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

A/H1N1

The virus A/H1N1 was initially DETECTED in Mexico... Not originated in Mexico.

Also this virus is a MUTATION of the Euro-Asiatic influenza virus already knew years ago and from which Mexico never had cases of infection... i mean de virus scientifically named as "Influenza A virus subtype H1N1", responsible for the 1918 flu pandemic, that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide.

Now, if you refer to the "swine flu" (A/H1N1) as "mexican flu"... also there are many people who refer to it as "American flu" (refering to USA) or "North American Flu" (refering to the region of North America) or "A/California/2009" or "hog flu" or "pig flu"... so add these too.--. 13:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Perhaps this should have its own article? Oliana (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on Smithfield Foods and Intensive pig farming. It might be worth an article but I suspect there isn't enough information available yet. Smartse (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence on the eariest origins of this swine flu. I have read that this is a mix of human, avian and swine varieties of flu.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a combination of strains - but a combination that has been present in pigs for several years. So far, this exact strain has not been detected in swine but there are associated complaints of the poor quality of swine survelliance. It's too early to know where it originated. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the contaminated water from Smithfield's operations cause any sickness in Virginia?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So far, the only connection between the outbreak and this pig farm is a single case in the vicinity. Samples from other cases in the vicinity reportedly have been tested and were negative, and the corporation claims they test for swine flu in their pigs and found none. There was an outbreak of influenza-like illness in the vicinity early this year, but the connection to this outbreak is very weak. So, don't count on this theory holding up. --Una Smith (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

WHO director Margaret Chan refers to it as such: [1]

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)

   Did you mean to put that in the 'oppose'? Xclamation point 15:21, 1 May 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)
11. There are no problems with the current title, but there are potential issues of sensationalism if we jump the gun and make a move too early. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:27, 1 May 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[2] 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)

However people are calling it swine flu and that is the headline that people will look under.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have said article people are looking for. I was preoccupied with other things and did not edit sufficiently. However, I have come up with an argument for keeping the "swine" in the name. The article is at Battle of Bunker Hill even though it was fought at Breed's Hill. The issue is not accuracy, but common usage.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently people is calling it swine influneza, but in textbooks it will be called novel human influenza. Therefore we should follow WHO naming right now, in order to prevent future problems.Konegistiger (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A NCBI blast search of the genomes sequenced so far by the CDC and WHO labs, the large majority of similar sequences are swine influenza A genomes. WHO wants this influenza renamed not for scientific reasons but for political ones. The sequences for the 8 genes 6 show most simalarity to swine flu one to a virus found in ducks and one in a human from Wisconsin in 2003. The two non swine sequences are anotated as being similar to swine sequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.124.126 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The NCBI tool searches Genbank, and on Genbank the sequences are labeled by the species in which they were found. The 2009 outbreak sequences were found in humans, not in swine, and there is no evidence of zoonosis of this strain from swine to humans. Also, most influenza virus found in swine is widely believed to be derived from virus circulating in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 2 May 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 reason they 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)

Well, for once I agree with Nil Einne. Every page has links, redircts, and other confusing peices out the wazoo(wazoo sold seperately). If you cant follow links, you'll never get anywhere (I wish they made life this way. links are so much easier than road maps).Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I initially went to the other page, but when I saw that the current strain was in this article, I came here. However, I did want a little info on swine flu in general and it worked. The templates work, and we have to remember that although some people think it is the end of the world, it is not, and in five years a general overview of swine flu will be more searched for than the 2009 variety.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Abandoning the name Swine Flu

[3] 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)

Agree It also has one more very important side effect, some religious Muslims and Jews will consider themselves safe as they don't consume "swine" (pork) meat while it has nothing to do with consuming when it comes to human to human transfer period. I am afraid it is a bit late now anyway. Perhaps WHO should educate people on that matter. Better, someone with better English and medical background should add about the consuming pig meat and the illness (which I suspect has nothing to do with each other) to prevent a large scale of population of globe ignoring precautions. It is already being called "Domuz Gribi" (Pig Influenza) in Turkish media and Turkish Wikipedia Wikipedia_TR Ilgaz (talk) 22:34, 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.

Agree - Wiki of all places should use the standardized name first and then the "slang" term.

 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)

 Disagree - Not until spammers start referring to it as N1H1 ;) --Wikiqueb (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree In addition to the reasons cited above, President Obama carefully called it "the H1N1 virus."

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. hmwithτ 13:57, 1 May 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)

The geographic region is the naming convention established for prior flu pandemics. Spanish flu, Hong Kong flu, Fujian flu, and so on. It would be consistent to name this one the 2009 Mexican flu. Otherwise in the historical literature the sequence of names for pandemics throughout history will be inconsistent and confusing if they switch back and forth between geographic labels and medical terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 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). [4]--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)

3. Based on it being the scientific correct nomenclature, and the WHO advocating the name, I feel it is now appropriate to make the move, however hesitant I was before. The other common and inaccurate names (2009 swine flu, Mexican Flu, Novel flu, North American flu) can be redirects, so everyone will be able to find the article. We should use scientific nomenclature like we do for other diseases, rather than folksy terms. We redirect The clap to Gonorrhea. We use Tuberculosis instead of Consumption. Why should this be different? The use of appropriate scientific or medical nomenclature is part of being an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. Edison (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to "common name". Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. To quote "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name". One example, the article influenza, not "flu". Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, and Global spread of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
5. The name of this flu is A(H1N1) and several media outlets have already started using that name 1, 2 or 3. This Wikipedia article should follow suit.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Why can't we just call the article "the 2009 A(H1N1) "swine" flu outbreak". The official name should come first and have redirects from the slang terms- which is all they are now. Imagine if everyone were calling this the joe mamma flu...should wiki use that?

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)

Yes, you're right. There is a way to do this. At alternative article names a "redirect" can be made to the main article (see Wikipedia:Redirect for details). Basically this works by putting text on an alternative article name such as North American influenza which points at the main article. The redirect text is of the form: #REDIRECT [[2009 swine flu outbreak]] . These are widely used on Wikipedia, and you'll find they already exist for this article (click on the link for North American influenza). --Oldak Quill 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We can redirect anything we want, but that still doesn't solve the great name debate. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Came across this article which might give us another reason to hold off for a while.

"WASHINGTON – No matter what you call it, leading experts say the virus that is scaring the world is pretty much all pig. So while the U.S. government and now the World Health Organization are taking the swine out of "swine flu," the experts who track the genetic heritage of the virus say this: If it is genetically mostly porcine and its parents are pig viruses, it smells like swine flu to them.

"Six of the eight genetic segments of this virus strain are purely swine flu and the other two segments are bird and human, but have lived in swine for the past decade, says Dr. Raul Rabadan, a professor of computational biology at Columbia University."

"Swine flu name change? Flu genes spell pig" (4/30/09)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote (read this before posting name change ideas)

I propose freezing the name for a few days. Yes, the WHO did say to stop using the term swine flu. But people are still calling it that, and probably will continue calling it that forever. As swine flu is what most people will search for in the search bar, we need the article to be right where they think it will be. Until we can get sources of common people calling it something other than swine flu the name should be stay as it is.

Support

Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just give it 48 hours to cool off. This whole thing is touching off a big unneeded argument that is sucking up too much space on the page. Lets cool the jets for a while folks and keep our heads on our shoulders. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

support - this sounds like a good idea, can definitely wait a day or two to see what happens, the setting up of redirects also sound like a good idea - so no matter which of the main names a person uses in the search box they go to the article. The name is being pushed from swine flu and WHO etc might be successful in getting name changed over time. Its good that the main names for the new flu are in the introduction as the many names for the new flu seems to be becoming an aspect of the new flu. Anyway as long as when someone puts "swine flu" or other major common name for the new flu in the search box they come to this article that is what i would suggest is the most important thing, second is what the article is actually called - though of course the effort to get the actual article name to be accurate and precise is good stuff. Sure change the name for the article about new flu if necessary if wiki rules, references and editors follow. Such a hot topic in such a hotly debated article could use a little cooling off [though maybe not on the talk page :) ]. P.S. kudos to all the editors working so hard on this article, its great and readers like me appreciate it even if you may not hear thank yous directly from us very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.209 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Just a comment that keeping the page name consistent with what people will search for in the search bar is not an argument that forces us into keeping this page name, since that issue can be dealt with via a redirect. Sancho 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however it would be a lot simpler to add a redirect to the less likely to be searched for pages. It would be especially helpful for people who have slow internet connections. Redirects nearly double the time it takes for me to get to an intended page.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside NotAvote: I'm Against all polls until we decide which poll we will use. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to change the article name.

I believe WHO officially named the disease to "Influenza A (H1N1)". Kadrun (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Yahoo!, WHO renamed the virus to H1N1 influenza A — Σxplicit 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The common name (the one people are googling most) is Swine flu. Until the everyman stops saying swine flu, neither will we.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza is getting hammered with page views now. Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 will be next, eh? --Una Smith (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for Wiki to cite the new name and add some redirects, but not use the new name as the official title until the entire medical community, especially in the U.S., hashes it out. This has the telltale signs of a PC war and I don't think we need to get involved yet and take sides - just my opinion. Note the following excerpt from today's NY Times:

"At the organization’s [WHO] news conference on Thursday, its deputy director general, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, dutifully referred to the virus as “H1N1,” slipping up only once. Just two days before, Dr. Fukuda had declared that the new virus was a swine influenza virus, and that the organization had no plans to call it anything other than what it was. . . .

"The name may have changed, but the virus has not. Scientists who have examined its genetic material say that most of it comes from viruses known to infect pigs. But for various reasons, it seems, that is better left unsaid. There were some issues regarding the name swine flu that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the disease centers. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones. And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.” New York Times --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another quote:

"Scientifically this is a swine virus," said top virologist Dr. Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. Webby is director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza Viruses in Lower Animals and Birds. He documented the spread a decade ago of one of the parent viruses of this strain in scientific papers. It's clearly swine," said Henry Niman, president of Recombinomics, a Pittsburgh company that tracks how viruses evolve. "It's a flu virus from a swine, there's no other name to call it." AP News--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Webby also claims "Influenza A viruses are true zoonotic agents with many animal reservoirs" (PMID 17848061). It appears that he conflates "found also in animals" with "originates in animals", which may help to get his papers published but kind of overlooks the huge problem of how to root a phylogenetic tree in the presence of reassortment. --Una Smith (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone on google news is still calling it swine flu so a name change is inappropriate. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the lighter side

Can you imagine a commercial break during the nightly news this coming fall?

"Weather got you down? Suffering from cold sniffles? Or maybe you're coming down with a touch of Influenza A-H-1-N-1). If so, you need a bottle of the new and fast-acting Anti-Influenza-A-H-1-N-1 drug: (fill in with long medical phrase - then add "Extra-strength" to the beginning and "Plus" to the end.) So call your doctor today. You'll be glad you did - and so will we. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu article VS 2009 swine flu outbreak article

	Swine flu	2009 swine flu outbreak
Link is on the Main Page	no	yes
Visits by day	1.3 million wiki visitors/day, the most view, visitor all come here !	0.4 million / day, less than 1/3rd of the visitors come here
Talk page's activity by day	little activity, nobody here, just some wiki-users / day	very active, everybody here, several dozens of wiki-users / day
(Main) Topic	formerly: all strains of influenza in swine since decades. soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak	formerly: the current 'swine flu' outbreak soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak
trouble : if we do nothing, the 2 articles are becoming copies. Solution: choice better names to differentiate more clearly the 2 articles.

Yug (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers in a situation like this is misleading. One common scenario is that people search for swine flu, get to that article, see the link to this article, and click it. That will count as a page view for both pages so almost all of the people who come to this page are double-counted. Oren0 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu was on the main page, in the "in the news" section, until editors asked them to remove the link. That can account for a lot of the page views. This too will pass, and I see nothing much we can or should do about it, except watch both articles and remove or relocate tangential information. Also, examine the incoming links. I fixed a bunch of links today that linked to Swine flu but should link to 2009 swine flu outbreak. You too can fix links. --Una Smith (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine influenza outbreak

Move to 2009 swine influenza outbreak? -download | sign! 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain please?F (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak

As of Thursday April 30th the WHO has officially ceased referring to this outbreak as "swine flu." This follows on the heels of Egypt's ill conceived decision to cull their swine. The A(H1N1) outbreak is not even transmitted by swine, but has a human to human transmission as well as containing avian and human influenza DNA. It may be a bit late in the game, but I think that Wikipedia should follow international convention in this matter and more appropriately rename the article "2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak"

The WHO site link is below and although it uses 'swineflu' in the address there is no longer any mention of it on their page and a statement declaring all future references to be to the A(H1N1) outbreak.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html Ibrmrn (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1

The official name is now influenza A (H1N1). Who thinks the name of the article should be changed? Use agree or disagree marks!--Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree No need to punish swines or the people who depend on pigs to make a living.Ht686rg90 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The name of the article will be the common name. The common name is still "swine flu". If it changes, we'll rename the article. Until then, hmwithτ 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. One example, the article influenza, not "flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 and Transmission and infection of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorities are NOT calling this the swine flu. Change the article title and discussion to reflect correct name. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak is preferable since it is by far the most accurate name. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree -- However I also think we should wait for the flu to be declared a pandemic by WHO. Then, as it has been suggested by other people, the article could be renamed to 2009 flu (or influenza) pandemic, which will be by far the most common and easy to understand name. Cochonfou (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think we should change it NOW and then later switch outbreak to pandemic IF the WHO changes the status. There is no legitimate reason to think that it will definitely be declared a pandemic. How much longer are we going to discuss this? Ibrmrn (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - Not until John Q. Public starts calling it H1N1. Xclamation point 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - per my answer to: "Who is South Korea's neighbor to the north?" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. No matter how much this is re-asked, the answer remains the same. Also, remember WP:NOTAVOTE. Oren0 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree You can't get the virus from eating, raising, buying, selling, or even touching a pig. It was labeled swine flu because of a virus that actually occurred in 1918, where both pigs and people apparently, back then, got sick.SOURCE Since many people see this page, it could also be affecting Pork Sales. It's better that we call it by its official name.Qwertluis (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree  : DisagreeI think that we should stick with the common name, but I think the common name among official sources is becoming H1N1 Influenza A (but I'm fine with just H1N1). John Q public calls influenza 'flu' and all tissue paper 'Kleenex' that doesn't mean those should be the article names. If we redirect from swine flu and include an explanation of naming discrepancies in the first paragraph I think that would be the most accurate. --Hdstubbs (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just changed my vote from agree to disagree based on the point made by the IP user below.

 Disagree per Xclamation point. People aren't saying "H1N1", just as no-one says "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson". ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 DisagreeInteresting to consider a quote from wikipedia article [Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1#Russian Flu] "The more recent Russian flu was a 1977–1978 flu epidemic caused by strain Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)." The common name in this example is Russian Flu, the accurate name is not H1N1 but "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". The name game seems to mature into a distinctive common name such as "Russian Flu" and a technically specific name based on the scientific naming protocol such as "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". H1N1 does not fit into either name type - people, media just are not using a technical name like H1N1 and the technical types want a specific name like "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". Its clear that alot of editors see a need to make changes to the name of the article so support efforts to dig into the naming issues. Suggest saying something like "common names for the new flu are swine flu, mexican flu, ..." and also say the technical name for the new flu strain is "Influenza A/Mexico City/90/77 (H1N1)" see [Influenza_A_virus#Variants and subtypes]"Variants are identified and named according to the isolate that they are like and thus are presumed to share lineage (example Fujian flu virus like); according to their typical host (example Human flu virus); according to their subtype (example H3N2); and according to their deadliness (example LP). So a flu from a virus similar to the isolate A/Fujian/411/2002(H3N2) is called Fujian flu, human flu, and H3N2 flu." [ note again the pattern of a couple common names and an extended specific technical name]. The article is doing well tracking the common names used to name the new flu and somewhere out there is a medical reference that would give us the extended specific technical name. So disagree because H1N1 is not a very good common name and H1N1 is not a very good extended specific technical name. However definitely think that all the talk about the name is getting at something, there might be something more going on - perhaps says something about the way it is taking time for cdc types to get a handle on the new flu, or perhaps something about the way the media deals with the start of an outbreak, it could say something about the hype, frenzy and political lobbying effects - all things that are starting to become more clearly stated in the article. So disagree as H1N1 just is not accurate either commonly or scientifically and suggest get some more references like "A/California/09/2009(H1N1)-like" especially the Mexico City isolate. Mainly suggest keep up the good work tracking the common names, relative useage and when/if the most common name changes from "swine flu" then see about doing the name changes and adding redirects etc as per all the wiki rules and editor consensus etc. And finally with all the editing interest in the name there could be another paragraph or reference somewhere for the article, maybe along the lines of other flu/diseases that had naming history/controversy - maybe we will be able to reference that these type of naming issues are typical of these type of influenza outbreaks, that is to say maybe naming conflicts are part of a big outbreak because of how fast and widespread its outbreak is [no original research here eh ;) ]. [oops, so much more name talk, sigh, looks like I've got the name bug as well, new name flu?, sorry :) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk • contribs)

 Disagree Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. per Oren0 (talk) however because of how much this is re-asked, keep reasking, check also the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTAVOTE etc for some interesting discussion, what would an encylopedia have as a name for this article? - perhaps we don't know yet, perhaps the answer to this naming issue only comes over time as we see what the common useage is, so maybe there is a legitimate question as to what to call a "news" type article that keeps changing, however for now seems "swine flu" but because this is a "news" type article whose subject is dynamic and changing perhaps we will have to keep thinking about how to name this article - perhaps for news type articles it should be expected that there will be more than one obvious name?, redirects help of course. maybe it does not matter what we call the article as long as it is a major common name, we have redirects/listings of the major common names in the article and generally cover any naming issues in the article - so that logic says that the naming is pretty much ok, the article is ok the way it is, any new major common names can be added with redirects. Note that it does not matter that someone official says to change new flu name[to wikipedia], it matters what name is actually used and what name is most commonly used. After all the hubbub and hoopla is over editors can look back and see a better name, of course leaving open to some big twist or turn in the new flu story that might argue for a major name change. So in sum seems like the editors have got this pretty right so far so disagree with name change for now but leaving it open to significant evidence that common name useage has changed.

Agree - chg to 2009 H1N1 flu and redirect for Mexican flu / Swine flu -- Fernvale (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Feds drop 'swine flu,' for 'H1N1 flu' President Obama and U.S. health officials referred to the new strain as "H1N1 flu." Concerned that the term "swine flu" is hurting pork sales, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack and trade officials have also switched to "H1N1."

 Note: Medical topics tend to have medical names on Wikipedia. For example "Heart attack" is a redirect to Myocardial infarction, "Crib death" is Sudden infant death syndrome, "Cat scratch fever" is Cat-scratch disease(!), "Polio" is Poliomyelitis, and of course, "Mongolism" is a redirect to Down syndrome. For most of these the common name's Google hits outnumber the medical name by the millions. Resurr Section (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this for neutral? (following the lead of Prince here) We should call it: "The influenza formerly known as swine flu." :DBFritzen (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - WHO calls it A(H1N1). So should we. The popular names can be listed in the lede, and set up as redirects. We're an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. We should go by what the most reliable sources say. I am sure that any medical journal articles will now use A(H1N1), not "swine flu". Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 2 May 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)

The previous work to fix the lead's length seems to have gone well, but now the lead seems to have regrown its fifth paragraph. Emw2012 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I re-worked it and cut the information that is covered in depth later in the article so it is back down to four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 May 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)

Fully agree your doing a great job I was tracking SARS for a large enterprise and it was dozens of people, spread sheets and prediction models to monitor the spread of the outbreak. This time we just go to Wikipedia and other social network tools. Fantastic Work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.81.122 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 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)

In reference 11 seems to be the letter d of "Englan" missing.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 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)

I didn't mean to imply that. Understanding the length of this period though would improve the understanding of this ongoing event. ike9898 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incubation period refers to the time between when you first contract the disease and when you start to exhibit symptoms. Depending on what disease it is you may or may not be contagious during this time. As for flu, I can't exactly remember all the specifics about it. (I knew I should have paid closer attention in virology class this semester) :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Revert vandalism by Hsibley -- under "spread within Mexico", text was changed to read "over 9000" from the previous "over 3000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.157 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be 4000, as the table suggests.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer showing "over 9000". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Six Regions of WHO: A Tufte-like Proposal

http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html

The WHO region map is salient, and not only because of the two-region criterion of Phase Six. It would be useful and informative to color-code their map as the epidemic develops in conjunction with the Mollweide projection —some of those nation-states are kind of cramped. And it's a global epidemic —why not use the WHO's global regions? We are using their data, after all! kencf0618 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, we (several other users and myself) have all attempted to change the map using various boundaries, and have all run into the same problem. The original maps coding is pretty complicated in how it is updated and most of us don't have the programming knowledge to mess with that, and the boundaries themselves are too complex to simply draw them in.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. I had rather assumed that there was a template somewhere... kencf0618 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That map is a bit odd and political. Is a disease just as serious when it travels across the widest oceans from the Americas to China as when a Berber crosses a couple miles across what he considers his "country" or a New Guinean crosses a line in the middle of his own island? Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which symptoms image should we have?

• 
  First one. (1).
• 
  New one. (2)
• (3)
  (3)
• 
  (4)
• 
  (5)

Since yesterday [5], it seems we have two symptoms images to choose between now, which gives us the advantage to use the one we think fits best. In terms of symptoms, they both say exactly the same. 1 is public domain, while 2, on the other hand, has some rights reserved. 1 looks more realistic, while 2 is more diagram-like. The only other difference is I can see directly is that 2 is taller in order to make the text come out in same size. Are there any other pros and cons, and which one should we have? Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the first one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Second one: the intent is to show the symptoms in a clear manner to the lay person; not show some creepy looking swede inside-out boy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Don't discriminate against the inside-outs! I get your point with clear expression though. Still, the more restricted licensing of the second one may be a factor against. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one; perhaps someone could color-edit it so that the affected organs match the highlight color of the symptoms pointing to them, for easier reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.197.134 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. kencf0618 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one. The first one is creepy, to me. I don't like the way his creepy eyes stare out at me when I can see his brain. Hdstubbs (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does making the brain part more transparent ameliorate the creepy issue? You can compare with previous version. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like either. Do we really need these to begin with? The symptoms of swine flue are identical to the symptoms of a bad strain of seasonal flu; in fact, most of the symptoms, e.g. diarrhea, nausea, lethargy, are common to hundreds of unrelated diseases. Does this chart really offer any useful information? What purpose does it serve? Before editors start spending hours creating worthless charts for all sorts of diseases, we really should have this debate. But if we're going to use a chart, I would prefer using an illustration of a person rather than have someone pose as a model, and in any case, the head should be turned sideways to properly illustrate the nasopharynx and areas of the brain (cerebellum).--98.232.98.144 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the diagram has an advantage in being able to illustrate details of the nasopharynx and brain. If it also had a plurality of organs tailored to fit into it and be made public domain or a compatible license, then I'd consider using it as standard template.

I do think the diagrams serve the purpose of giving a quick overview of symptoms, especially for all those who just scroll through articles, as well getting the big picture of the symptoms. Due to strict licensing policies, Wikipedia lacks in illustrating all its text. (And the diagrams don't take hours to make; if you can handle a drag-and-drop doll, then you can make a diagram.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the color coded version. Should we change the pic on the article?Drew R. Smith (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that psychological is spelled wrong in the second image (both versions). — Xy⁷ 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The version that is currently in the article (niether #1 nor #2) looks amateurish (no offense). Replacing it with either #1 or #2 would be an improvement.ike9898 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I replaced it with #2. hmwithτ 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Amatureish? I put a lot of work into that, going over it pixel by pixel to color code the organs. Guess I just wont bother next time.Drew R. Smith (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be a dick about your picture, it's just that the other two look significantly more professional to me. ike9898 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling error and used a PD image for the brain so now the whole file is in the public domain. (4)WilliamTheaker (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. The lethargy is not psychological - it is due to cytokine (in particlar TNFα) release, same for loss of appetite. There is also no mention of the muscle pain (myalgia) and joint pain (arthralgia) that you get in flu. Surely these should get a mention? I would suggest moving loss of appetite and lethargy to "Systemic". |→ Spaully^₪† 07:26, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

I've implemented these changes as best I can, see (5). Adding to article. Will add joint and muscle pain as soon as I can work out how to... |→ Spaully^₪† 11:09, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

'Over reactions' section open

I feel our coverage of the disease name (section 8) should include the reactions or overreactions to the virus that have happened as a result of people erroneously believing (based on only the disease's name) that it is carried by pigs or pig products.

Specifically, two articles that cover this: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/30/1915246.aspx http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/pork.industry.impact/index.html

The erroneous impacts / reactions include mass killings of livestock and improper bannings of imports from certain countries. It is quite notable and directly tied to the improper naming of the virus as a "swine flu."

 Done, I just created a 'Over reactions' section. To complete. Yug (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that section's still incomplete - the second article isn't about the Egyption stuff, it's about the importation bans and sales drops of pork products resulting from the name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.197.134 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed the section. Is there something still missing? (If so, a link is really helpful.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In the context suggested for this heading, I'm not sure 'Over Reactions' is an appropriate term. Perhaps 'Misconceptions' would be better suited to cover several topics under the heading?--Wikiqueb (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to simply follow the WHO daily update source for information?

Why are we relying on other news sources instead of the WHO daily updates to provide updated statistics?

Right here it says... http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01/en/index.html

There are only 156 confirmed cases in Mexico not 312. There are 109 in the USA not 138.

For whatever reason the other countries are correct but why do we keep on inflating the numbers for the US and Mexico?

I don't care if a news source quotes a us or mexican official, the way the news is being carried at the moment makes a lot of the information by the media unreliable. Just consider this headline by the Times Online which is being used as a source for suspected cases. The headline blares "Mexico confirms swine flu toll rises to 159" while the first line in the story says "The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159," if this is not enough evidence as to why we should stick exclusively with what WHO and CDC are saying then this article is as pointless as half the news article circulating out there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.230.247 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying, the values go up and down depending on who edited according to what source Just use WHO and stick to it to avoid this confusing and quite amateuristic yo-yo effect Dr-gonzo (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points: One you should make this argument on the talk page for the template (the link is at the top of this page) and Two, instead of just using WHO, which is a good source, but shouldn't be the only source, why not make a rule that we only use government agencies for info on lab confirmed cases? 62.69.130.82 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The values are going to go up and down no matter what Dr-gonzo. The situation itself is fast evolving. There is no escaping the yo-yo effect. WHO figures may not be the most recent. If someone has more recent authoritative numbers we should use them. Agree with 62.69.130.82 on sticking as far as possible to official sources. Hawthorn (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the WHO recieves its information from the National Health Agenices. If the National Health Agencies particually the CDC's numbers (141) are more recent than WHOs numbers why would we use something obviously out of date? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some statistics

As we collected a lot of figures from hundred of different sources here, I made a chart of the reported possible and confirmed cases. The x-axis is in hours, started from 26th April 2009. The figures are taken from the article's and template's history every hour. Well 2 notes: Development for the confirmed cases seemed to be exponential (5 days/5 doublings: 30 - 60 - 120 - 240 - 500). The reported possible cases are rather linear. -- Grochim (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interresting, maybe add to the article, although I don't know if this qualifies as "original research". 128.232.228.74 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I like. Please add. As far as the original research thing - data is data no matter how presented. If you stick to presenting data you on on solid ground. Interpreting it is another matter.Hawthorn (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I placed it in the article below the table. -- Grochim (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are absolutely amazing. It's just what the article needed. Thank you so much for creating these, Grochim. hmwithτ 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While I appreciate the effort that Grochim took to make these charts, their use in the article is inappropriate because:

• The data is based on wikipedia numbers which is definitely not an WP:RS, and also known to be wrong (as anyone who has been working on maintaining the table knows, the totals are not always correct/up-to-date)
• The data plot itself is arbitrary OR, since no medical authority has attested that the "number-of-reported/confirmed-cases vs hours starting from an arbitrary deadline" is an informative or meaningful metric for an outbreak in its early stages. Rather, epidemiologists have cautioned that such data is both inaccurate and deceptive.[6]

In short, despite the good intentions, these graphs are against wiki-policy of OR, and also meaningless, inaccurate and potentially alarming. So I'm going to remove them from the article; if you disagree feel free to discuss the issue here on talk page and establish consensus for inclusion. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But this is a misunderstood, because the chart is only based on figures of external sources. All figures are sourced, the source of the data material is definitely not Wikipedia, not even one number in the chart. The chart shows the reported cases since April, 26th. If the period is going to be increased, it won't look more harmless, don't worry. The data of the confirmed cases is from labor tests, I don't think it is inaccurate or deceptive. -- Grochim (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no source (besides wikipedia article history) can attest that the number of reported possible cases 61 hours following April 26th, 2009 was 2500, the source of the numbers is definitely wikipedia. And using those (inaccurate) numbers to form the basis of the graph is OR; wikipedia policy does allow us to to do simple analysis of sourced data (eg. dividing a countries population by its area to calculate the standard metric of population density); however we cannot simply collate data from statistics in wikipedia article history without violating WP:OR.

Leaving the issue of OR aside for the moment, the graphs are also meaningless and deceltive, i.e., no reviewer in any journal would agree to publish this data even if it the data itself was verifiable; here are the reasons:

1. See [7] to see why epidemologists warn that the early data reports in an outbreak are deceptive. IIRC Science website also had a discussion of the risk of overhyping the early reports but I'll have to search for the link. Do read 2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Media_response_and_bias for more discussion of the issue.
2. The plot also suffers from false precision, plotting the increase in reported cases hourly, contrary to anything you'll find in an epidemological journal or indeed CDC reports such as this one or this 2 year plot for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.
3. As you'll see from the CDC chart above, the cases vs date plots are typically for day of onset of ilness, and not for the day the illness was reported; since the latter is more a measure of the medical infrastructure in play than the spread of the disease itself. Of course, this nuance doesn't make much of a difference when the least count of the time axis is much greater than the expected duration of the illness (5-10 days in our case), but for a plot covering a period of few weeks or months, this would be critical.
4. The plot adds up data from different countries with different reporting standards and (possibly) definitions of probable/suspected/confirmed. See the caveats in Johnson NPAS, Mueller J. Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918–1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic. Bull Hist Med. 2002;76:105–15, to understand why this is a risky endeavor. Of course, scientists do do this in some papers but only when addressing fellow-experts who understand the nuances, and with the caveats stated up-front. We too are doing this by including a "total" row in our tables, but that number should, in fact, be under-emphasized, as is hopefully apparent by reading the Media bias and response section of our article.
5. At these early stages, the error-bars and noise in the data (if we actually knew them) are so large that plotting this data to display a polynomial or exponential rise in the number of cases is simply unwarranted.

Now I don't mean to sound harsh, and I appreciate your efforts; but these plot, though tantalizing to the lay audience, are just junk science. Instead of WP:OR we should follow the lead of medical authorities like WHO and CDC in what information to include and what is the proper way to present it. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the medical authories knows right now as much as you and me. It's quite difficult to get reliable and meaningful numbers in such an early state, that's true. And we also know that the chart does not necessarily correspond with the real-time spread of the virus, because there are delays in the labors. On the other hand there is a lot of uncertainty about the further developments, that's why I took the numbers and created a chart. Right now it is not that important because of the inaccuracy, yes. Let's hope that the chart will not become important in future neither. -- Grochim (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of seeing this in the article per wikipedia policy of using common sense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding an estimate of the current death rate (i.e., percentage of death among the confirmed cases in the last one or two days), and graph its history since the beginning of the epidemic.. I believe this is a meaningful quantity, since it would (I expect) reflect the fact that awareness and treatment availability improve chances of survival, and it would help lower the level of panic among the population. I think lowering this level is an important goal of good informers, Wikipedians. 140.180.171.121 (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

... the reported deaths from the illness have primarily been young, healthy adults.

The reference for this comment ([8] in the 'Pandemic Concern' section) does state this, but it is wrong. The WHO statement that the reference article refers to states that most cases have been young, healthy adults, not most deaths.

Can someone please edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to identify the WHO statement that you mention; there isn't any obvious link in the NYT article to a WHO statement, as far as I can see. If you can provide a link here, then editors can check the WHO statement and see if the NYT got it wrong. Otherwise, we have to go with what is in the newspaper article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the 4th paragraph of the NY Times article, on the word 'said'. Here's the link: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the link is wrong, or the page being linked to has significantly changed. Here's the complete sentence: Most of Mexico’s dead were young, healthy adults, and none were over 60 or under 3 years old, the World Health Organization said. But the linked WHO page doesn't mention ages (3, 60) at all. That the linked WHO page does not provide support for the information in the sentence in NY Times does not make the information in the article wrong, it just makes it more questionable, since the WHO information does not contradict the NY Times article. This is the New York Times (excellent writers, good fact-checkers), and the information stated in the NYT article about deaths is consistent with those who get ill (the majority are healthy, not old or young). It's possible, of course, that the pattern of deaths is different than the pattern of illnesses, but it would be presumptuous to make that assumption.

In short, I'm not willing to change the information unless someone finds a WHO page that specifically contradicts the NY Times article; that is, a WHO (or other) report that provides age-related information about deaths. (I did some Google searches but didn't find anything.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If the NY Times are 'excellent writers' and 'good fact checkers', why did they make the large mistake of referencing a WHO page that confirms nothing of what they stated... Not the best journalism. I think it should at least be changed to 'alleged', or 'said to be', rather than stating it as a fact. Or even 'the NY Times alleges that...'. This is especially important because of the media bias for trying to create fear to get more viewers. NoExaggeration (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, as far as I'm aware, one cannot be a "young, healthy adult" if one has a fatal disease. Very sloppy writing... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this strain called?

This is not about renaming/moving this article, it's about the name of this specific strain of Influenza A virus of subtype H1N1.

• 1918 flu pandemic: "It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1".
• Influenza A virus subtype H1N1: "also known as A(H1N1), is a subtype of influenzavirus A and the most common cause of influenza (flu) in humans. Some strains of H1N1 are endemic in humans".
• This article: "The new virus strain is known as the influenza A (H1N1) virus,[58] and the outbreak has also been variously called the H1N1 influenza,[59] the 2009 H1N1 flu,[59] the North-American flu, or the Mexican flu. [...] The new strain is an apparent reassortment of four strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1. [...] Worldwide the common human H1N1 influenza virus affects millions of people every year [...] The CDC has confirmed that U.S. cases were found to be made up of genetic elements from four different flu viruses – North American swine influenza, North American avian influenza, human influenza,"

It makes no sense that this strain can be called influenza A (H1N1) or H1N1 influenza. That's like calling one specific species of falcon "Bird", or "Aves Falconiformes".

2009 H1N1 flu only makes sense if there is only one strain a year of H1N1.

North-American flu for this strain is less specific than the strain's own constituants: North American swine influenza and North American avian influenza.

I understand that Wikipedia just summarizes what primary and secondary sources say, but are there no sources that have given this strain a sensible name? -- Jeandré, 2009-05-01t13:38z

Sensible is as you see it. Influenza A (A/California/09/2009(H1N1)) is a sensible name to a genetic virologist. Swine flu is sensible to some newsmen, 2009 H1N1 flu is sensible to some pro-pork industry politicians. At Wikipedia, we are concerned with two things - accuracy (any of these names are currently understood to refer to the same thing) and most common name so that the largest number of readers reach the page in the least number of clicks - so for us, so far 2009 swine flu is the sensible name. Rmhermen (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to "common name". Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. To quote "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name". One example, the article influenza, not "flu". Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, and Global spread of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ht686rg90. Common names are language simplifications. News papers and people have to deal with a low quantity of issues, for them, there is only one 'Avian flu', only one 'Swine flu': the TV broadcast outbreak one. For wikipedia and scientists, there are dozens of Avian flu strains, decades old dozens of Swine flu strains. We have to deal with this: wikipedia have ALREADY far more issues than mass media and TV shows. In wikipedia, it's NOT possible to always use the 'common name'. Yug (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Also, it's very difficult to judge what is the common name. hmwithτ 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose "Captain Trips" ;) 75.156.128.251 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Swine Flu to anything else at this point would be nonsense. There was no Bird Producer Lobby pushing to have Bird Flu renamed, but if there was, could anyone imagine the disservice renaming it would cause. Here in Canada our National News Media, The CBC, said they will not allow the Pork Lobby to dictate a name change to what is commonly known as Swine Flu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.41.12 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Pork Lobby" would include lots of ordinary people making their living from pigs who are punished for no good reason at all due to false information. I fail to understand the comparison to "Bird Flu" which has in fact been renamed. See my earlier comment above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case it's an ethical question and should be kept Swine Flu precisely because a 'lobby' is pushing for the name change. But that's just me.--Wikiqueb (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How can you defend your position ethically? Ht686rg90 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see the moral dilemma in allowing any lobby to dictate the name of a disease, then I'm afraid that's something you will have to soul search on your own. The Obama administration doing so mid course doesn't make it right or graceful.--Wikiqueb (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The name is important because "swine flu" implies an assumed zoonosis, meaning swine influenza crossing the species barrier into humans. So far, this strain has not been found in swine. Thus, this new strain appears to be a new strain of human influenza and "swine flu" is a misnomer. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Influenza A (A/California/09/2009(H1N1)) the actual scientific name or does it have the word Mexico city in place of California? I've seen both. Does anyone have a link? I think that would be useful to put into the article. Hdstubbs (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

2003 SARS Pandemic

In the 2003 pandemic, did the WHO bring their alert level to Phase 6 or did it stay below that the whole time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.141.21 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can tell you it didn't goto 6, I don't think they've ever gone to 6. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing about it on SARS (which really should be named 2003 SARS outbreak). Maybe the WHO Pandemic Alert Level system isn't that old. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They've never raised it above 3. Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is really for discussing how to improve the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. For general questions like this, you can ask at the reference desk. hmwithτ 16:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HMWITH you are totally right and I am breaking the rules but in answer to the question: this current pandemic six stage alert system was completely revamped post SARS because of what they felt was some problems with the system. So there was a system in place but it wasn't these same levels (I don't know if it was still six stages). I can't remember where I read this or I would send you the link. Hdstubbs (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the CDC response table was also written in response to SARS. This outbreak would have US immedetly goto CDC-Phase4 on the first Mexican Case. It seems the planners were thinking of an inital outbreak outside of North America.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading apparent accuracy

I am concerned that this article is misleading. Media reports of suspected cases, confirmed cases and deaths are given to several significant figures. This gives the impression that the number of individuals infected falls between the suspected number and the confirmed number and that there is a high degree of accurary in these figures themselves. However, this seems likely to be false as suspected cases almost only consist of people who have contacted a doctor, have been detected at a national border or have had contact with these two groups. In addition not all countries may be accurately reporting their figures. The real number of infected is almost certainly higher. Which means that the flu has spread faster than our article suggests and is less deadly than it implies (assuming that deaths are more likely to be detected than mild cases). I don't have the time to search for references to confirm or settle this but I think it should be done. If I'm right our graphs, the table and the introduction should make it clear that the figures quoted do not correspond to actual infections (and possibly not even actual mortality rates). Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think the graphs, tables and the introduction should make this clear anyhow. If there is evidence I'm right we may need to edit the article more heavily. Barnaby dawson (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the under-reporting right now is due to Mexico. I heard a webcast yesterday the (acting) CDC director say that MEX have just recently recieved the ability to test for the disease themselves and that US State Health Agencies will recieve testing kits Monday (such that agencies don't have to send samples to Atlanta for testing). China and other nations had under-reporting concerns for both SARS and Avian flu (which never reached the human to human stage). You have a valid point of concern on both underreporting and untested individuals but unfortunatly we can only report what is verifiable and these sources (Goverment Medical Statements, or reputable media outlets citing Goverment Medical Authotites) meet the requirements we use for verification on any topic. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think we could make it clearer that the figures are not estimates of the number infected but classifications of reported or detected cases. Thats just being strictly accurate and would not require additional references. But any more would require references you're right. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Laboratory confirmed" numbers

Where are you getting these "laboratory confirmed" numbers? They keep jumping back and forth. Sometimes when I click refresh on the page a "laboratory confirmed" count decreases. Either it's confirmed or it isn't. Do they go back and retract confirmations, or why are we seeing these highly nonsensical fluctuations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.89.195 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico redacted some of its numbers earlier this week when they claimed they didn't have a valid testing protocol, the most recent changes are mostly due to edit wars over using WHO numbers or CDC, ECDC, or other national agencies--PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial outbreaks and detection

In the "spread within Mexico" section, the first sentence isn't properly sourced:

The outbreak was first detected in Mexico City, where surveillance began picking up a surge in cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) starting March 18

The source for this claim is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8017585.stm but it doesn't say anything about March 18 or Mexico City. Analoguni (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I contributed the claim, and I recall that I got it from the WHO website. I included a complete ref; you can check my contribs to find it again. --Una Smith (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

China & Hong Kong Confirmed Cases

According to BBC China has confirmed their first case of H1N1 2009 - Flu in Hong Kong in a man traveling via Shanghai. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028169.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/health/02flu.html?ref=asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.57.165 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese have cordoned off the area around the hotel.

Article should be updated to note a confirmed case in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.57.165 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added under Hong Kong --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that Hong Kong is not a country thus the information is incorrect. Yogiudo (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. The health care system and government structures are widely different between the two places. Saying there is a confirmed case in Hong Kong is very different from saying there is a confirmed case in China. The purpose of the table is to measure the worldwide spread and as such the two categories should be different. Further, under the idea of common name, the media frequently refers to Hong Kong in its own right. --Hdstubbs (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unusually lethal? This should be changed.

In the Spread in Mexico section it reads:

"The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico but not in other countries."

this is POV and should accurately read "The strain in Mexico has caused 12 confirmed deaths so far while no other deaths have been reported in any other countries."

Is it unusual to die from the flu virus be it this strain or any other? Do the 12 confirmed deaths from H1N1 among the yet undetermined total number of cases give any basis to consider that this "strain appears to be unusually lethal"?

The wording conveys the sense that there is some sort of "supervirus" going on in Mexico causing an "unsual" number of deaths. This is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

'No deaths' in other countries is also inaccurate, um random internet shouter guy.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the derision to the argument posed by stating "random internet shouter guy". I was inaccurate to say 'no deaths' since there has been one recorded in the US of a Mexican citizen who was treated there. Does the fact that I am not logged in make you ignore the argument? Nice editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just Pigflu's personality. It is quite nice because it brings brevity to a mostly serious topic. I don't see how that is derisive. If you are offended, just see his other comments. Usually very good, but at times a bit quirky. BFritzen (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one really knows what the real mortality rate for the current epidemic might be, since it's really too early to know: it could be high, it could be low, we just have no idea. We also don't really know how easily it spreads yet. There's also the fear that it might mutate/reassort into something nastier than the current version at some point, as it coincides with the ordinary flu season in some countries. We will know more in a few weeks' time, once sample sizes are big enough to judge.

That's the thing about risks; they're unpredictable. It's prudent to plan for the worst -- bacause it just might happen -- but at the same time realise that the worst-case is actually fairly unlikely, in part because we are treating it as a big deal now. The more we take prudent action now, the less likely it is that the worst case scenarios will happen.

See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/515616 for more information about the range of possible mortality rates: 1/100,000 would be no big deal for a flu season, 529/100,000, as in the 1918-19 pandemic in the U.S., would be a disaster. -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, Anome. It is just that I am baffled as to how come there is this specific sentence in the article that says that the H1N1 is "unusually lethal in Mexico" when there is no amount of data to back that up. Considering that there are only 12 recorded deaths among an unspecified number of cases, how has one arrived to that conclusion? I mean, just because you add the word "appears" before it, that doesn't make it any more accurate. If influenza of any other type would not produce the 10's of thousands deaths a year around countries in the world, I would take it that just 1 death by H1N1 is one too many.

Look you can keep the sentence as it is, I just find it inaccurate and wanted to see if anyone could give me a rational as to why that sentence is there, specifically the wording "unusually lethal". -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk • contribs)

I've chopped out the offending words where they appear, since they are either not supported by the specific cite given, or (in the second case) supported by any cite at all. 1 death in a sample of around 200 gives us no real information at all about any possible mortality rate in the U.S., since it's (a) too small a sample, (b) too early to tell, and (c) we have no idea about what the eventual prevalence might be. (By the way, I'm not an epidemiologist or any kind of expert: just an interested observer.) -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my argument, Anome. And considering how courteous and professional you were with addressing it, I am conviced it pays off to register oneself in Wikipedia. So I am off to get registered and hopefully contribute with something in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.17.185 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fix the map

South Korea should be yellow not red, and Russia also should be yellow since they are suspected. Kadrun (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Russian case tested negative. NM thinking of an earlier case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and Unreliable Sources

Discussion moved to Template talk page

The information presented in the Table on the number of Possible or Probable Cases and Deaths of H1N1 flu victims suffers from the inclusion of dozens of unreliable and unverifiable information which makes is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article on this subject and has gotten out of hand. Re: Reliable Sources for Medicine-Related Articles Many of the referenced sources are popular news articles that are passing along rumor and unverified information. What got me started trying to raise the flag about inaccurate information stemmed from several articles from non-popular, local news outlets that were simply reporting hearsay and random emails about someone possibly being sick, and then later retracting the information. The popular press is playing fast and loose with any facts they present, which makes the listing of possible and probable cases as something that is fluid, un-scientific, and unencyclopedic. The information from those sources would never make it into any journal article or respected publication due to these problems. It is irresponsible for wikipedians to be spreading such information on a medically-related wikipedia article, at the top of the page, that distorts the information being distributed by government sources and medically-oriented sources and publications about the outbreak. The table sensationalizes the issue, and portrays inaccurate numbers that are meaningless. Whereas some popular news articles publish updated WHO, CDC, and other medically-related bodies, that is okay as they are reporting verifiable facts. Years of medical school have taught me that for medicine, you need to look at your level of evidence...and Wikipedia is no different, especially when it comes to presenting information about medicine-related topics. We should be listing information from reliable sources, and only including breaking-information from those sources where an popular-press author has provided that information ahead of the reliable source's publications. Including popular-press scare-mongering information that is designed to grab headlines is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article that is supposed to be presenting a NPOV. I would like people to discuss this issue regarding the removal of unreliable information from the table. I tried adding a tag to the table sub-article, but was quickly banned by some authors that wanted to mute any discussion about reliable sources in inaccuracies. We are all trying to ensure that Wikipedia provides a balanced, and accurate representation. Flipper9 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Didn't we do this dance just yesterday? My feet are tired. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC) You may want to discuss this at Template_talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

update request for france

Thanks to update french data:

• suspected cases: 27,
• probable cases: 3,
• confirmed cases: 2,
• deaths: none.

source: http://www.invs.sante.fr/derniere_minute/fichiers/10.bilan01052009_19h00.pdf

--86.220.46.203 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Yes I Anonymous

You may want to discuss this at Template_talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with references

I rewrote the second paragraph to be a little more accurate:

Although the exact time and location of the outbreak is unknown, it is believed to have been first detected when an influenza-like illness was reported by both health agencies and local news media in Mexico. The virus responsible was clinically identified as a new strain on April 24, 2009. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other countries.

But could someone help me with adding the references to the bottom of the page. There should be a citation for this source after both the first and second sentences: http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/swine-flu-in-mexico-timeline-of-events.html

Thanks. And could someone give me a link to how to change references myself? I can't find one. Hdstubbs (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Death Toll etc,

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please get the death tolls from the WHO site, they are official figures,

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01a/en/index.html - Latest Update http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html - Swine Flu main Page

No. We are using all available sources, not just the WHO. I'm NOT saying however, that we aren't using the WHO. We are just using all available sources. Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

owever, on review of the sources, I saw that this was released 20 mins ago, and are probably the most accurate figures right now. I will put them into the tables.Drew R. Smith (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NYT reference 148 incorrect

The NYT article referred at reference 148 Fighting Deadly Flu mentions that "Most of Mexico’s dead were young, healthy adults, and none were over 60 or under 3 years old, the World Health Organization said" which is incorrect according to Influenza-like illness in the United States and Mexico The WHO release mentions that 18 of the 24 cases showing ILI were young, healthy adults. The same article mentioned that only 3 died, and gave no indication if those 3 were among the 18 or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.130 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I mentioned this above under the heading "... the reported deaths from the illness have primarily been young, healthy adults." Can someone please edit this to something more accurate? Does anyone actually know the demographics of the dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoExaggeration (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again this is mentioned in the line "The Mexican fatalities are alleged to be mainly young adults of 25 to 45, a common trait of pandemic flu.[71][101]". However the references say nothing about the deaths of young adults, only that many cases are 'said' to be young adults. NoExaggeration (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Patient Zero

If there are confirmed cases of infection prior to when patient zero became infected (see main article), how is it that he is still being considered patient zero? Have there been any other patient zero candidates? Victor Engel (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Any claims of a patient zero of are entirely media speculation. They do not know who patient zero is. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/29/2009-04-29_is_5yearold_edgar_hernandez_patient_zero_mexican_governor_says_so_officials_not_.html Hdstubbs (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We may not be allowed to speculate, but the media does, and does so often, and we are allowed to include notable speculation that can be reliably sourced and surrounded with proper context.   user:j    (aka justen)   09:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As previous discussions show, that 5-year-old boy CANNOT be patient zero (by logic) even if media calls him though. Therefore, it can be put in the Widipedia article, but only with the hint that it is just called by the media so, but that there were other "cases" before (see Spanish version, for example): http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brote_de_gripe_porcina_de_2009#Origen--201.153.40.28 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Johann Hari has written a column in The Independent that claims the current flu came from factory-farmed pigs.[10] Does anyone know if this is possible or has been confirmed? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article most certainly does not make that claim:

... the evidence is suggestive, although far from conclusive. We know that the city where this swine flu first emerged – Perote, Mexico – contains a massive industrial pig farm, and houses 950,000 pigs. Dr Silbergeld adds: "Factory farms are not biosecure at all. People are going in and out all the time. If you stand a few miles down-wind from a factory farm, you can pick up the pathogens easily. And manure from these farms isn't always disposed of."

I find the article to be interesting, well written, and well reasoned. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that this epidemic isn't swine flu. It is influenza A H1N1. BFritzen (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

definition of the term 'pandemic'

i don't really have time to scour this discussion for a thread similar to the one i'm proposing, however it seems prudent the occurrence of the term 'pandemic' in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH ought have a definition option attached.

so no one needs go scrambling for it, here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

i would add it as such, but the article seems locked (understandable...).

you're welcome ;-) 69.11.55.241 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Adressed. Vrinan (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Reading

I was reading this on the CDC website and it breaks down (albeit in the USA) deaths and rates of infection for 3 different strains of influenza, but not AH1N1. Influenza by Week. It is not unlike what we are seeing with this one, but I will let you all read and (hopefully) get an idea that this is an epidemic (at most) and the "pandemoniademic" isn't really a threat.BFritzen (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, that currently this epidemic is not what epidemiologists have long feared in terms of an influenza outbreak. However, even though the media has engaged in fear-mongering and hype, there is a real public health issue here for both developed and developing nations. [11]If you're looking for interesting article read this. --Hdstubbs (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The H1N1 outbreak has been a real wake-up call (one which the article is just beginning to reflect). kencf0618 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted this Government Actions Section

I deleted the government actions section because it was already mentioned in the country specific discussion section. Just wanted to put it on the talk page in case anyone wanted to discuss. Hdstubbs (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First statistics regarding the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus.

This information is according to the Health Minister of the Mexican State of Sonora. Sonora borders the US state of Arizona.

Per the Health Minister of the state regarding the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus:

http://www.ehui.com/?c=20&a=117048

"Según los estudios que se han realizado de la influenza se determinó que la enfermedad es curable y que su índice de mortandad es de 3.6 por ciento, lo cual es similar a las neumonías que se presentan cada año, destacó Raymundo López Vucovich.

El Secretario de Salud aseguró que Sonora continúa libre del virus, pues no hay casos ni sospechosos, ni probables"

According to the studies made, the disease is treatable and the mortality rate is of 3.6% which is considered similar to that of the normal flu virus. He added that the state of Sonora is currently without any probable, confirmed or deadly cases to report.

GaussianCopula (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Should any of this information be added to the Spread within Mexico section?

GaussianCopula (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3.6% death rate is surely not similar to the death rate from flu (more like 0.5%). Even the Spanish flu only had a 2.5% death rate. I think we should treat this report with a high degree of caution and look for corroborating or contradictory sources before including it. Certainly this report, if used, must be attributed in the text (not just a reference) given its significance. Barnaby dawson (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with you. I am not a medical person but a math guy. I don't know if the mortality rate of influenza in Mexico differs from that of the norm worlwide. I just linked to the most recent information and the Health Minister from Sonora could well be way off in his statistics.

GaussianCopula (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When I think about it. It might be that the death rate from influenza in Mexico is much higher than that from the US or worldwide. Maybe that is the explanation.

GaussianCopula (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapter Prior influenza season

This chapter has nothing lost on this page. I think it shoule be deleted or maybe linked somewhere.
- This is a international crisis and an international article. I dont see how the influenza season of one country is related to the topic in any way.
- the text is missleading because it doesnt mention that it talks about the US when stating "prior influenza season.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.64.57 (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if it was expanded to include other countries it would become too long and still not be relevant to the rest of the article. -Pontificalibus (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Revised Mexico deaths

The BBC is reporting that the Mexican Secretariat of Health has revised suspected Swine Flu deaths down to 101. This should probably be updated in the article and table - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they have revised the probable death count to 101, but confirmed deaths in Mexico still sits at 16. This is according to both the latest WHO update and the BBC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PixelPerfect (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

R zero infection coefficiene should be published. It is very low.

New Scientist quotes a study that shows infection rate Ro of AH1n! as being 1,16, meaning 100 people will infect 116 others, barely sustainable. Infection rate of Ro 2 is exponential, Spanish flu was 3,14, namely uncontrolable. If Ah1n1 Ro falls from 1,16 to under 0,99 it will die out. Washing hands would do that.

[[Media: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17072-first-genetic-analysis-of-swine-flu-reveals-potency.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news]]

quote Weak virus

If the new virus spreads from one infected person to the next at about the same speed as ordinary flu, that gives an idea of how many cases there may have been in that time. A mathematical model permits the calculation of an important variable called R0 – the number of additional people infected, on average, by each case. If R0 is less than one, an infection dies out.

Grassly also cautions that the estimate is very preliminary. But with the data available now, he gets an R0 of 1.16 – enough for the virus to keep going, but only just. unquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.69.7 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very significant, if it stands up. Do we have any other sources for this? Is a preliminary writeup of their research available anywhere? -- The Anome (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[By the way, what is Ro ? O.o, have we an article ?] Yug (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)