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, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline, File talk:H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg, and File talk:H1N1 map by confirmed deaths.svg

Template:Hidemessages

H1N1 map by confirmed cases.svg

  500+ cases

  50+ cases

  5+ cases

  1+ cases

I think it's about time to add a 5000+ cases colour.

Suggest:

  5000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000,000+ cases

?

70.29.208.129 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No country could have over 5,000,000,000 cases, but otherwise it looks pretty good. It could use some more contrast between 50,000, 500,000 and 5,000,000 cyclosarin (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  5000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Too bad when the reds where put in, no one used

  Indian Red

  Crimson

  Red

  Deep Pink

... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this variant-

  disproven/hoax

  unproven/N/A

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  1,000+ cases

  5,000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  1,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  50,000,000+ cases

  250,000,000+ cases

  500,000,000+ cases

--86.29.254.131 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

you can't use yellow, it's used on the other map for suspected cases. I think brown should be somewhere else on the spectrum... and this is a confirmed cases map, so disproven or unproven are inappropriate. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but not now, since it could go higher than even those numbers, in a matter of months, right now we only have 12 cases, and most of the cases are in the US, Mexico, Canada and Japan. --Vrysxy! (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets be reasonal! No country would test for 500 million cases. I think the highest mark should be 1+ million and that's it. No maps should have so many colours. One should easily distinguish between little, moderate and highly infected areas. Markers should therefore be 1+, 5+, 50+, 500+, 10000+, 100.000+ and 1million+. PeterPodgoršek (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, 5,000 and 50,000 levels should be added, or it should be rejiggered to be 1+/10+/100+/1000+/10,000+/100,000+ 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  20+ cases

  100+ cases

  500+ cases

  2000+ cases

  10000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  200,000+ cases

  1,000,000+ cases

  5,000,000+ cases

  20,000,000+ cases

?

In any case you don't have to use the entire scale, and it won't appear in the legend keys unless something approaching the next level were to be reported, since on the maps we already have, people are leaving out the steps that aren't relevant already on the legends. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More fives. I think 5.000+ is a good idea, and the green color to suspected only cases too.
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Using green is problematic. It is already used as the color for Veracruz as point of origin for one of the North America maps, and it is used in the Galicia map for suspected cases that subsequently proved not to be Mexican Flu. And in the other map, yellow is used for suspected cases. So yellow should be used for suspected cases, not green. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like this...

  1+ unconfirmed cases

  5+ unconfirmed cases

  50+ unconfirmed cases

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  50+ cases

  500+ cases

  5,000+ cases

• ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 11:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  1+

  5+

  20+

  100+

  500+

  2000+

 ? If you wanted a suspected cases range... but I think it would be confused with confirmed cases, so should not be on the same map. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This map is for only confirmed cases. We can create a total cases map?
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR^ⓓ/ⓒ 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No one could stop you from making one... but would anyone maintain it? I'm not sure what color spectrum you would use... since reds are for confirmed cases, yellows for suspected cases, greens has been used for several different things, blacks should be used for deaths. And I just suggested that blues be appended to the reds to extend the red-scale. Ofcourse if we decided not to append blues to the red scale, they become available again. That would mean inserting the missing reds I pointed out above (Crimson, Red, Indian Red) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  200,000+ total cases

  50,000+ total cases

  10000+ total cases

  2000+ total cases

  500+ total cases

  100+ total cases

  20+ total cases

  5+ total cases

  1+ total cases

- if the blue scale is not used for confirmed cases... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases:

  5,000,000+ cases

  500,000+ cases

  50,000+ cases

  5000+ cases

  500+ cases

  50+ cases

  5+ cases

  1+ cases

? (all red scale now...) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those of you who are aiming at numbers over the million should reconsider making such colors seing this will not happen before much, much later in the process, it might not even happen. So maybe you should stick to the current colors, and expand it to something below 100,000 at maximum. I think this will do us much better, if we add too many of them, it will just become confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notelitten (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this version-

  disproven/hoax

  1+ unconfirmed case

  2+ unconfirmed cases

  5+ unconfirmed cases

  10+ unconfirmed cases

  25+ unconfirmed cases

  1+ cases

  5+ cases

  10+ cases

  25+ cases

  50+ cases

  75+ cases

  100+ cases

  125+ cases

  150+ cases

  175+ cases

  200+ cases

  225+ cases

  250+ cases

  300+ cases

  400+ cases

  500+ cases

  1,000+ cases

  2,000+ cases

Over 2,000 ill would be very unlikley outside of Mexico!--86.29.251.175 (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

--86.29.251.175 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Still can't use it. Black is for deaths on the other map. Using it would be confusing. This map is for confirmed cases, so putting suspected cases on it would be misleading; besides areas with confirmed cases also have unconfirmed ones many times, so your unconfirmed coverage would be bad; and your unconfirmed scale is too small, plus a difference of one? (1+ / 2+ ???) . Make a separate map for tha instead. I think your divisions are not that good. The current version uses geometric progression for the most part, yours uses arithmetic progression for the most part. The other maps of confirmed cases also use geometric progression. Greyscale should be used for deaths. The no cases areas are also grey, so it would be confused. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely can't use greyscale, it's used for the death map. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:H1N1_map_by_confirmed_deaths.svg

I suggest to use powers of ten as delimiting parameter for the different colours. 1+, 10+, 100+, 1000+ and maybe 10,000+ would definitely be sufficient at present.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I wonder why the current scale was selected in the first place (1+/5+/50+/500+) ... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have selected a smaller and detailed scale. You can see that 1, 10, 100, 100 are a lot of large for this case. However, five to fifty will make a more detailed scale, like two times more detail than the only "1 followed by 0" scale. ⇨HotWikiBR^msg 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Map of number of deaths

Outbreak evolution by confirmed deaths:

  0 deaths

  suspected deaths

  1+ deaths

  5+ deaths

  10+ deaths

  50+ deaths

  100+ deaths

  500+ deaths

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The scale might need adjusting... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So... add it to the article? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The map is well done, but it's not necessary at the moment, where we don't have large-scale death numbers. I think we don't need a world map just for 4 countries. Maybe later, if/when there are deaths in >10 countries, say. (Let's hope this won't happen.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update this for Chile? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update this for the Dominican Republic? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update the world map for deaths, for Colombia? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update the world deaths map for the June 10 death in Guatamala? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

disappointed archiving bot archives so quick

This is the second time I've made this complaint. The bot archives too quick. How do others feel?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot only archives a section if no one has commented in 48 hours. In truth, on a page as active as this one it is unlikely anyone else is going to comment if no one has in 48 hours. That said, I bumped it up to 72 hours now.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can choose just about any other article with out the quick archiving and find people commenting way past 48 hours on topics. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but on high traffic articles, it needs to be done, because the pages get too large. It's okay to bring up archived issues. hmwithτ 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of too large? Instead of archiving based on date, perhaps the bot should archive based on largeness. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the way the bots operate, you need to take that up with the bot maintainers. This is not the place to request such things since it's unlikely bot maintaners are reading this page and it's completely OT. Despite suggestions other archiving algorithms may be available, it's been the case for a long while that only the old (i.e. thread age) one is available. In terms of discussion, it's worth remembering that on extremely high traffic rapidly changing articles, like this one was at the beginning, most issues raised 48 hours ago would usually be irrelevant if they weren't still being discussed. In any case, even if they were still relevant and weren't being discussed, if you had a 500k page with 50-100 threads no one would even notice the issue and it would probably be discussed several times over; in other words, it's likely counter productive to keep a very large number of threads. Remember the date is from the last comment not when the issue first started so if the issue is an active one, it's not going to be archived. When no one is commenting further, it's likely, but not definite, that the issue is resolved or perhaps was never really mattered. For this reason archiving based on date usually works resonably well, although the time depends on how active and how fast changing an article is. Archiving based on size, may or may not work well too, but it isn't currently an option so is irrelevant. Finally, if the talk page is not that large and you feel auto archiving is too fast, I suggest you just loosen it yourself, perhaps noting on the talk page you've done it rather then complaining and waiting for others to do it. It's extremely easy to do, and there's usually no need for extensive discussion. In other words, it's usually a case where it's entirely resonable to be bold. P.S. Note that if things haven't changed, then archiving doesn't actually happen as soon as a thread reaches 48 hours old if it's set to 48 hours rather 48-~72 hours old since the bot only runs thorough a page once a day. P.P.S. We could of course turn off automatic archiving and only manually archive but I would generally expect the person proposing such a move to volunteer to be the sole person resposible and would also caution that there's a resonable chance that will lead to accusations of bias P.P.P.S. I don't have a solid personal definition for what's a too large talk page, but for random opinion, I would start to consider changing archive time if there are more then 25 threads. Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page and recent archive and considering it's been nearly 48 hours since the archive was bumped to 72 hours I feel it's resonable to relax it further and so I've done so to 5 days. Also while making the change I noticed something I forgot, the bot has a minimum number of threads left function where it'll leave the number of threads specified even if they are older then in the age, I've increased this to 8 from 5. In theory I presume, you can use it to basically archive based on number of threads, by setting time to low, e.g. 24 hours so it always only archives up to the number of threads, although I'm not quite sure what the bot does when there are multiple candidates to remove but it can't remove all candidates. Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne, it's not off-topic. One sets (on a specific talk page) whether or not a bot automatically archives it and how often it does so. Therefore, that talk page is where one should discuss it, as that is where the code for frequency is located and decided upon. hmwithτ 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

On the one hand the article says "As the outbreak spread throughout Mexico and into the U.S., scientists were trying to understand [...]" but on the other hand it mentions "Both the place and the species in which the virus originated are unknown." If the origin is NOT known, then it cannot be said that (the virus and also the outbreak) spread throughout Mexico and (then from Mexico) into the U.S.! Please edit the first quoted sentence. The outbreak spread throughout both Mexico and the U.S.--201.153.14.226 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a contradiction. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd --76.202.193.188 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Third confirmed case in Venezuela

Please update the table and the info, because since june 1st Venezuela report a third case, the sources available in english are these: [1][2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.26.166.136 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Rakela (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we had a 'Current News' section, this person could have slapped an excerpt of there, then a more experience wiki user could have updated the table. And at least this information would have been there for the time being.

By the way, as a reasonable experienced user, how do you update the table? Cool Nerd (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A) New information should be given no more weight than old information, since this is an encyclopedia and not a news site (see WP:NOT#NEWS).

B) The table is located at Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. You can edit it there. For future reference, you can see templates linked on the page in the edit window (in this situation, it's at the top as {{2009 swine flu outbreak table}}. hmwithτ 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the new information is what's more likely to affect real human beings. And as an electronic encyclopedia . . .

Oh, that wild-eyed radical Cool Nerd, he's causing all kinds of problems! Well, what exactly is he doing? He wants us to include current news along with the background information! And . . .
Cool Nerd (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to inform people of the news. If they want information on what's currently going on and what can affect them, they should watch/read the news instead of reading an encyclopedia. hmwithτ 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

single-path vs. multipath

Yeah, a table, map, and 'Current News,' that's multipath. We have both table and map, but both are high threshold. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Come again? hmwithτ 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was easier, more people would participate. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions:

• If what was easier? To update the maps and tables?
• What do you mean by multipath and single-path?
• What do you mean by high threshold?

I can't quite understand what you're pointing out, but I want to respond. hmwithτ 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak by country

See Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country - there is a discussion on removing the maps from the article, and a suggestion on splitting it into continent based articles because it is lengthy. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Victoria, Australia has stopped widespread testing. Section deleted.

And our article relies so heavily on numbers.

"As of June 4th, with the number of cases increasing, the state of Victoria in Australia has discontinued across-the-board testing for swine flu. Instead, patients with symptoms will be given anti-virals and asked to avoid public places for three days. Doctors will order tests on a case-by-case basis as needed. This is the “Sustain Phase” of Victoria’s pandemic plan."

This above part, which is my summary of the news article, was deleted from the Southern Hemisphere section. Also, patients deemed high-risk and those with severe symptoms are still likely to be tested. And also, as the article states, "The US and Canada have moved to a modified sustain stage.", page 2. That is highly significant, and I'd like that verified (or not) by additional news sources. (I would rather have just included a medium-sized quote from the news article, but that has been controversial. A summary, to my way of thinking, just adds one more layer between the information and the reader.)

So, if Western countries have stopped testing to some extent, what about poorer countries with less resources?

And again, our article so heavily cites numbers. And yes, yes, so far mild. So far we have been (relatively) lucky. Also in the undercount are the many patients with mild symptoms who have not sought medical care. Ideally, we could include quotes from several different health authorities who give their best judgment on how much of an undercount. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC), and Cool Nerd (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to invite the radicals into the tent?

I can't be the only one who thinks excessive concern with formality gets in the way of communication? At least I hope I'm not!

And I don't think I'm the only one who's wondered aloud, a current topic--maybe we need to do that a little differently. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So which of these recent 49,000 swine flu articles would most of us agree are the best ones to include in a new section?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We randomly select half a dozen or so articles and that would be better than nothing. Better, would be that as each of us learn more about swine flu, we each select an excerpt or two from articles that, in each person's best judgment, are relevant, timely, complete. Better still, we combine our own best judgment with conversations each person has with friends and acquaintances who know less about swine flu. What do they want to know, and what do they need to know? Cool Nerd (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason we have guidelines and rules. See WP:MEDRS, WP:V and WP:NOR. What you are proposing breaks them all.LeadSongDog come howl 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How does material from the New York Times or CNN, or equally reliable sources in Australia and Chile for example, break the Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) (WP:MEDRS) guideline? Now, some of these articles may not be complete, and that might be the area where we can make our biggest contribution of all. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is WikiPEDIA. It is not a news service. It is not a blog. This is NOT where a person should be visiting if their only interest is current news. There are many many such places already on the Web. Please reserve Wikipedia for what it is: A place to store information of LONG-TERM interest for anyone to visit and learn: Think 'curious student', not '6 o'clock news'.Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"As have been patiently explained to you, this is a restaurant. We serve food. And therefore, your ideas that we also serve drink are wildly heretical."<--- And this is basically the response I have been receiving.

And please notice the 'student' part. Yes, the grad student in Australia, in Malaysia, in the United States, wherever, struggling with the protracted marathon of his or her doctoral dissertion and the formal approach expected. I wish them all the best. We're not against them, we're for them. (In fact, I hope they become bilingual in the sense of being skilled at both formal and informal communication. Yes, you will publish papers. But also, some of your best conversations with colleagues will be informal conversations in hallways or labs or via email. And some highly meaningful conversations--in your field--will be with friends and loved ones, who afterall do sometimes get interested in your work, as you talk with them about your work in plain English, or plain Malay, or plain Mandarin, or whatever language you prefer!)

So, whereas grad students are part of our audience, we are also writing for the parent in Australia, or Malaysia, or the United States, or wherever, the citizen and parent who sometimes thinks their government might be overreacting and other times thinks that a new flu strain is potentially pretty serious afterall.

We can have both a baseline of background information, and a top section of current news. And within the baseline, we can start at the 10th grade level, give it some narrative arc and take it all the way through grad school level, all the way to cutting edge research! (and for that we don't dare summarize, we just excerpt). And show me anything else like that on the Internet. We would be one of the best sites on swine flu. Not 'The' best, for that's dry and sterile, but One Of The Best. Our first goal should be to engage in genuine communication with people in at least a couple of different life circumstances. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An even more radical member enters the tent!

It seems to be killing mostly North Americans and South Americans and is also making many Chinese and Australians sick! Was Swine flue created in a Russian or Axis of evil lab to kill Anglos, Latinos and Chinese!?

Actually, this is same old, same old. Most of our major problems in the modern age are institutional, not conspiratorial. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts!

The UN is near to declaring a world pandemic [3] as the whole planet faces a simultaneous mass outbreak of it!--86.25.53.4 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad! Official pandemic just means person-to-person spread in several different parts of the world. And so far, generally mild. Worth keeping track of, but (relatively) mild. Also an important issue, and not as often discussed, if more total people get sick because of less immunity, even with low mortality, more total people might die. Unless we help educate people to make smart decisions. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CDC Weekly update

"During week 21, seasonal influenza A (H1), A (H3), and B viruses continue to co-circulate at low levels with novel influenza A (H1N1). Approximately 82% of all influenza viruses being reported to CDC this week are novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses." - http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/ - The graph at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2008-2009/WhoLab21.htm is especially informative. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on readability of vaccine genetics text

The material below is being added to the beginning of the Vaccine section and I have removed it twice as being too technical and not appropriate for this article. IMO it clashes with the readability of the article and becomes a barrier for the typical reader who simply wants to understand the topic. The material is again being removed for comments.

Original text

Vaccine genetics

---

The composition of flu virus vaccines for use in the 2009-2010 Northern Hemisphere influenza season recommended by the World Health Organization on February 12, 2009 was:

• an A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)-like virus;
• an A/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)-like virus;
• a B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus.

A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is a seasonal strain of A/H1N1 while what the media calls "swine flu" is a novel (new) swine-origin non-seasonal strain of A/H1N1 that humans currently lack immunity to. Vaccination against A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is not expected to confer immunity in humans to the new H1N1 strain.

As of May 30, 2009: "CDC has antigenically characterized 1,567 seasonal human influenza viruses [947 influenza A (H1), 162 influenza A (H3) and 458 influenza B viruses] collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1, 2008, and 84 novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses. All 947 influenza seasonal A (H1) viruses are related to the influenza A (H1N1) component of the 2008-09 influenza vaccine (A/Brisbane/59/2007). All 162 influenza A (H3N2) viruses are related to the A (H3N2) vaccine component (A/Brisbane/10/2007). All 84 novel influenza A (H1N1) viruses are related to the A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) reference virus selected by WHO as a potential candidate for novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. Influenza B viruses currently circulating can be divided into two distinct lineages represented by the B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Victoria/02/87 viruses. Sixty-one influenza B viruses tested belong to the B/Yamagata lineage and are related to the vaccine strain (B/Florida/04/2006). The remaining 397 viruses belong to the B/Victoria lineage and are not related to the vaccine strain."

Option B

I have rewritten the text so that it only contains information relevant to the article. I also simplified it a great deal.

Vaccine genetics

---

Further information: [[:Influenza vaccine#2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)|Influenza vaccine § 2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)]]

On February 12, 2009, the World Health Organization recommended that the vaccines for use in the Northern Hemisphere during the 2009-10 influenza season should be composed of viruses that are similar to A(H1N1), A(H3N2), and B. However, the virus in the vaccine is A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1), a seasonal strain of influenza. Since the H1N1 virus responsible for the swine influenza outbreak is a new, non-seasonal strain of swine origin, humans lack immunity to it. Therefore, vaccination against A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1) is not expected to result in protective immunity to the current strain of swine influenza virus.

As of May 30, 2009, the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) has characterized 84 new influenza A(H1N1) viruses, all of which are related to the A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) virus that WHO suggested could be used in the vaccine to protect people against the strain commonly known as swine flu.

Please let me know your opinions on this version. Thanks, hmwithτ 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Much easier to understand! Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Option C

The simplest official proposal yet. I'm open to other options when it comes to creating the title. hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine genetics

---

Further information: [[:Influenza vaccine#2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)|Influenza vaccine § 2009-2010 season (Northern Hemisphere)]]

WHO recommended that vaccines for the Northern Hemisphere's 2009-2010 flu season contained an A(H1N1)-like virus. However, the version of H1N1 in the vaccine is a different, seasonal strain. Therefore, since the virus responsible for the outbreak is a new, swine-origin, non-seasonal strain of H1N1, the annual vaccination is not expected to result in human immunity.

As of mid-2009, the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) has characterized over 80 new H1N1 viruses, all of which are related to the virus that may be used in the vaccine combatting the strain responsible for the swine flu outbreak.

Straw poll

• Remove - not readable or meaningful for vast majority of visitors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove or simplify. I agree it is too complicated for this article at present. Perhaps it would fit in a more specific article but it is not readable enough to be informative here. |→ Spaully^₪† 18:56, 7 June 2009 (GMT)
• Comment - polls are no substitute for achieving consensus by discussion; but they can be a useful place to either start or end a conversation, so long as it is recognized that content is determined by consensus which is far different from majority rules. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or rewrite - This content is needed so the reader can understand what is meant by news articles and claims in Wikipedia that there is a problem in producing enough H1N1 vaccine. We are already producing seasonal H1N1 flu vaccine and it is vaccine for the new H1N1 flu virus strain that is in question. Further, the flu season vaccine vaccinates against three separate strains - it is in essence three vaccines in one. Further this content points out that there is a specific isolate that represents 100% of known US "swine flu" cases that the CDC has analyzed. Rather than delete what you do not understand, ask questions. Together we can rewrite this so it satisfies your need for understandability and what I perceive as a need for this data to exist in this article, so readers do not misunderstand. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Simplify and keep It's good, encyclopedic information that comes from reliable sources. I'll draft up a potential rewrite and post it here for second opinions. hmwithτ 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or move to subarticle This is an encylopedia which contains deep technical info. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Option B was presented at this point in the poll.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, hmwithτ 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Use Option B It's shorter, in normal language, and only involves the information regarding this virus. hmwithτ 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • After further simplifying, I prefer Option C, and Option B would be my second choice. hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Use Option B and perhaps have sub article as additional information becomes available. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Simplify more. Option B is simpler but IMO still too complex for average readers. With the CDC online source (footnoted) including more details and charts, I'd prefer something more like this example and just let more interested persons dive in on their own (option C):

According to the CDC's U.S. Virologic Surveillance reports, annual influenza vaccination is expected to provide the best protection against those virus strains that are related to the vaccine strains presently circulating, but limited to no protection may be expected when the vaccine and circulating virus strains are different, suggesting that little to no protection to the current outbreak would be expected from vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine.

It would also help to put this topic in a sub-head called something like your "Vaccine genetics," to make future genetic topics easier to add and keep organized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. As for the title, I actually didn't mean to put composition. I meant to use the original title of the section. I've changed that minor thing. However, I just added an option C that is simpler yet still contains future information. Do you like that version at all? Also, when you talk about subheadings, are you referring to something like this? hmwithτ 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to combine some of the ideas a bit, I come up with a rough draft like this:

According to the CDC's U.S. Virologic Surveillance reports, "limited to no protection" to the current outbreak would be expected from vaccination with existing seasonal influenza vaccines. The current epidemic consists of a new strain of Influenza A virus - subtype H1N1 - and is thought to be a mutation (reassortment) of four known strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1: one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine). As a result, scientists are accelerating their efforts to develop a vaccine against the new H1N1 influenza virus (Swine flu) as rapidly as possible. The need for such a vaccine is supported by the CDC and WHO and a number of companies now have vaccines under production.

By sub-head I meant something like a sub-head under the "Vaccine" section, maybe 8.1.4.

• Keep or rewrite--or excerpt! WAS 4.250 brings up good points. The seasonal flu vaccine is actually three vaccines in one; one of these is old H1N1. Of course, the current concern is all about the new H1N1. Also the issue of CDC finding specific isolate in 100% of "swine flu." Mmm?
  Are we all suddenly virologists? Again, why don't we include a couple-of-sentence excerpt from a good source, with a clickable link? Most transparent and least mistake-prone method. Very easy for the reader to decide then and there to click, or to skip to next bold-faced section. Cool Nerd (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual US cases multiple hundreds of thousands at end of May, 2009

Models’ Projections for Flu Miss Mark by Wide Margin By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. Published: June 1, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02model.html?ref=science

INEXACT SCIENCE Where’s George?, a Web site that tracks dollar bills, provided data for a flu projection. Related Times Topics: Swine Flu (AH1N1 Virus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.11.130 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I removed the text of the article in its entirety. Users can click the link. hmwithτ 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Past tense?

Either these are new rules, or I just don't get something, but... why is the article all of a sudden written in past tense? As if it is now known that the disease doesn't spread anymore even in the most severe cases (which is not true)? And, just to precise, why does it say that contact with pigs does not inflict infection, while it has been known that it did, in fact, infect the early cases in Veracruz, who were farmers working with pigs? Someone please explain this to me. Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Two guidelines apply. Wikipedia is not news, and Precise language. Keep in mind that we write for the long term, not for today. Editors attention inevitably drifts off of articles when they cease to be current topics: if they were written in present tense they would remain that way long past the events. To avoid this we write articles describing events in past tense. Hence descriptions of the outbreak of the virus strain would be in past tense, while descriptions of the strain itself (enduring characteristics) remain in the present tense so long as that strain exists (even in preserved lab samples). That is why most of the usage was changed. Nonetheless, if there are specific cases which are troubling as written, it is possible to rework them in accordance with precise language.LeadSongDog come howl 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. YOU not we. Past tense is unjustified whenever it results in misleading the reader. Just because you expect to lose interest, don't write as if everyone will. Everything should be as accurate as possible at all times. We don't write bios as if the person were already dead if they are in fact alive. We don't write about a current epidemic as if it were over. By the way, "bird flu" is not over yet either. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, writing this article in past tense, and then having stuck up the "current event" template just above it, looks a lot like random act of vandalism. The infection is not over yet, and while it may be true that it eases the process of rewriting the whole article once the flu is over so that it sticks to the case, past tense would, according to me, confuse readers and create a false sense of security for those who are afraid of getting infected. And swine flu is not over until the death toll stops, by the way. Not the infection toll, the death toll. So, I think that it is out of question to revert any, even minor details to past tense right now.

Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bird flu, however, is a bad example because the death toll did stop. So, in terms, the epidemic is over, because there are no severe cases needing medical attention anymore.Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What the press called "bird flu" was actually a bird-adapted strain of H5N1, called HPAI A(H5N1) for "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1" that in the scientific literature was initally called strain Z and later refered to as "Asian-linage HPAI A/H5N1". It was never an epidemic nor a pandemic in humans. It was an epidemic in BIRDS and still is. It is epizootic (an epidemic in nonhumans) and panzootic (affecting animals of many species, especially over a wide area), killing tens of millions of birds and spurring the culling of hundreds of millions of others - EVEN CURRENTLY. H5N1 is endemic in wild birds and can still mutate into a strain that spreads easily human to human - so far as we know. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but so far it did not. So there's no point in pointing that out. Swine flu did, however, mutate long enough to be able to symptomize humans through third party infections. This is clearly not the bird flu case.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LeadSongDog. Contact with pigs doesn't matter about tense. Contact with pigs has not been known to cause this infection. If you have a reference that says otherwise, please provide it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu occasionally causes human infection. Read Swine flu. However LeadSongDog advocates writing this article with sentences like "This was an epidemic" rather than "This is an epidemic". You are agreeing with something he never said. You are confused. LeadSongDog is right about the need to write like an encyclopedia and not like a newspaper with phrases like "last week" or "this year". Use of "As of [date]" is many times needed. He just went overboard with the idea and changed too many verb tenses. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And I should, once I'll find it. But until then, I know what I'm saying, when I say that swine flu is transmittable from pigs to humans, with the only condition being that both of them were infected with bird flu somewhere in the past. Long enough for the H1N2 strain DNA to stay inside their genetic code by the time H1N1 is similar in both. It was already discussed on the web, and if needed, I'll find the link to it.Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"the only condition being that both of them were infected with bird flu somewhere in the past" is utter nonsense of the "the world is flat" variety. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for the section, but... There have been known cases of humans getting infected from pigs. Not from eating pigs, FROM pigs. The only problem is it wasn't proved if it was in fact the opposite (pigs infected from humans). But so far if there are infected pigs, there will be infected humans, or vice versa.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the balanced responses, but I'd prefer "The 2009 swine flu outbreak, in April of that year, was the initial phase of an epidemic...", since containment has been acknowledged to be impossible. Using {{asof}} should be considered as a last resort when no better wording can be found or as an interim measure when update is anticipated.LeadSongDog come howl 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"initial phase of an epidemic" should not be used without a source. No original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not start the first sentence with something other than The 2009 swine flu outbreak? I know what the name of the article is, but the first lines of text are not necessarily the same ones. Plus, it's not a swine virus, it's a well known misunderstanding. Therefore I say the article should start with The 2009 outbreak of several strains of H1N1 influenza virus endemic in pigs, commonly known as swine flu, is an ongoing level 5 pandemic disease... blah blah blah And then you put the past tense there, in the second sentence: It WAS first identified in April as a new strain A-type virus that SHARED both bird, swine and human genes in a single strain... blah blah blah And you finish with The first known case WAS reported and observed in Mexico, shortly before the virus MADE it to United States bearing more severe symptoms. The first death HAPPENED in Houston, Texas... and so on. It's not about eliminating past tense, don't get me wrong. It's about knowing when and where to use it so that the whole article doesn't look like a time mess with no description of current events. Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

" 2009 outbreak of several strains of H1N1 influenza virus endemic in pigs" is nonsense. There is only ONE strain that has been identified as the 2009 new H1N1 "swine flu" virus. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then rewrite it the way you see it. I have no problem with that. My only problem is past tense where it should not be. The second and third phrases sound perfect with past tense in this case, but not the first phrase. And while the disease itself is far from being over, the analyses which have shown us where it comes from are.Shadiac (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

It is time for people here to begin to ask themselves about the validity of numbers. Which numbers mean anything? Which numbers mean nothing? During the initial spread, confirmed numbers were useful in clearly establishing the world-wide spread. Since then, numbers which are designed to draw conclusions about prevalence and death rate in a given area are useful. Total dead seems likely to be valid in first world countries. Blindly recording numbers that are now meaningless because it has spread to too many millions to confirm all cases seems .. well .. unthinking. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The confirmed cases, probable cases, etcetera don't mean much in places where the spread is well established. Especially where the local region has said they have stopped testing for swine flue except in severe cases. Would like to see the death column broken into two or more columns. Separate columns for healthy and unhealthy prior to infection. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the WHO records only numbers of serious cases, which include, at the very least, the need for medication (going up to hospitalization). When it says that "most patients show mild symptoms", they don't mean that they don't even know about it. Because the data of confirmed cases comes from those who present themselves at a local clinic, claiming to be fallen ill and so on. I agree with the fact that there are millions of infected by now, but it is serious in less than 10% of infected. However, I find these numbers useful in correlation with the death toll, so a percentage of the spread might be calculated upon the data. This could give an idea of how effective it has been recently and how effective it might keep up for the following weeks. Shadiac (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"the WHO records only numbers of serious cases" is not true. Perhaps though they provide a table someplace that only has serious cases. Can you provide a source for your claim, or are you just making stuff up? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline on vaccine, varying estimates

And that's perfectly okay. In no way, do we need to "clean up" these varying estimates.

Our article states late July, August. Might help if we found sources. But, be that as it may, that may have been an estimate, may still be an estimate from some quarters. And a lot may hinge are you talking about the beginning of clinical trials or are you talking about widespread use?

June 9th article, spokeswoman for CSL (a manufacturer) gave three months. Roxon calls for calm over swine flu, Sydney Morning Herald, Greg Roberts, June 9, 2009.

May 29th article, CDC's Anne Schuchat gave October. And she tried to hedge her bets, saying "We are saying at this point not before October," and that's okay, for there is a lot of legitimate scientific uncertainty. Swine Flu Vaccine Won't Be Ready Until October: CDC, May 29, 2009.

I added the "three months" and October estimates to our article a little while ago. A variable, uncertain situation, we probably should have at least three estimates. Just let the reader see the situation. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

three to six months?

And we're that sure all credible estimates are within this range?

What we are doing is glossing over a messy reality to bring order. And that is a school skill and a corporate skill. It's also part of the scientific method, part not to the same extent. And hey, we don't need to try this hard. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Copts

it is said in the page that native christias (copts) form 15-20% of egypt population !!! this is wrong numbers ... the real official # are 10-15%

about pork ... not all copts are eating pork as their regular meal .. few does and majority don't except occasionally Dr B2 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

References? LeadSongDog come howl 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Cited AFP for six to ten percent.LeadSongDog come howl 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New title?

So say the WHO declares this a pandemic, as it seems is increasingly likely. Should this article then be renamed 2009 swine flu pandemic? Just throwing this out there as a preemptive discussion. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO and reliable news media call it a pandemic, then it should be moved to that title. But not until then. Edison (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing title changes, should this (and the series of related articles) be renamed as 'H1N1 flu' rather than 'swine flu'? Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on both rename suggestions. Per WP:COMMONNAME the current title is the "correct" one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As it was previously discussed, I'm in favor of renaming the article as "2009 flu pandemic" or "2009 influenza pandemic" (leaving Mexican, A/H1N1, or swine out of the picture). Of course, such a change could only be performed after the outbreak has been officially declared a pandemic by the WHO. This would have several advantages:

1/ Most common name: the outbreak can be recognized every reader, regardless of the name they are the most familiar with ("swine", "mexican", "north american" or "A/H1N1"...)

2/ No ambiguity: although there will probably be several flu outbreaks in 2009, there will be most likely only one pandemic.

But let's wait for the events to unfold before jumping the gun. Cochonfou (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In flu surveillance, each separate cluster of cases is an "outbreak". If this is labelled a pandemic, then the title should be changed to 2009 influenza pandemic; similar to 1918 flu pandemic (which, to be consistent with all the title changes of flu to influenza, could have that change done to it as well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point the WHO's 9 June press briefing makes it evident that the declaration is "closer" but not that it is "imminent". LeadSongDog come howl 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As the change to level 6 is official, I am being WP:BOLD and making the change.Drew Smith What I've done 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FIRST AH1N1 CONFIRMED DEATH IN COLOMBIA!

I think you must actualize the information displayed on the outbreak table. Just a few minutes ago, the National Social Protection Minister, Mr. Diego Betancourt, confirmed the first death in Colombia, caused by the AH1N1 Flu. The victim was a 24-years old lady from Bogotá, that caught the flu in the city, without getting out of the country. Her husband and son are also confirmed cases of the flu. The lady died the 5th July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.99.102 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Colombian death sources!

[[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]!--86.29.244.246 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam swine flu death sources

[[8]] [[9]] --86.29.244.246 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bogus. The two references are old and say nothing whatsoever about any flu deaths in Vietnam. Edison (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

U.K. help line!

Here is a U.K. helpline with facts and advice on how to cope with and treat swine flue!

[[10]]! --86.29.244.246 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Already mentioned in this article. Jozal ^(talk) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stale plots of total cases/deaths

The graph and semilog graph of deaths and cases are missing the last 6 days or 3 data points. Could someone please update, else it should be removed from the article since it is misleading about the progrression of the epidemic. Edison (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, kindly update them(and not remove) - Does anyone have the original source tables for them? I'm rather interested, just as a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.103.110 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The graphs are now up to date. The excel 2007 file I use is downloadable from here. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:48, 10 June 2009 (GMT)

Vietnam update

Vietnam is flu free, but on guard for it at thier airports.[[11]] [[12]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.53.4 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WHO may be declaring level 6

This is probably old news for most of you by now, but the World Health Organization is holding a meeting today at 1000 GMT, and upping the level to 6 is the main topic.

There is a press conference at 1600 UTC. The BBC is reporting that level 6 has been agreed on, but that this won't change much in terms of practically dealing with it. Physchim62 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, the WHO has declared a level 6Drew Smith What I've done 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic level six declared

Please update the article to include that this is now a level six pandemic, indicating we are officially in a global pandemic: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/swine.flu.who/index.html "(CNN) -- The World Health Organization raised the swine flu alert Thursday to its highest level, saying H1N1 has spread to enough countries to be considered a global pandemic."14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 14:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)~

Can someone rename it 2009 Flu Pandemic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.186.68 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone is changing the blathering about whether it will become a pandemic section, should have been done before a link added on the main page, probably... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN jumped the gun. WHO press conference at the hour HERE LeadSongDog come howl 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a pandemic now.[13]. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename all articles proposal, outbreak > pandemic

Per the World Health Organization, see here. We'll have a lot of redirects to fix and moves to do. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just the outbreak part? Do we keep the 'swine flu' in the title, or do we shorten it to just 'flu' now just like with the 1918 flu pandemic article? --Aeon17x (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)