia editing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 206 editors have worked on Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table, listing the presummed cases, and you are the first editor to bring this up, I don't think there is any conensus for change. Ikip (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The table at the top of the page is a bit much as it stands now; I would be in favor of relegating all mentions of "possible/probable/suspected cases" to the article text, only having CDC-confirmed deaths/cases in the table. We could have a single section on states which have unconfirmed cases. To me this is a good way to reduce clutter and keep the article length down. The suspected cases may be notable and verifiable, but it seems a bit much to me to have them in the table.-RunningOnBrains 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Posted to wrong talk page, sorry.-RunningOnBrains 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing wikipolicy itself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am only trying to uphold what Wikipedia is about, even though I might be the only one talking about it. Hence, why I have just added the tag to the article and wanted to bring up a discussion, and didn't just go removing the unverifiable information from the article itself. I am thinking about just removing the unverifiable, because it is unverifiable and against wikipolicy, but wanted to give folks a change to talk about it. I know people have put a lot of hard work into this article, but unverifiable information has no place here. Go place that info in Wikinews or some other wiki. Flipper9 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to find another phrase than "unverifiable information". These references are verified through news organization, and the folks at the template article go to pains to remove unsourced information. Nothing in those tables is against wikipolicy, you haven't quoted any wikipolicy yet. Edits begat edits, so maybe if I stop responding, this section will go away. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Flipper, While, I think we all agree with what you are saying, there already was a tag that this article refers to a "Current Event" and as such, the article can change rapidly. I think that is enough of a statement to cover what you two are disputing. Further, DON"T EDIT WAR (Not aimed at FLIPER per se) But I could see one brewing. BFritzen (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the sourced information is hearsay. The suspected cases come from unreliable emails, first-hand discussions with the public, and are not reliable information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources

a lot of the news agencies that are sourced for the flu cases are sourced in other articles (unrelated to the flu outbreak) and accepted as reputable sources, i would think for us to decide when an otherwise reputable source is being sensationalist and when they are reporting facts would be original research Default.XBE (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While a popular news article (which all of the "suspected" and "unconfirmed" numbers are referenced to) can be reliable, it's only reliable when they are reporting news from an authority in the subject. The purpose of the popular news is to generate articles that get people to read their articles, so they impart sensationalism to get people to read them. They include hearsay, unchecked "facts", and information that is not verifiable. You cannot verify that someone has the swine flu disease (which this article is about) if the data is unverified, i.e. someone thinks that someone has the disease. Suspected cases are not notable, and do not fulfill this criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia. Flipper9 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to do this. Start a topic on a specific use of a reference (ie Source A claims X amt of deaths, WHO differs." Because, some of the info is changing so fast that as soon as it is written it can become unreliable. I agree about news sources with "What bleeds, leads" being inappropriate for encyclopedic knowledge. AND of course, any statements of such should be well verified and peer reviewed. Look at it this way: We are trying to record history as it is happening. We are going to get stuff wrong. It doesn't mean it can't be corrected. I just think we need to be circumspect about this and focus on one instance at a time. Text sucks at conveying emotion, so it would be best to look for alternate peer reviewed sources that verify the inaccuracies. This shouldn't e hard to do. BFritzen (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mixing two issues here. 1. Suspected or Unconfirmed cases are not noteworthy for this article. 2. References to news articles do not IMHO rise to the level of respected, sourced information. If a news source has facts about verified infections or verified deaths due to swine flu, then that's fine. If a news source reports number of people who might possibly have an infection, or died and we just aren't sure why, then that doesn't rise to the level of noteability and verifiability for the level that Wikipedia must achieve to be considered an encyclopedia. Either way, the suspected and unverified information in the table on this article (and all related country articles) should and must be removed. Flipper9 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just want you to be more specific. There are hundreds of references in this article. What ones and where in the article? It will take considerable time, because if it is CNN or BBC but the news references a verifiable source.... I am in favor of PRIMARY sources only. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it will be a monumental task. BFritzen (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about the suspected cases being impossible to verify. That is like saying that it is impossible to verify that people suspect OJ Simpson committed murder when he wasn't convicted. The verification of the suspicion is the news article that identifies the suspicion. I don't think that having suspected cases is against wikipedia policy at all. It is not impossible to verify that they are suspected. We are using the most reliable source (the news media)available at this time. If you want up the level of verification in the table by using the most reliable source about current suspected cases then I think that is correct, just as we do any piece of information in Wikipedia.

And in the future, the article on the issue, will almost certainly have information regarding the number suspected cases and the perception of suspected cases and how that influenced the event. While, we can't see how it will influence this event, we can (and should) include that the suspected cases exist. Hdstubbs (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the values of zero that are unverifiable and unreferenced? (This comment could probably be on the table's talk page, but it seems appropriate in this thread.) --Zigger «º» 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Zeros are a common value of a no known cases. You can't easily ref that you don't know something. WP knows this and generally accepts 0 without refrences. The refrenced zeros in the US table are for when a case comes back as negative and is sourced. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite Error

In references, can someone please fix?BFritzen (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens often, don't worry :-) -- Grochim (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It must have been fixed. hmwithτ 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CDC rolling out test kits to US state health agencies - Mexico just now has testing capability

Per todays webcast: Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rich Besser, says they have rolled out test kits to NewYork and Califonia: They expect to be able to roll out testing kits to other states on Monday. Prior, testing was only avaliable at CDC headquaters in Atlanta. The new kits are expected to be able to speed up the testing process. Dr Besser also said that Mexico has just now been able to do their own testing. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine Flu Resource" Reference

Leads to American Idol's finalist Adam Lamebert's fan site. Another reason behind Wikipedia being nothing more than a synonym for retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.74.165 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for pointing that out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 (gah!) It's probably vandalism. I removed the link. Thank you for the heads up. hmwithτ 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abandoning the name Swine Flu

[16] WHO stopped using this term to protect pigs from being slaughtered, like done in Egypt already. Maybe Wikipedia should too? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.179.57 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US, HHS also changed the name, the alternative is a terribly bland name. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization called it influenza A(H1N1) [52]". Sorry this does not sound quite right the way its worded. Perhaps "On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization announced it would be using the scientific term H1N1 influenza A, rather than swine flu." sherpajohn (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The officle name for the swine flu is "The H1N1 Virus" Cheers--Ken Durham (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 500 See WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most common name for article names. However, if the common name for this flu changes, the article can definitely be renamed. hmwithτ 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. "--24.87.88.162 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Searching google news for flu, brings up "swine flu", so that appears to still be the common name. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - We HAVE TO free the pigs :] Yug (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - The name has been changed even by the WHO now to Influenza H1N1 A or AH1N1.

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" is still the most common name for the outbreak. Let's wait and see if the media at large begin to use the new name first. magnius (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree H1N1 Virus is to officle name.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - I'm of a wait-and-see opinion on this one as well. Perhaps H1N1A will catch on, but H5N1 never caught on for bird flu, so I'm going to say probably not. As for Egypt, the pigs are kept for the small christian population and while sad, the numbers are pretty small and inconsequential to a nation that doesn't eat it for religious reasons. No other nations appear on the verge of deciding to cull. aremisasling (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To further explain, see the articles on some animals. We use common names, rather than their actual scientific names. hmwithτ 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - If and when a plurality of media sources adopt the WHO's name (or any other name) then the article should be renamed. Equilibrium007 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - When a common name isn't spreading dangerous misinformation, then sure, I can see just sitting on the sidelines. However, after what Egypt did, I think it's time to do the right thing. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree we write an encylopedia, we have no responsiblity to do the right thing, to protect pigs, to protect egyptans from themselves or to keep Vice President Biden from being an idiot. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The wikipedia's main mission is to spread knowledge and *not* misinformation. Let's make the change. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides information not knowledge. Knowledge is attained when a reader studies information; combines it with prior experiences, education, other information, and common snese. Wikipedia is not an agent of change; while we try to build a quaility product we are not responsible when people, lacking common sense, misuse it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - In some European countries, TV news have already changed the way they call the disease from "swine flu" to "influenza A" (probably to keep it short). But this is probably highly region dependent. Cochonfou (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" it will be, i cannot change by any directive.Jack007 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think that the media is moving and I think we should too. Hdstubbs (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - The widely known name is still "Swine Flu". Plus, any other names can simply be added at the beginning of the article. (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think the most important criterion is that people easily find in wikipedia what they are looking for, and everybody right now is talking about the "swine flu". Having said that, it looks like "2009 alpha flu" is going to be the official name of this thing.Dianelos (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Purely scientific, the word “swine” have no relevant to H1N1 Virus. Tiwonk (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - This strain is a Swine Influenza A (H1N1). It evolved in swine and is different to the common human Influenza A (H1N1) strains. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using the name "Chimeric Flu" as it is a mixture of avian, human and swine strains. Calling it H1N1 like WHO does is confusing, as there already is a Type A H1N1 going around this year (the one that is Tamiflu resistant). CDC seems to be moving toward H1N1 (2009) which is a bit better as the H1N1 from last season was discovered in a previous year. In a non-politically correct world, it would clearly be called Mexican Flu, since that is where it seems to have originated. Would it be more PC to call it Aztec Flu?

I think the problem is associating this strain with swine as problematic. People are avoiding swine products and that has a negative impact on the economy. Why perpetuate a misnomer. Further, how about a subtitle that says something like "Also known as Influenza AH1N1."???? BFritzen (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Likely the most neutral simple name for the strain would be "2009 H1N1" but, becuase most of the seasonal influenza in 2009 so far has also been subtype H1N1, there is potential to confuse the strain name with the outbreak name. --Una Smith (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Manual archiving time?

The page is getting awfully long again. I know there is a bot that does this, but should we manually archive some in the meantime, like we did before? hmwithτ 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probibly a good idea. Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second if you are referring to the talk page.BFritzen (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton has archived the page. Thanks! hmwithτ 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Twitter belong in Media Response???

Since Twitter is a Social Networking/ Micro Blogging Site, does can response on Twitter be considered as Media Response as opposed the Public Response?

I think that there should be a clear line between Media Response and Public response, with Media reponse being limited to the response of the professional journalists, as opposed to reponse of amateur journalists/general public, which should be considered public reponse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only possible mention of twitter that I feel is applicable should be the CDCs use of it; which again is not a media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it is pretty superfluous information that adds nothing to the article. magnius (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows the media's affect on the public. I wrote the section. Feel free to delete it. :) hmwithτ 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Ken Durham (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted, although should a Public Response section be created, I think this would be well worth adding.Chanhee920 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the public response is extremely notable. If its only somewhat notable (egyptians make baconbits) it should go onto the 'by country' page. We don't need 192 entries of people took extra day off work. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources. I'd say the public response is notable. hmwithτ 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen at least three articles about twitter's uses in this outbreak. This has mostly focused on the use of twitter by CDC, CNN, and other reliable agencies using it to get information out, and also how this reliable information is often lost in the mass of extremely unreliable information. Do you think that counts as relevant? Here are the links: http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/25/swine_flu_twitters_power_to_misinform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5236447/Swine-flu-Twitter-used-to-spread-news-around-world.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/27/swine.flu.twitter/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is not precise.

In the cases by country table, It is shown 159 confirmed cases in México., That is very far from the official number.

that number 195 is not supported by the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece

"The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159"

Note the difference than "suspected" than "confirmed"

The official number is provided by WHO, and Mexico has 26 confirmed

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_04_29/en/index.html

"29 April 2009 -- The situation continues to evolve rapidly. As of 18:00 GMT, 29 April 2009, nine countries have officially reported 148 cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 infection. The United States Government has reported 91 laboratory confirmed human cases, with one death. Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceglez (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the information is inaccurate? Or did you really mean not precise?

Its difficult to be precise with matters such as this.If you mean inaccurate, then just edit it with what you believe is correct (although I recommend the date updated on your source and the cited source before you do this).Chanhee920 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit was my fault. Misread the headline of the source. Infected count has now been fixed --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names

People keep chopping names based on their personal opinions without bothering to research them properly. North American influenza appears to be the most common to go although it appears widely used particularly by pork and food industry source. A Google News search, which I don't particularly like but seems our best option at the moment, reveals the least used term is probably swine-origin influenza which may have been used by the CDC for a while but appears to have been abandoned in favour of 2009 H1N1 flu. If we do want to remove one this is probably the first to go. Either that or we leave it be for now and wait until things settle down. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference to an EDIT WAR. Whoever, (And I already know who) is doing this, please STOP AND DESIST. If you have something to contribute do so. If there is something you disagree with, bring it up on the talk page. I have to head home for the day otherwise I would place this on his talk page. Can you link this for me?BFritzen (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is one person responsible? I added North American influenza back twice and I'm pretty sure it was removed by different people each time so I don't know if it's one particular person doing it. Unless you mean me (since I did at it back twice) but I started the discussion so I'm obviously already aware of it :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did inform the two people of this discussion FYI Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars? Oh no sounds like the global warming article all over again. Perhaps you need some light relief[17]79.79.220.104 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, IP, that was a nice diversion. Now back to work...LeadSongDog come howl 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed North American influenza once, I didn't realise it had been done multiple times or I wouldn't have done so. I think the intro should only refer to common names for the virus, not proposed names that haven't been widely adopted. The reason I removed originally was that the citation given was to an OIE press release which merely suggested the term might be appropriate. More recent OIE press relases used A/H1N1 influenza. Now I have searched on google news for "North American influenza" usage, most hits are just about proposals to change the name, rather than common use of the name, and for that reason I think it should be removed. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that the person, again my suspicion will remain nameless, I don't want anyone to feel like an outsider, but I just wanted to fend off a edit war before it started. Also, the edit in question deleted a large amount of information without reason (entered when editing.) I don't always state why I edit, either. However, the materials were documented and before removing verified, documented information, we should have a topic on the talk page to discuss why and how the sitch can be rectified. BFritzen (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "swine-origin influenza". Firstly, in the citation given it is not called that but "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)". I can't find anyone calling it "swine-origin influenza". Secondly "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)" is just a more descriptive form of "Influenza A (H1N1)" which is already listed, and not a seperate name that needs to clog up the first paragraph. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names were swiped clean, I undid it. BFritzen (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again swiped clean. Again re?undid. BFritzen (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

time from onset of symptoms to death?

Has anyone seen info on how long victims have lived between the time they first showed symptoms and death? Please add this info if you can find it. ike9898 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard the DHS Secretary say (paraphrasing) 'the incubation peroid is about seven days.' I don't remember enough biology to tell you what that means though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Mexican Health Ministry, the virus has two incubation periods, each five days long. It means you can be carrying it for ten days before symptoms start to develop (thus the Mexican stoppage of activities). I'll look for the exact source and start work on it. 201.159.133.18 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. The contagious period is 7 days after symptoms appear in adults - possibly up to ten days in children. This is the reason for the ten day period. Rmhermen (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are adding something here that doesn't need to be. A few people are dead because of this strain but it isn't "automatic" death.BFritzen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenza A(H1N1) --- WHO new name -- we should use this as the article name

30 April 2009 -- From today, WHO will refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A(H1N1). [18]--zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Moving this article to 2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak

1. The WHO name is as official as it get ... --zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. CDC is using Swine Flu as a parenthetical now. CNN is also interspersing H1N1 as the name throughout articles. I'd like to see a space between 'A' and '(H1N1}', though, i.e. 2009 influenza A (H1N1). --Elliskev 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats CDC not the WHO, and i think that the article should move to "2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak"--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed (why?)

1. Per WP:COMMONAME: I know who Julius Caesar is but not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. We should use the common name. H1N1 is endemic in humans and causes about 50% of seasonal flu in humans, so there have been plenty of H1N1 outbreaks this year. The proposed name is not specific enough. Swine flu, at least, is accurate, as it originated in swine, and differentiates it from other influenza viruses. "Swine influenza" is preferable to naming it after countries or regions as these names can be very damaging to the country and can be wrong (the Spanish flu originated in Kansas, for example). --Oldak Quill 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3. There are many extant influenza A(H1N1) strains. This strain is specifically a swine type H1N1 rather than a human type H1N1. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, we are just having a vote about "Abandoning the name Swine Flu" about 3 inches up the page. Can we give it a break for a while? Does anyone ever actually read WP:COMMONAME? --Pontificalibus (talk)

Jesus Christ, relax. It's a discussion about the evolution of the name outside Wikipedia. Did you even actually read the comments? --Elliskev 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:PRECISION. --Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Precision? Why? Is there some other "2009 swine flu outbreak" that I should be concerned about? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but there are other influenza A(H1N1) strains infecting humans in 2009.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO and CDC are normally aimed at medical professionals and written to their level of education. We should be mindful of Wiki's readership and stick with the commonly-used terms, even when not "technically" accurate. In 2006, a Harvard School of Public Health survey found that only 41% of Americans knew what the term "pandemic flu" meant. Nuff said? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative" -- #Per WP:COMMONAME: --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to "move" it to different names with reference to one main article (which should have the most used name)? E.g. "North American influenza" and "Mexican flu" refer to "2009 swine flu outbreak" (just an example!) so that people can find the information they are looking for either way. I mean, that's all about: Finding the info they are looking for. For finding the "right name" of the main article, I prefer to wait and observe a little more how media handles and calls the topic.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive dynamic references

Reminder: Some web pages used as references are frequently updated, especially primary sources, and others are not permanent. These types of URLs are more common in current event articles. The Webcite Consortium [19] is one provider of third-party archiving, and identifies Wikipedia as a Level-2 member.[20] This is a call to archive reference web page content that might otherwise be lost leading to verification problems and incorrect OR challenges/defences. --Zigger «º» 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not much a computer nerd. Can you explain this in English? Thanks :)Hdstubbs (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes internet pages die. If you use webcite, it can keep them in memory so we can still read them. If you have a source that dies often (AP or AFP on google news) you should use a webcite thingy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation! We're also losing older content on this topic from MSNBC.MSN, CDC and WHO. And if the referenced page has "Last updated…" or similar, Webcite it ASAP! --Zigger «º» 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol :) Thanks a lot for the plain English. So how do you use this webcite thingy? Just make sure that we use permanent urls? (Is that right?) What if we can't find them? Hdstubbs (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don;t know how to do the webcite thingy, so I just try to use permanet urls. i.e. "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\story1234.html" rather than the main headline page "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\" You can find them most of the time. If you can't: try another source. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a web form at http://www.webcitation.org/archive . At its most basic, it only needs a URL & email address. No confirmation is needed. The Wikipedia "cite" templates have fields called archiveurl and archivedate to hold the result. --Zigger «º» 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probable / confirmed weirdness

How is it possible that confirmed cases are higher than probable? That doesn't make sense to me. Example Canada 34[7] 22[8] Yogiudo (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases are seperate from probable. You can't be both. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't confirmed cases just really probable cases? (100% probable, to be specific.) 128.189.250.177 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)