Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic: Difference between revisions
Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
:This fact has been regarded, we are the [[Borg (Star Trek)| pig]], [[Resistance is futile]] you will be assimilated!!! --[[User:PigFlu Oink|PigFlu Oink]] ([[User talk:PigFlu Oink|talk]]) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
:This fact has been regarded, we are the [[Borg (Star Trek)| pig]], [[Resistance is futile]] you will be assimilated!!! --[[User:PigFlu Oink|PigFlu Oink]] ([[User talk:PigFlu Oink|talk]]) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: ...okay then. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#000066;"> '''GARDEN''' </font>]]</span></small> 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
:: ...okay then. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#000066;"> '''GARDEN''' </font>]]</span></small> 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Palau update== |
|||
[[Palau]]'s Health Minister has issued a health alert and increased screening of passengers entering the country for swine flu [http://www.mvarietynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16553:palau-on-health-alert-for-swine-flu-&catid=17:palau-news&Itemid=5]] |
Revision as of 14:02, 12 May 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 swine flu pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Other article information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 swine flu pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() | Recent debate has resulted in no consensus for any change to the article's title. Please need through the previous debate before proposing a name change. |
![]() | If you are posting to this talk page to update case counts, please do so at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. |
What is the sort order?
There is a table listing the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths by country. If the U.S. has the most cases, why is Mexico listed first? What is the sort rule? It appears arbitrary. Edison (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it is first, confirmed deaths, then for countries with no deaths, number of confirmed cases. Edison (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, as long as the WHO don't officially raise the pandemic threat classification to level 6, the chart should list firstly the confirmed cases, then the probable cases and (at last!) then the confirmed deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Valence (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with that idea is that some significant countries, e.g. Mexico, no longer track your second sort field, probable cases. That makes sorting rather difficult. Victor Engel (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's correct, but the most important field is still the number of confirmed cases. And at a relatively low level of about 3, 4 confirmed cases, no country would stop reporting the PROBABLE cases. On the other hand, it's statistically very unlikely that two countries (e.g. Mexico and the US) will have the same number of CONFIRMED cases. Liberty Valence (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with that idea is that some significant countries, e.g. Mexico, no longer track your second sort field, probable cases. That makes sorting rather difficult. Victor Engel (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, as long as the WHO don't officially raise the pandemic threat classification to level 6, the chart should list firstly the confirmed cases, then the probable cases and (at last!) then the confirmed deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Valence (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Should suspect cases (sub)column be dropped from main table?
Are we at the point where the suspected cases column is being meaningless? Should it be dropped?
Please see discussion at table page and comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)
California questions the Mexican origin of the flu
Please read here: http://www.exonline.com.mx/XStatic/excelsior/template/content.aspx?se=primera&su=pulsonacional&id=590520&te=nota (it is in Spanish). In brief: There were earlier cases in California at the end of March (as we already know). Now health authorities of California question the Mexican origin, since those children didn't have contact to pigs, nor have a travel history to Mexico. The strain already existed in California, before it was detected in Mexico. Maybe something for the article, useful reference...?--201.153.19.149 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- You would think it would be written in English if California said something. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably just mexico trying to lay blame elsewhere.Drew Smith What I've done 12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely, it is to find in English, too, because the health authorities of Claifornia say so, not Mexico. I just came across this by accident, not because I looked for it. Weird, that you say that Mexico tries to blame. I have never seen anything like this (but the opposite: others blame Mexico and call it the origin of the flu with patient zero, who can obviously not be the first person who fell ill since there were evidently earlier cases - in California). I get quite sad with these kind of comments that just shows how biased people are with languages/nationality.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I got sad over reading comments on the internet once. I got over it though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't expedct me to answer that, do you? ;) Anyways, I wanted to point out this article (there are others on the same topic) so it can be considered and added if it is of any use.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Data Quality
I am concerned that some countries may seriously under-report cases to the WHO. For example, Mexico cases do not follow the epidemiological curves seen in other country data.
Under-reporting can be due to lack of lab equipment or access to labs and lack of medical screening / reporting infrastructure, but also due to local political / economical reasons. I would hope, that folks at WHO could comment on that.
Country listings: Instead of the current confirmed / suspected lists, it would help to break up data according to whether the subject caught the flu while visiting another country, or from catching it in their own country.
Country listings: It would help, to list the median age, +/- sigma.
Fk52b (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ideas like this are not hard to come up with. What is hard is finding reliable sources to back them up. Do you have any suggestions on that front? -- Avenue (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Today the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)reported that the European number of confirmed cases had reached 196. Of those, 42 individuals had not caught the flu upon return from North America. -- Fk52b (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A new pandemic?
Aaaaaaaaaaah! It's the end of the world!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkgirl411 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, we got trough pandemic flu in 1918-1919 and medical science is even better now.--86.29.255.85 (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Costa Rican update
A 53 year old man, who never went to Mexico [[1]] during the plague has now died!--86.29.247.157 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Macau up-date
A China/Macau/Hong Kong vidio confrence was held. Macau is flu free [2].--86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Removal of chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Influenza-2009-cases.png
I do not see the value of a chart which has an aggregate of confirmed cases compared to confirmed deaths. First of all, the chart is unclear as to what it is tracking. Is it worldwide deaths or cases? It is not good enough to know that it is cases but my point is that the chart does not clarify this at all. Second, what is the reasoning in comparing suspected cases to deaths? This is not clear as to why it should be included in a single chart. Overall, the chart is ambiguous and should be removed. I request opinions on this since I am for removing the chart. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- To further clarify my point. We should have either a chart with aggregates and its subcomponents (Total deaths, deaths by country) or an aggregate compared with another aggregate (Total deaths, total confirmed cases). Having a chart which has total aggregates of deaths, plus total aggregates of confirmed, plus separate confirmed cases is ambiguous. Please provide arguments against its removal. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm.. please let us know first what kind of chart you wish. For example, it is not possible to illustrate the total deaths and total confirmed cases on one axis. If you suggest that example, how would you realize it? Furthermore the chart only includes confirmed cases, not suspected cases.
- The chart includes 5 data series and one is printed on the right axis. If you want to show the figures by country in seperate charts, it will be much work to update. I can't do that alone so I would rather suggest to remove the data series of Mexico, USA and other. I invite you to create an alternative chart so that we can compare them directly and choose the better one. -- Grochim (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Grochim, you seem to be the chart person and I am definitely not. My point with regards to this specific chart is that it is comparing an aggregate number (Total confirmed cases) together with another aggregate number (Total deaths) and adding subcomponents (Individual confirmed cases) within. If you notice the chart, there is some sort of jump that it takes. Now, this jump just happens to be near the deaths axis. I am sure you can see it.
- The deaths number is buried somewhere in there.
- What I am saying is that a chart that has aggregates vs aggregates makes sense. That is Total Confirmed Cases vs Total Confirmed Deaths. Also, Total Confirmed vs Confirmed by Country (Mexico, USA and other), also makes sense. The current chart has Total Confirmed plus Total Confirmed Deaths plus Total Selective Countries Confirmed.
- I think the chart is confusing and should be split.
- GaussianCopula (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can suggest to remove the Mexico, USA and other so that the chart only includes aggregate deaths and confirmed cases. Would you agree with that? We could show the seperate countries in a further chart, but right now I'm a little bit busy so that it may take some time. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That would be fine, IMO, however I don't really see a huge issue with the current chart either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That would be better. Thanks. GaussianCopula (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can suggest to remove the Mexico, USA and other so that the chart only includes aggregate deaths and confirmed cases. Would you agree with that? We could show the seperate countries in a further chart, but right now I'm a little bit busy so that it may take some time. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Egypt gose nuts
Some clerics blame "God's vengeance on the infidels" (or whatever people mean when they say things like that) for swine flu
[[3]] --86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- our 'clerics' usually blame these things on "the gays". --PigFlu Oink (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I read this as Egypt goose nuts, it's a great typo. Here's that source article formatted
- Daniel Brumberg. "Georgetown/On Faith: Faith, Politics and Swine Flu in the Middle East". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-05-11.
- —Teahot (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I read this as Egypt goose nuts, it's a great typo. Here's that source article formatted
Pandemic parity of articles
Pandemic parity of articles
I see that a lot was done on the swine flu outbreak. However looking at other pandemics (especially TB and HIV, which are ongoing and killing far more people) there does not seem to be parity of reporting on deaths, confirmed cases etc. Also the way they are separated is different.
It would be good if wikipedians could source in the same way and try and get accurate figures for these other pandemics. They might be useful for improving wikipedia's standing and commonality allows accurate comparisons as to how bad flu really is not in this case.
I am wanting that as an ENCYLOPEDIA ARTICLE there is a similarity given that all 3 are in fact current events this would be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.66.223 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Human-to-human transmission
Could someone add a list of those countries in which there were human-to-human transmissions? I know of Mexico, USA, Germany and Spain, but probably there are more.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- All the cases are human to human; except for the first one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but most people outside North America got infected while travelling to Mexico or the U.S. I'm interested in the countries in which the transmissions actually occurred. (E.g. in Germany, I think 8 of the 11 cases got infected in Mexico, one in the US and only two in Germany.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then you want 'intra-national transmisson' and 'inter-national transmission' information; not 'human to human' transmission information --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then you want 'intra-national transmisson' and 'inter-national transmission' information; not 'human to human' transmission information --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do we have evidence that the mixing vessel was not human, or is PFO just saying we don't know that it was?LeadSongDog come howl 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- PFO? The only thing I read is that 'mixing vessels' for influenza are still theroretical. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Imagine what I get 8-D The vessels may be theoretical in some sense, but it's pretty clear that genes from different strains are getting combined womewhere. AFAIK th species of the first host for the present novel virus strain has yet to be determined. The WHO doesn't seem to have much doubt about the theory, as evidenced by the results of this search query. The forward concern seems mainly to be that the Novel H1N1 will mix with the H5N1 Highly pathogenic bird flu (which is still endemic in both Egypt and Vietnam) to form a new highly pathogenic swine flu strain. For this reason, I'd admit a modicum of justification for the Egyptian pig cull, though a vigorous campaign of vaccination for the Egyptian and Vietnamese herds against the H5N1HPBF virus would make much more sense. Frankly, I'd worry more about the Vn herds because of the duck proximity to swine being so common there. LeadSongDog come howl 17:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- PFO? The only thing I read is that 'mixing vessels' for influenza are still theroretical. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but most people outside North America got infected while travelling to Mexico or the U.S. I'm interested in the countries in which the transmissions actually occurred. (E.g. in Germany, I think 8 of the 11 cases got infected in Mexico, one in the US and only two in Germany.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Back to the question at hand... we don't have this information in the article because it is by nature hard to determine and somewhat subjective. Not surprising, given these difficulties, it is not widely reported. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I started a list myself (in the chapter "International cases..."). Further additions are welcome!--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Historical context globalsecurity
why does every link go to globalsecurity.org ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.211.181 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the references or external links? hmwithτ 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The charts says that the Hong Kong flu in 1957 killed 2 million people with less than .1% mortality. Which would mean that at least 2 billion people were infected, or more than 2/3 of the world's population (2.9 billion in 1957). It seems quite a lot, as only 1/3 of humanity was infected during the Spanish Flu.
- The Global Security page says that in England, fatalities were in the order of 0.13% to 0.25%, and most death occurred in China were the population was already weakened by Mao's Great Leap Forward. I think that the 0.1% mortality is for the common flu, and not for pandemics. AtikuX (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've just added data from a May 11 publication in Science, placing the case-fatality rate of this outbreak at 0.4%. This source states that this is comparable to the 1957 pandemic. Another source quotes the HHS as stating that the 1957 and 1968 outbreaks had a Pandemic Severity Index of 2 (0.1% to 0.5% case fatality rate). [4] This and the simple arithmetic above convince me that the Global Security figure (which is in any case not specific to 1957) should probably be discarded. Mike Serfas (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All still there, just a link to a website with no references or sources and some spelling mistakes in the article. And selling items from the US Cavalry store.
Why is this the upmost site for the 1968 Hong Kong Flu for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.211.181 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
auto-generated content and external links suggestions.
[ someone deleted this from earlier, lots of edits today]
I didn't know wiki covers current events and was impressed by amount of stuff here. Are there general means to auto-generate this type of content harvest from machine or even human readable sources? Also, the NCBI has a sequence library,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/SwineFlu.html
and these guys have some good resources, not sure of opps to coordinate,
http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1000:
and personal interest looking for coding opportunities
for dealing with infectious diseases :)
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I added that NCBI link more than a week ago but someone must have deleted it. I'll put that back in and put your second link in External Links. Mike Serfas (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How?
How do I edit the table? I wanted to update that Canada now has 330 cases per the same source referenced but I didn't see the table in the article, nor was I able to bring it up as a Wikipage. CycloneGU (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Follow the "e" at the bottom of the table. It's a template.LeadSongDog come howl 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- The table is transcluded from a template, which is located at Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. hmwithτ 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains it. I was trying to put the square brackets in - that is, wikipedia.org/{{2009 swine flu outbreak table}} (which clearly didn't work - but on saving my msg. this time, I found the table appeared as on the page...oopsie). I'll look for that "e" next time. Thanks to the person who updated it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
CDC - Mexican Cases
If someone would like to add this I think it could be beneficial to the article. The source is CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5817a1.htm
As of May 5, using an updated case definition of fever plus cough or sore throat for a suspected case and real-time reverse transcription--polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) or viral culture for a laboratory-confirmed case, Mexico had identified 11,932 suspected cases and 949 cases of laboratory-confirmed novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection, including 42 patients who died.
The figure above shows the 822 confirmed and 11,356 suspected cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection in Mexico with dates of onset from March 11 through May 3, 2009. Both confirmed and suspected cases rose sharply from April 19 to April 26, then decreased sharply.
Daveonwiki (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't this just be interpreted to mean that they had an uncontrolled backlog of cases to diagnose, improved their processes (including processes for managing the public and how to identify cases) and rapidly got back in control? I'm not sure it necessarily says that much about the nature of the virus.—Teahot (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right, Teahot. And I would like to find a reference for the confirmed cases in March. I have never heard of any CONFIRMED case in Mexico before April. Anyone has a reference (apart of the report of the CDC that doesn't really mention anything about it)? As far as I know the first confirmed cases in March are from California only... I (and maybe others) would be interested in a reference confirming that.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- [5] discusses the earliest case in March. Rmhermen (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I know this report, but it doesn't discuss the "March cases". It is the only source I have seen that mentions a March case (of course, counting from the onset) in Mexico anyway. The earliest onset of illnesses were 2nd April (the 4 or 5-year-old boy from La Gloria) and 4th April of the woman from Oaxaca, who died about a week after. Therefore I ask. The graph left more question to me than answers. In addition, I strongly agree that it should appear ONLY in the Mexican article (country), not in the main article. Otherwise people might get the impression that it is a "Mexican flu" (only in Mexico).--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- [5] discusses the earliest case in March. Rmhermen (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I believe you are both misreading the data. It shows the date of illness onset. The chart drops off simply because it takes several days to identify new cases. Someone who catches the flu today may not appear on the chart for a week but when they do the date of illness onset will still be today. 209.213.169.71 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- 209.213 is correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this chart covers only Mexico, so probably doesn't belong in the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Graphs of confirmed cases are meaningless and misleading, because both Mexico and the U.S. have virtually stopped confirming cases. They no longer test unless the illness is severe enough that it might represent a genetic change.67.101.142.160 (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)OCDNCTX
- Didn't they stop to count suspected cases? (Although there are reports: http://www.salud.df.gob.mx/influenza/index.php/component/content/article/34-avisos/99-reporte-estadistico.) As far as I know they still count (and publish) confirmed cases: http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- What you say is true for graphs of confirmed cases. This is not a graph of confirmed cases. Daveonwiki (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is a graph of confirmed AND suspected cases.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
New Map? File:H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/H1N1_map_by_confirmed_cases.svg/220px-H1N1_map_by_confirmed_cases.svg.png)
There's a new map available... File:H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg
76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- This map is attractive, but I am concerned:
- Small nations will have smaller numbers of cases - is a per capita standard better?
- Even in the U.S. some health departments are no longer confirming every case. National differences in policy may overshadow the actual spread of the disease.
Mike Serfas (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Large countires will always apear more heavily infected by raw number. It should be cases per million or whatever.
obviously as the flu spreads more it will become impossible to track the exact number of cases even if a every country reported all the cases the detect... it's something we'll have to put up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.113 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not to sideline the map conversation, but what evidence do you have that US health departments are no longer confirming every case? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, found it. See a Chicago Tribune story, which states that "The tally, as time goes on, will show largely the most serious cases because doctors are following the state's recommendation to test only severely ill patients. The virus has turned out to be milder than initially feared, so many mild cases may not be counted." This point was raised at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table#U.S. Mike Serfas (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's bias on the old map as well. The United States, or Canada, are both individually the same size as Europe, so the map is misleadingly indicating that North America is a pit of death, when it's not even close, and if you split Canada into its constituent provinces/territories, most of those are larger that every European country except European Russia. China is also the size of Europe, yet it's a uniform colour, while Europe is a patchwork. There's Australia which is also about the size of Europe, and whose states are larger than most countries in Europe except European Russia. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Finland
http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Suomessa+varmistui+kaksi+sikainfluenssatartuntaa/1135245884424
2 confirmed cases in Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.216.246 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Technical problem with WP:POPUPS?
I think that most of the time the External Links and templates following the References section do not appear while I view this page with User:Lupin/popups.js, using updated Firefox and Vista. I'm curious if anyone confirms this bug? Mike Serfas (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be an intermittent browser rendering problem (at least in Firefox) when using {{reflist}} but does not happen when using <references/>. The end of the page always appears to be correctly rendered if you use the table of contents to navigate to the later sections. I'm not sure if this has been reported somewhere as a bug for reflist.—Teahot (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've since been unable to reproduce the bug with POPUPS and peerreview scripts enabled, so I can't be 100% certain that disabling POPUPS was the reason the problem stopped. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed to {{reflist-2}} which uses a different method to paint the refs.—Teahot (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, that might break reference rendering in Safari and Chrome, according to Template talk:Reflist#two columns. Amalthea 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Noted, though as {{reflist}} has been shown to cause issues, perhaps someone could suggest a reliable alternative to both? Or do we accept that displaying multi-column references is unreliable?—Teahot (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, that might break reference rendering in Safari and Chrome, according to Template talk:Reflist#two columns. Amalthea 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed to {{reflist-2}} which uses a different method to paint the refs.—Teahot (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've since been unable to reproduce the bug with POPUPS and peerreview scripts enabled, so I can't be 100% certain that disabling POPUPS was the reason the problem stopped. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Tamiflu is useless due to viral resistance!
Regard this medical fact to [[6]]!!!
- This fact has been regarded, we are the pig, Resistance is futile you will be assimilated!!! --PigFlu Oink (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...okay then. GARDEN 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Palau update
Palau's Health Minister has issued a health alert and increased screening of passengers entering the country for swine flu [7]]
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class virus articles
- Mid-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Mid-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Mid-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- B-Class Mexico articles
- Mid-importance Mexico articles
- WikiProject Mexico articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles