Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

See also: Template talk:2009 flu pandemic 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

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)

Semi-protection

Shouldn't this article be semi-protected? With it being the center of quite some hysteria etc, I think we might potentially see alot of vandalism to the page. --OscarBor (talk) 05:36, 12 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)

I prefer crowded over the limiting of discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

wait I'm lost, are you saying the bot is dissapointed? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is about how often the bot should archive. Recently the parameters for controlling the bot was changed from 5 to 3 days. It will now archive in 3 days if there has been no date update on the topic. Do you prefer fewer or more topics on the discussion page? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:43, 13 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 [1] 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)

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)

It seems to me that there is something really wrong with the numbers. The total cases and deaths are lower than the partial ones. I checked the numbers for Canada and it seems that the numbers are not valid. 7,978 cases are reported and 334 deaths! The reference cited is [7] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/swine-porcine/surveillance-eng.php (Public Health Agency of Canada). I checked this reference and it reports a total of 2,978 cases and only 4 deaths!!! 81.250.57.74 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Someone fixed them already! 81.250.57.74 (talk) 21:59, 11 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)

The information here about Egyptian copts eating pork is not accurate; most of the Egyptian copts do not eat pork except rarely (http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=209278&IssueID=1392). Also the numbers of copts mentioned here is not accurate; according to the CIA fact book copts are 9% of the population (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/EG.html) and according to the Egyptian government they constitute 6% of the population —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.228.103 (talk) 00:15, 14 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)

I agree that the title should now be changed. "2009 influenza pandemic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dycotiles (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam update

Vietnam is flu free, but on guard for it at thier airports.[[2]] [[3]] —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.[4]. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. Sweden doesn't make the call, the WHO does. They give unofficial warning first and nations linkedleaked that warning, but the call waits for the conference. "WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan was due to give a news conference on the influenza (A) H1N1 pandemic at 1600 GMT, following a meeting of the WHO's emergency committee of flu experts, and WHO spokesmen declined to comment before that."LeadSongDog come howl 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Reuters and the NYTimes got their articles right, but headline writers messed them up. The decision and the declaration are distinct events.LeadSongDog come howl 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chan has finally made the announcement. "This means the world is moving into the early days of its first influenza pandemic in the 21st century" The CDC has a press brief scheduled for 12:45 EDT HERE. LeadSongDog come howl 16:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chan's comments summarized here. LeadSongDog come howl 16:54, 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)

I like this one: 2009 Influenza A pandemic or 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. Felipe Menegaz 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These names are too long, how many influenza pandemics are we expecting this year? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the one, I hope! Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving it to 2009 influenza pandemic, and similar names for other articles - this is unambiguous and avoids the discussion on whether to use "swine flu" or "A(H1N1)" or other variants. The discussion over "influenza" or "flu" is pretty minor but my preference would be "influenza". |→ Spaully^₪† 16:13, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

I agree with that. Perhaps we should move 1918 flu pandemic to 1918 influenza pandemic for the sake of consistency. It is illogical to name these articles differently. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1918 flu has a WP:COMMONNAME and we should use it. Spanish Flu. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree for this article. 82.32.8.154 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the move to 2009 influenza pandemic. I also support moving 1918 flu pandemic to 1918 influenza pandemic. hmwithτ 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated, I support the move to 2009 influenza pandemic or 2009 flu pandemic. As Spaully said, this solves the problem of the numerous names of this disease (A/H1N1, swine, mexican, north american...) Cochonfou (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer 2009 flu pandemic per WP:COMMONNAME as I don't think nearly as many people refer to it the "2009 influenza pandemic" as will refer to it as the "2009 flu pandemic" --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote to go to "2009 influenza pandemic" as that what it is now, as per WHO. Dinkytown 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with "2009 flu pandemic." If there is a different 2009 flu pandemic, like bird flu we can distinguish them at that point, (if anyone is left to edit). Edison (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"2009 flu pandemic." or if consensus is to be more specific "2009 swine flu pandemic." sherpajohn (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i think this article should be renamed to 2009 flu pandemic and the rest of the articles like "2009 flu pandemic in the United States" etc.--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"2009 influenza pandemic" per WHO. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu or influenza?

Consensus seems to be going with using either "2009 flu pandemic" or "2009 influenza pandemic". Which one is preferable? hmwithτ 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the former, per WP:COMMONNAME. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest letting the mainstream news settle in with some labels first before changing. Some options to consider so far:

• "swine flu" or "flu"
• "flu" or "influenza"
• "H1N1" or not
• "2009" or undated (what happens in six months?).
• "Outbreak," "pandemic," or neither (flus are yearly outbreaks; outbreaks are always epidemics; we live in a globalized world, so pandemics are expected.)

The good news (or bad news) is that "pandemic" is declared so the key word is official. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "2009 influenza pandemic" and "1918 influenza pandemic". Note that the 1918 pandemic lasted well into 1919. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1918 should be named Spanish Flu, since it's the common and recognized name. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the name unchanged for a few reasons:

"2009" keeps it focused on initial discovery and outbreak period;

"Swine flu" removes ambiguity from "seasonal flu";

"H1N1" would be used in opening description as part of the "official" and "technical" name in the lead sentence as it is now, with "swine flu" noted as the "common name."

"Outbreak" is still valid, but "pandemic" cannot be misinterpreted as being more severe or dangerous to an individual than an "outbreak" (and it is still no worse than the "seasonal flu.")

Since the current name has never been challenged as being does not now seem inaccurate, even though it was also an "epidemic," and is still technically correct, I see no necessity to wave the "pandemic" flag.-Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The current name was repeatedly discussed as being unsuitable, and 2009 flu/influenza pandemic came up as the most suitable name should it reach pandemic status - see the archives.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I preffer "flu".--Vrysxy! (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive suggestion. Still lean to hold as is, especially knowing how hesitant even the CDC and WHO were to call it a "pandemic." As I see it, the term "flu" and "outbreak" are sort of redundant, since flus are always "outbreaks." But the term "pandemic" is a major event in and of itself, and gives an aura of global danger, risk, fear, and worse. And I don't think this would have been the case before the web's instant news effects.

But since the swine flu is no worse than the seasonal flu -- although it is a new virus type -- for many average people, just seeing this new "swine flu" attached to another event, "pandemic," may have the effect of throwing gasoline on a typical grass fire. But realizing that everyone will have a different viewpoint, calling it an "outbreak" still seems my personal preferance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. The announcement calls the distribution the "2009 influenza pandemic" and calls the strain both "novel influenza A" and "novel H1N1 virus". Early lead in the press goes to "flu pandemic". I'd use "2009 influenza pandemic" with redirects from the others.LeadSongDog come howl 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support "influenza" over "flu" as it is more correct and is supported by the WHO. There isn't a strong argument for either though as there is little difference. Thus I would support a move to "2009 influenza pandemic". |→ Spaully^₪† 23:13, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

I support a rename to "pandemic" and I believe that "flu" is preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. Oren0 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do concur with many of those above that [[2009 influenza pandemic]] makes the most sense, with redirects used liberally but sensibly. (Although, I bet we already have that covered; test: [[2009 flu pandemic]]. Yup.) The inner editor in me always hates beginning a sentence with any sort of number (a year in this case), but it is what it is. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have "The" in our recursive article repertory. LeadSongDog come howl 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done I moved the pages to 2009 flu pandemic per consensus here and the above parent section. hmwithτ 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would rather have seen the article at "influenza pandemic" rather than "flu pandemic". I should point out that WP:COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all of article naming, being filled with get-out clauses and can be overridden by other manuals of style. However, it is a point of legitimate debate which term is more common: "flu" or "influenza". Normally, both terms see a 50/50 split in usage. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Not that its any of my business or anything but now that the World Health Organisation has declared that its a pandemic, shouldn't we rename it to 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic? --Thanks, Hadseys 09:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly it isn't much of a pandemic.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's not for us to decide, the world health organisation says it is so who are we to argue --Thanks, Hadseys 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a set name yet? I noticed on other Wikipedias, there are a variety of names to describe this... there's A/H1N1-2009 , 2009 A(H1N1), etc ad inifinitum variations on that theme. There's still usage of "novel flu", "Mexican Flu", "North American Flu", "human swine flu", etc. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the #Rename all articles proposal, outbreak > pandemic section above. hmwithτ 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References/links to outbreak pages

I moved / am moving the articles, but there are probably still a lot of references/links that should be changed to the new page locations. Feel free to help out. hmwithτ 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also a ton of double-redirects (on lots of sub-articles). I've been fixing them manually, and ThaddeusB has been doing a ton, but anyone, feel free to help out! hmwithτ 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All or at least almost all of them should be fixed now. There were some really strange ones in there: Snoutbreak!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The best part is that's a legitimate redirect. Anyway, I just did a manual check, and everything seems to be in order. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

what happened to the swine?

Seems like people took the opportunity to quietly remove "swine" from the name when renaming this to pandemic. I think "2009 swine flu pandemic" is a better title. This outbreak brought "swine flu" into the public consciousness and I think a lot of people still recognize it for the fact that it was the swine flu. –xeno^talk 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't quiet at all. There was a lot of discussion on this page, and there was hardly any objection to the move to 2009 flu pandemic. hmwithτ 15:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a couple objections nevertheless. It could've done with more discussion. I think it should be moved to 2009 swine flu pandemic. –xeno^talk 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What other 2009 flu pandemics are there? This issue was discussed some time ago and the consensus was to move away from the word swine when pandemic status was declared.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" isn't the recommended name, though. If we absolutely need to disambiguate the flu type, it should contain "H1N1". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we bow down to "recommendations" of outside bodies? Swine flu is the common name. –xeno^talk 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The current name is unambiguous. When we have a 2009 bird flu pandemic, then we can rename this article 2009 swine flu pandemic. Until then, lengthening the name for no purpose will not be productive. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ambiguous because readers might not know that there's only been one pandemic this year. They aren't scientists. –xeno^talk 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is not the god of naming conventions. Specific manuals of style override it. And MOS:MED is pretty clear we should use the scientific name, which is not always the common name. In general, we tend to use WHO's recommendations and naming conventions with slight deviations (i.e. myocardial infarction, not heart attack). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is about an event. Anyways, it's already done and there seems to be a consensus in this thread that it's ok, so I'm not too fussed. The redirects will do their job. –xeno^talk 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really hate to fix 100+ double redirect again for a minor name change. 2009 flu pandemic, 2009 influenza pandemic, 2009 swine flu pandemic are all fine, and each could easily be argued as slightly superior to the others. However, now that one was picked let's just stick to it, please. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quietly? See above for the latest chapter in adnauseum discussion. We don't really need to run month-long vote cycles on trivia like this do we?LeadSongDog come howl 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By quietly, I mean that it seems that this was moved to pandemic and the swine was eliminated as a by-product, without much discussion on whether swine should remain in the name. If there was general support for this in a prior discussion, then, OK, but I still think swine should be in there. –xeno^talk 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources call it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A "swine flu pandemic" [5]. –xeno^talk 19:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I see the loss of "swine" to be a benefit of the new title, it is unambiguous and bypasses this discussion over how to refer to the virus or illness. Given the many redirects I doubt anyone will be perturbed. I agree with ThaddeusB (thanks for the redirect work, and hmwith) that given this is a pretty trivial difference it would be best to leave as is. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:29, 12 June 2009 (GMT)

True enough. The grunt work is done. Might as well leave it as is. –xeno^talk 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I thought anyone would object to what I saw as consensus, I probably would have waited for some more discussion. There has been a ton of debate on this page about the title since it was first created, and, up above, even though consensus isn't in numbers, I see almost every single person agreed to either "2009 flu pandemic"/"2009 influenza pandemic". This also was consistent with "1918 flu outbreak", & it compromises between the "H1N1" & "swine flu" sides of the naming debate. hmwithτ 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recovered patients? (again)

Someone has removed my awareness about 'Recovered patients', so I'll raise the point, again.

I believe that patients that was infected with the H1N1 virus but now recovered should be removed from the 'confirmed list', because some patients may of recovered by now and please don't remove this, thank you. Yes, this is to make the article better.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

"Confirmed" means they had a flu virus genotype test and it was confirmed that they had been infected with a flu virus that was not one of the seasonal strains; some had a stronger test confirming it was identical or near-identical to the reference flu virus isolate being used to create a pandemic vaccine. That status does not change just because they recover. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Outbreak.

A virus replicates itself as best it can from materials available in its environment. That is all it does. It may change when it cannot find exactly the right materials for exact replication. But a virus is not a living thing and can not do things like hybridising as suggested in the first paragraph of the article. A virus showing characteristics of strains from humans, from birds and from pigs is a laboratory product. Queryit (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep the stupidity out... Nature is NOT under our control, and we are not onmniscent in science, therefor we cannot say what a virus can and cannot do.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be nice to the newbs and we will have a better encyclopedia. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary sources for your claim that this virus must be a laboratory product because viruses cannot hybridise? If not, there's no point discussing this further Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Different virus RNA can mix inside cells they infect .   Read up on Antigenic shift. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/AntigenicShift_HiRes.png
>It may change when it cannot find exactly the right materials for exact replication.
I doubt it. It is too simple of a device. It will only replicate in cells which have the right materials. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is well discussed and referenced at 2009 A/H1N1 where it belongs.LeadSongDog come howl 05:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking the meaning of "pandemic"

Having read this article yesterday, "Swine Flu: Don't Panic", a few interesting facts were mentioned. For instance, we know, and the article states, that 35,000 to 50,000 people die from the the "seasonal flu" in the U.S. each year. It also says that 500,000 die world-wide each year. And until the latest outbreak, we typically used the word "flu" to mean "seasonal flu."

So the first question is, are all seasonal flus pandemics? I don't remember any articles discussing this. But if it turns out that all "seasonal flus" are "pandemics" by nature, and "seasonal flus" are the same as "flus," then the "flu" is just one type of pandemic. And flus are so common that we don't even bother calling them "pandemic," since that would be redundant, like saying one had a "flu illness," or caught a "cold sickness." Hence, saying "flu pandemic" or "swine flu pandemic" would likewise be redundant and add nothing.

This might seem like a puzzle, but it obviously has some effect on how we should name the article. Most of the experts think this new "swine flu" will be around for a long time (excluding the mutation factor.) It may eventually become just another flu different from the "seasonal flu." If so, in hindsight a year or more from now, the name "swine flu" (for example,) would become the most logical one for the article, with "2009," "outbreak," "pandemic", "genetics," etc. just different topical sections. Any other thoughts on this?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Each of the major seasonal flu subtypes, e.g. H3N2 are generally derived from a pandemic. Influenza is zoonotic and pandemics occur when the population has not been previously exposed. The first time the subtype appears it is the result of antigenic shift, so the human population does not have time to adjust. I think the main differences are in the pattern of transmission, seasonal flu is endemic and only infects some, pandemic flu is epidemic and infects almost everyone. Often the more virulent strains will burn out faster, e.g. 1918 H1N1 cyclosarin (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't call an annual event a pandemic because it happens each time--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first criterion for pandemic is "emergence of a disease new to a population". The annual variations are usually small, so recent strains will have given some cross-strain immunity. The less frequent antigenic shift means this doesn't apply in pandemic strains. The 1957 strain seems to have conferred some degree of resistance to the present strain, witness the "people under 62" part of the epidemiology.LeadSongDog come howl 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to use the WHO definition for a pandemic? Why can't we use the common definition for pandemic or the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Or perhaps we can specify which definition of pandemic we mean in the given context? Seasonal flu is pandemic by the common definition of being wide spread. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research is not just a good idea, it is policy at Wikipedia. The idea is to only include claims that are backed by the best available reliable resources and for pandemics, WHO and CDC are the best reliable sources in the world. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statements don't make sense if one is using the wikipedia definition for pandemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some traditional definitions: MedicineNet.com, "pandemic" simply means worldwide spread, WHO's Fukuda. HIV is considered pandemic and it's not a new virus. It seems that the yearly worldwide flu is pandemic by nature, i.e. not localized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

New technology suppressed by Abecedare false claims of promotional materials

The following editing was removed by Abecedare:

NASA has been using a catalytic reactor technology on the International Space Station to keep astronauts completely free of all infections. New technology developed in 2009 has been recently developed from the same technology to create a Uniform Picoscalar Concentrated Oligodynamic Silver Hydrosol (UPCOSH), and protocols have been developed to use it as a clinical treatment and a dietary supplemental home remedy for natural immunization without vaccines or drugs against harmful pathogens when used correctly.

Abecedare Please stop. There are no promotional materials in my editing or links to advertisers. If you apply your biased line of reasoning to the entire article, you must make the same claim about drugs (specifically named), vaccines, respirators, masks, surgical masks and hand soap mentioned in the article. UPCOSH is not a product but a new category for silver hydrosols. [6] Elder Hale (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elder for raising this here instead of edit-warring!

To me this is a clear example of a poorly sourced "NASA inspired" fringe claim for a unproven medical technology of no notability. The first source is being misrepresented and the second source is not reliable. This is essentially an advert masquerading as encyclopedic content and deserves no place in this or any other wikipedia article. Others views are always welcome, especially if someone can produce a reliable source to verify this claim and establish its notability. Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree your point of view, especially it sounds extreme suspicious that NASA is totally not into medical research. MythSearcher^talk 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elder also for calling it here... I will make it very clear; that blurb was an advert. I was going to remove that exact segment, except that Abecedare beat me to it only by a few seconds. There was no second source and the cited source was a blog/spam. If it was an Earth-shatteringly newsworthy, it would have been picked up by the news media - and it wasn't. Take Care... Dinkytown 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, its fair to say that the second source is not that reliable, but the first source is completely reliable. It is also fair to say that your comments about my addition with the edit was advertising is not being equally applied to the other things mentioned in the article, such as - drugs (specifically named), vaccines, respirators, masks, surgical masks and hand soap. Thus your basic reasoning for deleting my editing is hypocritical, to say the least.

I request a consensus on how to document, in the article, the new development of UPCOSH noted in the second source, being that it is a brand new development, just reported by FREEWAVES.TV, that has not had adequate time to be published by an source that some here would consider as a verifiable source. Essentially, it has become news at wikipedia.

Being that it is a new category of silver hydrosols, maybe there should be an article written by some editors here on the subject of UPCOSH and silver hydrosols so that the public can be properly informed. To verify the validity and notariety of the first source and the second source, I submit the following regarding verifiable publications on NASA's research in medicine (which you both deny without having investigated the matter thoroughly) and silver hydrosols in general.

The National Academy Press provides a copy of the book, "Methods for Developing Spacecraft Water Exposure Guidelines (2000)". Ann on page 117 of that book it shows a graphic of the system used by NASA to recycle every bit of moisture on the International Space Station, including urine.. This is notatated on the page as "FIGURE A-1 The Mir humidity condensate water-reclamation system, which is planned for the early phases of the International Space Station. On the ISS, this system will be located in the service module of the Russian segment." It noted on the page that "Biocidal silver (0.05-0.20 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) also is added here for microbial control.".

Did you get that, editors? It talks about a "Biocidal silver". This is what is also referred to as a silver hydrosol which is also published in the long-standing Townsend Report as a silver hydrosol that states, "A comprehensive study commissioned by NASA reported that, 'Three experiments were done with E. coli. The first two employed silver propionate (a silver salt). Cell populations were quite stable at room temperature in the absence of the added silver. The silver killed the cells. The process was not precisely exponential, but there was no indication that killing would not ultimately be complete. The extinction times (10-4 killing) might have ranged from < 2 hrs. to approximately 4 hrs. at 50 ppb of silver and from < 1 hr to approximately 2 hrs. at 250 ppb. Silver from the electrolytic ion generator was used in the third experiment, and the probable extinction times were approximately 4 hrs. and approximately 2 hrs. again at 50 and 250 ppb, respectively.'

This is further verified by the comments in the "Methods for Developing Spacecraft Water Exposure Guidelines (2000)" under "Filter-Reactor Catalytic Oxidation", and I quote, "The system for water recovery from humidity condensate has been upgraded for the International Space Station (ISS) and includes an assembly that will remove organic contaminants by catalytic oxidation in an air-liquid flow at ambient temperature and pressure upstream of the multifiltration bed. This should at least double the life of the multifiltration beds (Samsonov et al. 1997). The composition of the catalyst and the process is proprietary. In fact, this “filter reactor, ” an ambient-temperature catalytic reactor, has been in operation aboard Mir since January 1998. In the service module design for the ISS, the system will have a condensate feed unit that will facilitate transfer of condensates collected from ISS modules (and stored in contingency water container bags) to the Russian condensate processor for water recovery."

The Immunogenic Research Foundation also verifies the above by stating, "Comprehensive studies conducted by NASA (circa 1970) on a crude oligodynamic Ag+ hydrosol preparation offer a compelling argument that today’s highly advanced oligodynamic Ag+ hydrosols may be the solution to lessening the impact of viral plagues."

Users Abecedare nd MythSearcher, how's that plate of crow just served up tasting about now? I suggest that you stop , and reconsider your hasty editing without doing your homework, establish a mutual consensus, and work with me on how we might properly present this to readers here at wikipedia. Otherwise you will appear to readers here as people who do not want the world to know about a safer alternative that could save millions of lives. Please note that all the above is GFDL compatible. Elder Hale (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

It is sourced from this newspaper: [7] page 4, lower right hand corner. If you think it is not worded right, please improve it. MythSearcher^talk 04:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read Chinese so can you translate the relevant bits for us ? Does the article quote the official Chinese/Hong Kong medical authorities ? If so, it may be worth mentioning as the Chinese government position, either here or in 2009 H1N1 virus strain outbreak in China. If it is just some local officer or unnamed opinion than it will be undue to include, especially since (at least according to the wikipedia article) the newspaper Headline Daily is distributed for free and has a reputation for sensationalizing news.

Note for other editors: This discussion is with reference to this edit, which I had reverted. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article basically is a critics section, so it is not from an official, but it shows reasonable published views of how the outbreak could be contained. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the source should be sufficient on the topic. The section is not a reader submitted section, which would be not reliable(unprofessional) and focus on current news events. If you still think it is undue, please kindly move the whole section here and we can discuss it further. MythSearcher^talk 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I tink it's undue to include. It's not a reasonable method of containment, given that influenza has incubation time; it would have to be an official position from a named health official of some standing to be notable. My opinion. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, common sense, if we have 300 people on the plane, and there are 2 person who got fever, preventing them from getting on the plane(and have them go to a medical centre or hospital) will eliminate chances of those specific 2 from spreading the flu to others. And yes, there may be another 5 in the 298 passenger that is in incubation, yet it would still be better than having the 2 "sure kill" on the plane, because "there may be" suggests possibilities, not a must have. It is quite common that critics in HK is blaming the US government for not even "stopping sick people on board". Another common sense, it would be a very bad decision for officials to openly criticize another country, which would obviously cause diplomatic problems. And to place that on even more important terms, Ming Pao of HK also criticize US for not changing its stance after WHO WHO raised the alert level to phase 6. MythSearcher^talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" isn't always right & in this case most spreading of all viruses is done before the victim has any symptoms whatsoever. However, this is not a forum so let's not continue this further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The question here is, whether the criticism appeared in 2 HK newspaper be used in this article. The argument of the above is undue, but if 2 newspaper that could be sourced is quoted, I don't think it is. Especially they are criticizing the U.S. not checking and in the case of suspected case, stopping the already ill person from getting on board the plane. It has nothing to do with containment of everyone helping or not. If quarantine of the patients does not work, then will you intentionally stay in an enclosed room with people with fever and all symptoms of the flu for extended periods? Say, 10 hours(general NA to Asia plane flight time)? MythSearcher^talk 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the opinion of one or two newspaper would be undue weight. For the criticism to appear in this article it would have to have roughly the same amount of coverage as a section of comparable size - which would probably mean dozens of individuals newspapers criticizing or at least one really major source. It doesn't have to be an official source, but it would probably have to be one of the top 5-10 newspapers in the world to matter in this article. The standards for inclusion in the China specific article would be lower, as the level of coverage required to "be equally weighted" would be less. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice there are no sources given to support the other point of view countering this one. Unless there are multiple famous newspaper(BTW, Ming Pao is the most creditable Chinese newspaper in 2006 in HK, SCMP is an English newspaper) stating having patients on board the plane is rather safe, all other sources are not specific on this particular claim and should not be considered to be counter acting agents claiming these criticisms undue. MythSearcher^talk 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, directly quoted from the article: A number of countries also advised against travel to known affected regions, while experts suggested that if those infected stay at home or seek medical care, public meeting places are closed, and anti-flu medications are made widely available, then in simulations the sickness is reduced by nearly two-thirds.[141], which is simply a supportive view on what I am proposing here. The critics I am talking about here is stating If a passenger is found ill in the departure airport, s/he should not be allowed on the aeroplane. which follows perfectly with the above statement about infected people should stay at home. I have no idea how people replied me with quarantine does not work with the simulation, in which the article is stating the direct opposite. MythSearcher^talk 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MythSearcher, can you provide a literal translation of the Headline Daily article here ? That will perhaps help us better judge the weight it should be accorded. Also, can you comment on the reputation of the newspaper in HK ? For example in UK, The Guardian, The Times (London) etc are generally regarded as reputable publications, while The Sun is taken less seriously even though it has a much larger circulation. From the wikipedia article, it appears that Headline Daily falls in the second category of populist "journalism". Is that a common opinion ? Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am also stating Ming Pao's article concerning the same matter. Headline daily ranked 11th on the link in the Ming Pao article, and Ming Pao is 2nd. If excluding English newspapers, Ming Pao is 1st and Headline daily is 9th. Actually, I can see the article developing a full criticism section, since there are other criticism sources about other matters already in the article, like some flu experts think the HK school closure is over-reacting.(this source) There are critics on each side, some thinking people are over-reacting and some think them wrong and more precautions should be given. A criticism section seems to be very reasonable in this topic especially with different governments reacting differently. I can provide additional sources stating how some legislators criticized the HK Government planned to spend 0.7billion dollars(HK) for flu vaccines on 2 million people. ([8] For the translation, There is this question about measuring the body temperature of the passengers, shouldn't it also be measured before boarding and not only checking after arrival? If the body temperature shows any abnormal signs, at least (it) could be stopped beforehand and not having the infected person get aboard, and bring the virus into an enclosed area to spread it. This can also minimize the delay and worry at arrival. On the other hand, if there are no measuring before boarding, and only checks at arrival, it would cause tragediy for passengers next to the infected person, causing better cases, time delays, or worse, quarantine. If measuring the body temperature is done before hand, would these troubles be prevented? These are the related 4~7 paragraphs, the first 3 paragraphes are also related, but since it is 5am here, I would have to sleep. Most of the blaming of US is in those 3, but as I look closer to the 8~10, the critic also criticize all airports not going doing this, so I would correct my point in criticism on the world as a whole instead of just the US for the airport part. MythSearcher^talk 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally poor writing and bad style. In an article like this, subsections should deal with aspects and issues related to the 2009 pandemic and within those subsections flesh out encyclopedic notable reliably sourced claims in a smooth flowing way. Aim for that. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section:

.

Criticism

Criticism on aggressive responses

Some flu experts criticize the closing of schools, such as the Hong Kong government response, ordered all kindergartens and primary schools closed for two weeks, as over-reacting. The Hong Kong government's plan on spending 700 million HK dollars (approximately 90 million U.S. dollars) to buy vaccines for 2 million for its citizens was also criticized by legislators.

Criticism on passive responses

WHO has been criticized for its slow response on declaring the pandemic and Ming Pao criticize the U.S., Canada and Australia governments for not raising the stance against the flu after WHO raised the alert level to 6. A critic in Headline Daily, Hong Kong criticize airports only scans temperatures at arrival, instead of having scans on departure, which would stop infected people from getting on board and minimize the spread. Simon Yam canceled U.S. exhibition plans and criticized the U.S. government for not controlling the borders well.

all claims are reliably sourced and are quite notable views. It would be better if the criticism on people being too aggressive could be further developed. MythSearcher^talk 09:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of WHO denying the flu is from a Biological weapon

As early as 27 April, 2009, Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General - Health Security and Environment denied that the swine flu is from a biological terrorism attack, should this be in the article(or did I missed it?) since it is from such an official? source MythSearcher^talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A biological terrorist attack... in mexico... that cna be treated by simple anti-flue procedures and anti-flu mecicenes. If this was a Biological atack, it was the worst orchestrated attack in history and the crappiest planning. If this was a biological attack more people would be dying.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, stop wasting our time with the myths you have researched. Go troll elsewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk)

Please remain WP:CIVIL, my username has nothing to do with the sources I have found, and per WP:RS, these are very reliable sources. I have no edit history showing any trolling behaviour, and I must remind you to WP:AGF, which your comment is definitely not showing any of this tendency by accusing me of trolling and giving you myths, especially when I am saying this is a source to break the myth. It is reporting what an official said, in 27 April, 2009, you can feed the source to translation machines from Chinese to English, and the result is this:

WHO Assistant Director-General, said Keiji Fukuda, Mexico there is no evidence that the outbreak of swine flu epidemic is caused by biological terrorist attacks. Obama to visit as a result of President of the United States shortly after the end of Mexico, where the outbreak of swine flu. A reporter asked the epidemic is not related to terrorist attacks. Fukuda denied that it was a purposeful action. Fukuda also said that the world's response to the threat of influenza pandemic, a significant improvement over five years ago, the preparation of a significant upgrade. The actual translation of the news article can be summarized to Fukuda said there is no evidence showing that the flu outbreak is intentional, when replying a question from a reporter, which concerns the outbreak shortly after the visit of Obama. So I would suggest you stop personal attacks on me and actually contribute to wikipedia with useful comments. MythSearcher^talk 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythsearcher your points are moot as it is Illogical this is a biological attack. So why mention something that is already known. --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It shows what people are concern of in the beginning of the pandemic and it is important enough that a reporter asked such question to an WHO official. My point is stating something like In the beginning of the outbreak, there is concern about if the swine flu is an biological terrorism attack against Barrack Obama's visit in Mexico. WHO Assistant Director-General Keiji Fukuda denied such possibility since there are no evidence and affirms that the world response on an influrenza outbreak is much better than 5 years ago. I don't think it is debatable, but the concern was there because of the timing. Yes, most people know the fact that it is not an attack, but it is not well known of why there is such concern. MythSearcher^talk 07:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind oif idiot would use a flu strain for a biological attack...--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably no one, but someone asked. MythSearcher^talk 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: 2009 swine flu outbreak

Someone needs to change the category at the bottom of various articles from "2009 swine flu outbreak" to "2009 flu pandemic". WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Detected human cases by country

The table/template "Detected human cases by country" at the top of the article was useful prior to this becoming a pandemic as evidence of how widespread this new stain had become. But now that it is a pandemic, it can not be stopped and over the next year or two if will infect and kill far more people than the world can test for which strain they have and in the end, only estimates based on testing population samples will be valid. I recommend we now delete this table/template from this article as no longer appropriate for this article. It has very limited usefulness at this point and has an inappropriate level of detail. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose removal of swine from name

• Oppose removal of swine. Just because the WHO caved, in my opinion, under political pressure, after initially resisting[9] "renaming", doesn't mean Wikipedia has to. Per WHO is not an argument, in my opinion. Please put the swine back in the name. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also argued against removing "swine" above at Talk:2009 flu pandemic#what happened to the swine?. –xeno^talk 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Prefer adding H1N1 in the name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer Mexican Flu or North American Flu, since that's consistent with the naming pattern, in the world at large (as opposed to the way Wikipedia wants to do things) for past flus, like Russian Flu, Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Asian Flu. Though that would be a less common name... but since this flu is not in swine (except for an Alberta farm), it might be better to be human swine flu. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Yes because obviously North american Flu will NOT hide the fact it's world wide.... Use the scientific name--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment obviously not, since Spanish Flu doesn't hide the fact it was worldwide, and Hong Kong Flu doesn't either. They're known as worldwide pandemics. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the removal of "swine". "Per WHO" is actually the best argument, because the Manual of Style is specific that we follow WHO nomenclature. If we were adamant not to "cave under political pressure", people would argue that we'd have to talk about the nigger who beat a cripple and the mother of a mongoloid. But instead, we don't do that. We just use the most appropriate term. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the new article title. It's simple, not (currently) ambiguous, and is how WHO is currently addressing the outbreak. If any of these underlying reasons changes in the near future, we can address it then, but I don't see any drastic need to change it at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• "2009 pandemic flu" is a good title. "Pandemic" is a far more useful qualifier than "swine" has been anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion highlights why it is a good thing to move away from swine in the title, already we have 5 different names proposed each with their own merits. Let's stick with what we've got, it's unique and understandable. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:02, 13 June 2009 (GMT)
• Oppose removal of swine Unless you're an egyptian bureaucrat, everyone knows what swine flu is. H1N1, H5N1, H3N1 = I'm confused. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose still. H1N1 is a general category as there is no scientifically accepted name for the strain. CDC is currently using novel H1N1 to be more specific than just H1N1, again showing there is no scientific name. Am not aware of WHO nomenclature being a style guide for WP, but if it is, then it is just a guide. Swine flu is the WP:COMMONNAME, the "nickname", the one that sticks in people's mind, which is why the CDC has H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) in the title of their page. I have strong opposition to the recent removal of swine because I do not believe there ever was "consensus" to remove it with the recent pandemic rename. My understanding is that this very article is tagged Recent debate has resulted in no consensus for any change to the article's title. Please read through the previous debate before proposing a name change because of this very issue. Please restore swine to the name, or please do not revert a rename. Also, in my opinion, the nigger counter-argument above is over the top (as CDC even has Swine flu on their website) and thus counterproductive in an attempt to reach consensus. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Pecoc (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment - I believe voting twice on your own suggestion doesn't contribute any to determining consensus other than to show that you are particularly adamant about your preference despite very clear consensus that there should be a name change without the word 'swine'. More importantly, whether the CDC still refers to it as swine flu is irrelevant: the actual people who declared that we have a pandemic in the first place does not even call it swine flu anymore -- see the WHO homepage and their latest press statement. --Aeon17x (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support removal of swine the the title, per previous consensus, precedence, compromise, WHO, and WP:MOS. hmwithτ 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of "swine" from name. The "Hong Kong" flu has left the world no negative connotations about Hong Kong; the "Asian flu" has left no negative legacy about buying Asian products, eating chinese food, or going there; and the killer "Spanish flu" has not left a negative feeling about Spain or things Spanish. So I feel that attaching the source of the flu in swine will not long affect the pork industry. And if it did, it would only be for the better - better surveillance of transmittable illnesses, pig vaccines, cleaner practices, etc.

The name as it is now, IMO, is a non-name, or nameless illness. "2009" is not much of a defining name, and it won't mean much in a few years as the disease continues. So what's left is really a name for a pandemic - a "flu" pandemic. The article now seems to be about a "pandemic," now, instead of the specific disease. In six months, should I tell someone I came down the the flu, they'll be forced to ask "Which one?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't removed due to fear of negative views toward swine. It was removed due to previous consensus, precedence, compromise, WHO, and WP:MOS. hmwithτ 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Except the article has (or did have) many citations about why WHO felt compelled to remove the word "swine." Need any? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A few for the record or the still curious: "Too pig to fail: Officials seek to remove “swine” from flu name to save pork industry" Michelle Malkin; "Swine flu: a virus by any other name . . ."; "The World Health Organization indicated it had no plans to try to remove the term "swine" from the flu’s name.", MSNBC --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my response to clarify how I meant it: Swine was not removed from the Wikipedia article title due to fear of negative views toward swine. It doesn't matter why WHO calls something what they do. We can't control that, and we also can't decide what something should or should not be called based on our own ideas. We're not scientists. hmwithτ 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's odd that no one has suggested removing the date. To me, at least, it seems better to remove "2009" and replace the "swine." It sounds a bit alarmist to start an article by its year, especially a "mild" flu, but I'll admit that in April the TEOTWAWKI crowd had me in their grip. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the current article title. We already had this discussion. Stop wasting our time. Not everyone is 13 years old with nothing better to do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• My 2¢: I would prefer the word swine in the title, but I don't view it as a big deal either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also oppose the removal of swine. Didn't really notice that the nth discussion (of a name change, above) was going to remove "swine" (the most commonly used identifier)... it appeared to only change the word "outbreak" to "pandemic" -which I was fine with. Since all of the previous discussions kept the word swine in the title, despite a small but persistent effort to remove it, I guess I didn't follow as closely as I should have. . .but registering my opinion now. "Swine flu" is the most common way to refer to this, it should be in the title. R. Baley (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose removal as the word "swine" is the common distinguishing feature, it is the term used by the public, the media, and avoids any confusion with seasonal flu. Will you still want call it "2009 Flu" when/if it rolls into 2010?  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The common name should not be an issue. Wikipedia has a policy that medical articles use the technical medical name and not the common name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) For example heart attack. Novel A/H1N1 should be in the title or other technical name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this an Article or an Event?

This is not a medical article, it is an event. Myocardial infarction and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 are medical articles. Should a contagious worldwide outbreak of Myocardial infarctions occur the proper article name would be 2009 Heart Attack Pandemic. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope it's OK, but you brought out something maybe worth considering before any more name changes, so I partitioned it into a new topic-section. If it's agreed by most that it's an "event," then the year "2009" becomes more important (although not absolutely necessary.) But if it's become an article -- even if it was originally conceived as an event-article, -- then it requires looking ahead and seeing this article from a future perspective. As it looks now, this event-article seems substantial enough to be an article about a new human swine flu virus. My understanding is that HIV is pandemic by its very nature, yet we don't usually see it referred to as the "AIDS pandemic," which would likewise make it more of an event. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should "swine" be re-added to the title?

Well, it appears there is a lot of disappointment about the word swine being dropped from the article title. It wasn't clear that there would be disagreement at the time of the move, so I can't fault the admin who moved it. Now the question is should it be moved again to 2009 swine flu pandemic or be left as is?--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

1. I think the current title is fine, but the protesters do have a good point in that the previous consensus was the keep the word swine in & the move arguments were not really about dropping the word swine. Thus, there wasn't actually proper consensus to drop it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - What are you talking about? The previous move arguments are about dropping the word 'swine'. You may argue that the initial rename request was only about changing 'outbreak' to pandemic, but after my comment the subsequent discussion shows a very consistent preference for 2009 flu/influenza pandemic, without the word 'swine'.

   And please, stop disenfranchising the opinions expressed in the previous discussion (which mirrors the consensus in the previous naming debate), not withstanding your current attempt to establish new 'consensus' by holding yet another voting spree. --Aeon17x (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2. As stated above. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3. As above. Most common folk don't know the difference between an office sickness, an outbreak and a pandemic. They know that the "common flu" has been around for ages and every year it goes around. However, the "swine flu" has only very recently come into the public consciousness. They know that in 2009, swine flu broke out. Article is about an event and should be named to reflect the common name used by the public. –xeno^talk 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
4. per my comment above, ". . .[the previous] discussion . . . appeared to only change the word "outbreak" to "pandemic" . . . Since all of the previous discussions kept the word swine in the title. . .I didn't follow as closely as I should have. . . Swine flu is the most common way to refer to this, it should be in the title." R. Baley (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, as above, I too vote for the much clearer 2009 swine flu pandemic  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Put "swine" in the name, and use lead paragraphs to explain. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Second verse, same as the first. Swine flu per WP:COMMONNAME. Oren0 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it at 2009 flu pandemic

1. Leave it as it is now, 2009 flu pandemic. Although I'm starting to get !voter fatigue here. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Change it to 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. Lets be nice to the piggies. h1n1 is used the media also. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   "H1N1 flu" is no clearer than just "flu", as H1N1 also causes seasonal flu.  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I prefer this. "flu pandemic" is clear, concise, and avoids the somewhat misleading connotations of "swine flu". It's not the end of the world to call it "swine flu pandemic", but I do think it is a better title without the "swine". Obviously, the "swine flu" name would still be discussed in the lead regardless. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Spanish flu => 1918 flu pandemic
   Mexican flu => 2009 flu pandemic
   Should followed the same naming format for pandemic flu. Mexican flu outbreak should be used in the first place, not Swine flu outbreak.

The Google factor

For whatever it's worth, I was curious about how the recent news might have affected search engines so here are some results of the number of searches for each of the following phrases over the last 24 hours: (note that the quotation marks mean that the words are kept together in the articles as quoted.) Totals rounded off:

• "Flu pandemic" - 7,000
• "Pandemic" - 21,000; (excluding the word "swine" - 4,000)
• "Swine flu pandemic" - 3,500
• "H1N1"- 109,000 (excluding "swine flu" - 7,000)
• "Swine flu" - 54,000 (excluding "pandemic" - 34,000; exlcuding "H1N1" - 17,000)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic table

FYI, 2009 flu pandemic table has been prodded for deletion by someone. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic in China

FYI, I have prodded 2009 flu pandemic in China for deletion, as an unnecessary subarticle, since it contains less information that the section in 2009 flu pandemic in Asia, and that section isn't particularly long. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Leading sentence false

The first sentence of the article is false. ("The 2009 flu pandemic,[55]—also referred to as swine flu although no pigs have been found to be infected by this virus—is a global ...") Many pigs in Alberta have caught the virus. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/06/07/edm-pig-famer-swine-flu-cull.html Eb.eric (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Eb.eric (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That should not have been in the article. hmwithτ 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian update

[[10]] Mongolia quarantines some tourists come swine flu suspects.--86.29.246.103 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A resentChinese border casese [[11]]. --86.29.246.103 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)