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

Updating the graphs of case progression

Referring to File:Influenza-2009-cases.png and File:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic.png.

I have been updating these from WHO information for a while now but will no longer be able to do so. If they continue to be used then I encourage others to update them. The source Excel file is here (2007 version) and it is fairly self explanatory. |→ Spaully ^τ 18:16, 5 July 2009 (GMT)

Pandemic table compromise

WHO:Global Pandemic case count ceased
Sorry to post at the top of this thread, but I wonder if this issue has now been overtaken by the passage of time and the announcement by WHO that even WHO will not maintain a global case count WHO. Most countries with community transmission - the ones with most rapid increase in cases - have limited testing only to those cases who have severe disease or severe underlying medical conditions requiring hospitalisation. So given that people are having difficulty updating a table that even WHO believes is inaccurate, it can probably be dropped from the article and the above reference to the cessation of global country case counts be linked. I think its important to remember that as wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a weekly or daily epidemiological newsletter it should not strive to provide a daily/weekly editing/editorial cycle - which is destined to fail and therefore undermine wikipedias credibility as a reliable and encyclopedic source of information. Perhaps better to put energy into identifying the most stable and reliable source of updates. --Cranberryzap (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reliable place that's listing deaths in one central location? Any death info from WHO lags badly -- and there is a clear interest in that information. Dropping lab-confirmed infections makes sense, but there is absolutely a need and a rationale for keeping the chart with death statistics. Pulling the entire table simply because we no longer can justify displaying infection figures makes no sense. What argument is there against showing fatalities? Numbers are numbers, and since the fatality figures we display come from multilingual sources, it would seem that the table data is serving a very clear and very essential role. I want to know how many people have died. I believe, in a real-time pandemic, it's one of the only meaningful pieces of data we have access to on a daily basis. If there is further information which can put it into context (like an entry discussing the difference between the "estimated" annual deaths from seasonal flu, and the number of fatalities directly attributed on death certificates) I'm all for including it in the pandemic article. But it is maddening to have such a handy source of summation continue to go missing because editors think they know better than I do what information I can handle, need, or deserve. And, why shouldn't we have daily, or even hourly, updates on a current event? Especially a current event affecting the entire planet? I've never read a Wikipedia entry and felt I was being done a disservice because it contained information which was too current for my use. There is nothing about fatality figures which undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Every figure is attributed to a source. We aren't creating data with this table. We're making data available and accessible. Which is precisely what Wikipedia should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.62.56 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the 'Laboratory confirmed' column could be removed if this would help find a consensus. The confirmed deaths column is of real interest though and should not be removed. The way in which the entire table (and therefore the information that it contains) has been repeatedly removed without consensus is of concern. --Dionliddell (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree, Dion. I don't see the lab confirmed data as being very useful at this point, it now seems an archival matter. Could we collapse it and leave a link to it? I also agree: The repeated removal of the table is bordering on page vandalism, at this point. I've never weighed in on a Wikipedia page like this before, but this is the first time I've ever seen someone deliberately take information away when it comes attributed to reliable & public sources. I've seen Wikipedia entries truncated because someone showed they were without attribution, but never this. To remove information because you've decided readers aren't interpreting it "correctly"? How can that possibly be a good idea, or in keeping with Wikipedia's goals of neutrality? Isn't the entire point of an encyclopedia to provide information, particularly hard facts & figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the table with lab confirmed cases and deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. It is clear that it is now a gross underestimation. It would be better to move this table to a new article and drop it from the main article. Keeping it would be otherwise misleading. I understand that the people who have worked hard in compiling the data for the table will not feel good about this, but I don't see any strong reasons to keep this table now. 79.72.130.70 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The death tolls are not inaccurate, because they do not come from the WHO. They come from the individual governments who have their own agendas.--121.73.176.163 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The various positions taken so far on the placing of the pandemic WHO figures table are:

1) At the top of the page.

2) In the middle of the page next to the data reporting and accuracy section.

3) Not in the page at all. (taken in preference to 1 but not in preference to 2)

As an attempted compromise I have placed it in the data reporting and accuracy section, linked to it from the top of the page and moved the data reporting and accuracy section to just below the introduction (so as close to the top of the page without compromising the introduction or violating WP:UNDUE.

I truly hope that this will be considered an acceptable compromise by everyone. Please do not just revert this and return the table to the top of the page as this violates wikipedia policy. Barnaby dawson (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talking of wikipedia policy: As I summarize at the moment, there are 2 persons voting for moving, 1 is indifferent (Spaully) and 5 persons are voting against. So you just ignore the majority and then cite wikipedia policy?!? | FHessel (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been no vote and I'm not sure Spaully or others would agree with your characterization of their opinions. Furthermore wikipedia does not have a policy of making decisions by mob rule. Informal votes can occur but are not necessarily binding. Wikipedia does have a neutral point of view policy, however.

Discussion so far has been over whether the table should be removed or placed at the top of the article. My compromise is a third option that has not been disussed. I boldly implemented it in the hope that this could resolve the dispute. I still hope it will. Barnaby dawson (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt, that it is improving the discussion, that you label your fellow wikipedians as mob. Mind the etiquette! | FHessel (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mob rule is not a term for the people but the process. You're counting of discussion commentors is mob rule not a vote. Please do not accuse me of incivility where there was none. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnaby, "Mob Rule" is in most people's vocabulary a method of denigrating some position. It is a highly loaded term with a very negative connotation. Words have a common menaing, one understood by all, and if you insist on speaking in your own unique jargon, than do not be surprised if others take offense at it. That said I strongly reccomend that the table be placed at the top of the article. The information that the table represents is not only what the WHO and other groups report, but the type of figures that virtually every newspaper cites. When publications report on the number of swine flu cases in a state, county or region they mean the confirmed cases, even when they do not say so. It even appears that some deaths counted as from swine flu have been reclassified as not related to swine flu. China has the most outstanding example. The point of putting the table at the top is that it gives a quick over-view of the subject. The current event notice is a warning that the information is unstable and not comparable to long-standing and well researched information, but an attempt to get information to people quickly. This in and of itself constitutes a warning that the table has liits. Due to the nature of the process used by the people who read the table, this is much more likely to cause the readers to weigh and balance the table than putting it in a different section. The fact of the matter is reading the header is almost unavoidable, but if we move the table, most people will still just look at the table and not read the long and involved text that it is next to.Johnpacklambert (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we keep the table at the top, but adapt it as I said above, focusing on deaths, which probably are more accurate and perhaps broad orders of magnitude for the level of infections? - Perhaps consider changing the table into a colored map?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Keji Fukuda the WHO will come up with suggestions in the next days, as to how countries could proceed from testing everybody towards a statistic based approach. I would recommend to wait, which data will be available on a world wide level. Then we could decide, how to change our table. | FHessel (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (Thanks for the link.) That page says "We will be putting up the updated guidance within the next few days and hopefully this will help with the monitoring globally for this pandemic." WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote for at the bottom of the page. The officially confirmed figures are of very little value since it is generally known and acknowledged officially that these represent a tiny fraction of the total cases, and are more of an artifact of testing than of spread. The huge table at the top tends to crowd down information that is more relevant and salient.

The increasing irrelevance of the current official numbers is underscored by the WHO telling countries with confirmed cases that they can stop testing every case (as though they had not stopped already):

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/swineflu/news/jul0709influenza.html

WHO to ask countries to ease novel H1N1 testing

Lisa Schnirring * Staff Writer

Jul 7, 2009 (CIDRAP News) – The World Health Organization (WHO) said today it will soon advise most countries to ease the volume of testing for novel H1N1 influenza ...

In the next few days the WHO will release its new surveillance recommendations, advising countries that have already confirmed cases to cut back on testing all suspected cases and move toward larger surveillance indicators such as influenza-like illnesses or pneumonia hospitalizations.

"This will also ease the burden on labs," he said, adding that countries will still be urged to continue testing when unusual situations surface, such as severe cases, clusters, and symptoms that haven't previously been reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.199 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the middle of a global issue affecting all of us, a small group of completely inflexible people keep hijacking the only hard data we have on this pandemic. Fatality totals are an absolutely legitimate piece of information even as confirmed cases have lost their relevance. Removing them is an obnoxious, petty abuse of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Until they're returned, this article needs to have the neutrality dispute tag added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.62.56 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the 'table issue' has been adequately resolved. I note that the table has been removed without consensus. I will reinstate the table and point the POV template to this talk section. I'm a newbie at this, so please forgive me if I haven't followed the correct protocol. --Dionliddell (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The table also serves use in giving information on the first confirmed cases in countries. If we get rid of tallies, then where are we to report cases from newly confirmed nations? CaninePitDog (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deaths are relevant, and in my country (NZ) the Ministry of Health delivers an official daily update on this countries death toll (due to H1N1)[1]. This simple figure (along with its reference) provides the reader with a quantifier (and qualifier) for the single most important aspect of this disease: its capacity to produce fatalities. Why hide this information? The WHO has pulled out of the numbers game, so be it; removing the WHO totals seems like a logical first step to the resolution of this 'Pandemic table issue'. --121.73.176.163 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the tables should remain as it is. Leave the tables on the top right of the article. If WHO has pulled out of the making official counts, we can look at various alternatives. One is that several countries are doing their own individual count. The second is that the European Centre for Disease Control is also tabulating a daily count for all countries worldwide, including recording the number of deaths. Those are better alternatives instead of knee-jerk reaction of deleting the entire table. Roman888 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Response section for proposal above on how to handle upcoming flu season

Hi, I've created this section, as the proposal itself was lengthy, and a fresh start for responses would help keep things manageable.Kavri (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article will soon become unmanageable and some segmentation will soon be needed. However you will get immediate protest if you attempt to use season names as article headings, as your proposed naming scheme shows a clear bias to the Northern hemisphere. Why should the southern hemisphere be listed under "summer" when it is winter in those countries? Also "Fall" is an Americanism (the rest of the English-speaking world uses "Autumn"). I think a neutral name like "Jan-June 2009 or "First half of 2009" would be better. Manning (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is already unmanageable to some degree, and it will only increase in the coming weeks. I didn't intend for a bias at to the naming of 'seasons', it comes from the fact that we generally do term flu in terms of seasons, but using actual month groupings as suggested would be fine, or other suggestions are welcome. I hadn't realized that 'Fall was American-centric, as in Canada both get used frequently. More importantly, I think it is important to try and get some agreement on making this article the 'historic' H1N1 pandemic 2009, or some such, that links to an 'on-going' section, and that sections are delimited to some sort of seasonal or monthly grouping named as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavri (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Still a need?

I no longer think that the yellow "unconfirmed or suspected cases" is needed anymore for the diagram on the right.

as the table is now only documented confirmed cases along with confirmed or suspected deaths. What do others think?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sky Attacker, for several months I have been an advocate that, it is a messy situation, why don't we let our readers just see this (instead of trying to interpret for them, buffer for them, etc)

There are probably good estimates, CDC, WHO, doctors in Argentina, in Australia, or just estimates, people trying their best and our readers can decide how much stock to put in a quote from an infectious disease doctor in Australia, for example. So, let's splash the best quotes we can find. Let's have several different maps, some showing only the laboratory-confirmed cases, some showing suspected. That's what I say. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Had to remove your totally pointless "splash." Add new information, if you have any, to the article, and in context. Your news bulletin on the lead was totally Uncool. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Including unconfirmed makes no sense at all at this point.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Four paragraphs of introduction, and only one reference?

One reference at the very end, a May 26th press conference of CDS's Anne Schuchat. It's a fine reference, but it supports everything in the above four paragraphs?

It sure appears to me that often our primary focus is wordsmithing and only secondarily the content of the article. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"four known strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1" ???

This blurs history. The one that circulated for perhaps a decade was a triple reassortant of human/pig/bird virus. That one was pig-to-pig, sometimes pig-to-human, and maybe very occasionally human-to-human. The freely transmissible human-to-human virus is the new one which resulted from a reassortant of another pig virus with the previous triple reassortant. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"most likely" from Asia ???

This is what the lead paragraph of our article says:

'Experts now assume that the virus "most likely" emerged from pigs in Asia, and the virus was carried to North America by infected people.'

Wow. And where are our references for these experts so stating? I think there might be a confusion between Eurasian pigs--a type of pig--and where the virus originated. And this is the very type of confusion that is likely to result when the emphasis is one wordsmithing (and "neutral" language and perfectionism and buffing and polishing) rather than the content of the article.

And although there is no particular reason to blame Mexico for getting unlucky, it sure seems like the epicenter of the pandemic is the area surrounding Mexico City. Or, perhaps on the other hand, it might be Asia afterall. Asia is almost half the world as far as population goes. And Asia has a lot of small farms, as well as large farms. It certainly is possible that the virus originated there and was transmitted by humans to Mexico (as our article currently states!). But we need to have some references if this is in fact the case. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article and so each claim in the lead should be both expanded on and sourced in the body. Look for your sources there. Did you read the rest of the article? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it's hunt and peck and we have to go hunting? We can't even include footnotes in the introduction? Cool Nerd (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"and the virus cannot be transmitted from foods" That is also from the lead paragraph of our article. Oh, really? Even if someone coughs all over a plate of food? This is exactly the type of thing a public health official would say in a soothing tone of voice. And the truth is, we just don't know. And that's an uncomfortable state to be in. We don't want to go overboard taking health precautions, but on the other hand . . . Now, the article's right about cooked pork. You're not going to get it from cooked pork. But if a food service worker coughs into his or her hand and later uses that hand to open up and put on plastic gloves (probably better just to wash your hands and not use gloves!) . . . I'll count it as an unknown. Probably is possible, question is how likely. Not too different from viruses on a surface, and someone else touches the surface and later brings that hand to nose or mouth. Again, let's go with the best references we can find. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad place to start might be the June 18th New Eng J Med editorial by Robert Belshe
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/25/2667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool Nerd (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That source and cite was already incorporated into the article - section on "Mutation potential." It was added to the context of the article instead of having a snippet "splashed" in the lead. The lead is supposed to be only a "brief summary" of material that's expanded within the body, and cites are not added twice except where the material is of a "controversial" nature (per Wiki Guidelines). As for "hunt and peck," try the TOC. And if that's still too much reading, try "Control + F" to search a page. Hope that helps. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what a named reference is for. You name it once when you cite it and then use it however many times you refer to it. Every reference used in a summary lead should be named, because it will also appear in the body of the article. Simple, right?LeadSongDog come howl 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite of that: "should not be named" unless the topic is likely to be controversial. See WP:Lead [2] i.e. "avoid redundant citations in the lead." But I realize that many, if not most, readers go no further than reading the lead section, so I sometimes keep a named cite there for details that seem to be very important, in order to save a reader time in verifying. But too many footnotes can clutter up the summary section, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The section "Mutation potential" has some good material, notable the scary possible of H1N1 combining with Avian flu, notably the good news announced by Anne Schuchat in June 2009 that all H1N1 tested around the globe was "genetically identical" to that within the United States. But no where in the section does it make the claim that the current swine flu originated in Asia. That is a free-standing claim made in our introduction and backed by no reference.

It's in the "Virus origins" section --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the suggestion we use named references, sounds good. We can go short in the introduction and expand in the sections, and both can have a reference. People will just need to be a little bit careful deleting named references. And as far as the Dr. Belshe reference from New England J Medicine, we can probably go shorter in the introduction: "a recent reassortant of the triple-reassortant swine influenza A (H1) viruses and a Eurasian swine influenza virus." Maybe something like that. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

50000?

I just noticed that the UK has '50000 cases' of swine flu. Are these 'confirmed cases?'

(86.170.162.197 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

They are estimated cases, derived from surveillance of e.g GP & A&E consultations and people ringing NHS direct complaining of flu like symptoms etc. Its not feasible to test everyone for H1N1 flu, there are too many cases now (~99% of flu cases in the UK are H1N1). Given that, I think we should drop our adherence to laboratory confirmed cases in the table of flu cases where appropriate, its time to quote estimated rates of infection. If we don't adopt this policy, the lab confirmed cases will remain unchanged while deaths accumulate, we will give the misleading impression that H1N1 is becoming more pathogenic. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very, very good points. Probably more informative to give estimated number of cases. I remember about a month ago, Australia went to "Sustain Phase" where they were only testing if there was a specific medical reason. Otherwise, assume it's swine flu and treat with Tamiflu, and symptomatically.

I continue to think it's a big deal the sheer baseline of flu in the United States. 36,000 people die each year in the United States from just plain old garden-variety seasonal flu (other people can make adjustments for their own countries). If more people get flu this year because of less resistance to the new strain, even if H1N1 is no more lethal than seasonal, even if it's slightly less, you still may see greater total deaths, and these may largely be preventable. The vaccine issue remains huge. And there might be other smart things we can do as well. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That baseline is estimated, which is why it's unfortunate that pundits are so quick to point at it. Not only do we need to be careful about including estimates in our own numbers, we probably need to find an article somewhere that'll tell us how many confirmed cases of flu death happen each year -- so we'll have a meaningful comparison when looking at the confirmed fatalities we have so far. Confirmed fatalities have been, and will continue to be, one of the most important data sets we have. It's easy to accept estimates, but I think we can do better.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lab confirmed v's estimated infection rates

UK is now experiencing a rapid exponential increase in H1N1 flu cases, remarkable given its July. The flu infection rate now exceed the peak of the 08/09 winter flu season. H1N1 Flu is now so widespread, the UK no longer routinely lab tests for the virus. The UK lab confirmed figure will not be updated. It is now time to think about how to better present the flu infection rate - otherwise the table will give the misleading impression of gradually increasing lethality.

I propose quoting "cases per 100,000" where appropriate. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a question of original research. The current table is essentially ECDC confirmed figures (with a little bit of anticipation). To present a table of estimated figures we'd need a source which presents estimates together in a table. Otherwise its original research and potentially very misleading (if differing methods are used to make the estimates). Certainly mixing estimates with confirmed figures is not the way to go. Note that estimated deaths may also differ substantially from confirmed deaths (see the data accuracy and reporting section as to why). Providing an estimated deaths figures without an estimated infections figure or vice versa is not good.

What reason do we have for believing that we will need to deal with estimated deaths? If someone dies with flu-like symptoms, why wouldn't they be tested? They're giving up on testing everyone who has the flu - not everyone who dies. We need to give precedence to hard figures. Adding how many deaths occurred in the past week would be more useful than adding information on estimated infections. Those estimates have been all over the board whenever they've been given.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that estimates are much better than confirmed numbers at this stage (and have been for some considerable time). But just don't have a source for estimates at the moment. Outside of the table we'd be ok because they'd be no synthesis. In the instance of individual numbers in the text I agree that estimates should be preferred to confirmed figures. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We should deal in facts, not guesswork. If you want to include any estimates in the pandemic page, they should be in a section clearly labeled "Infection estimates", and certainly not at the top of the article.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear, I'm not suggesting we calculate our own per 100,000 infection rate, I understand that is OR. On the contrary, the per 100,000 infection rate is available for the UK on the HPA website[3] (the UK infection rate is now 86.8 per 100,000). It is standard epidemiological practice to drop lab/medically confirmed cases and instead express infection rate as cases per 100,000 as a pandemic progresses. That data is now available for the UK and as the pandemic progress the per 100,000 infection rate will likely be published by other countries too. It also has the advantage that, as in the case of the UK, it tracks the weekly infection rate. Thus readers of the article will see the flu infection rate increase and decrease in the coming months/years. We could even create an useful graph of this data. --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If we've got the numbers, and it sounds like a pretty good source, let's go with it. Let's include it in the article. The only thing I would add is that instead of +- whatever (for it is an estimate), let's go ahead and include several different authoritative estimates. That way the reader can see for himself or herself that it is a messy situation--How could it be otherwise?--and we don't need to stand in the reader's way and somehow buffer the information. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

86.6 is NOT an UK infection rate. Actually it is the "GP ILI consultation rate" obtained through the QSurveillance scheme. There might be (and most probably is) a relation between this consultation rate and the infection rate. But still, this number is not the infection rate. It is most important to understand, that all these indicators can only be interpreted in comparison. Either comparison over time or comparison between countries(if the methodology is the same). That is a very important reason for having world-wide comparable data and showing these data in direct comparison (such as a table). The number by itself has no informative value at all. FHessel (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, GP General Practitioner consultation---the number of people going to the doctor reporting cough and fever? And since it's not now seasonal flu season in the UK . . .

So it's not a perfect number, but can't we still share it with our readers and give them enough information to put it in context? Cool Nerd (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that there is a restriction on what figures are quoted; we need to compare the pandemics progress between countries. How about estimated number of infections? There are approx. 85,000 current H1N1 cases in the UK (55,000 new cases in the last 7 days). My main point is, we should start quoting approximate figures where lab confirmed figures are increasingly inaccurate. The UK stopped testing all suspected cases on 2nd July. I imagine that as the pandemic progresses, approximate numbers of flu cases will be the figure heath authorities will provide. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, these estimates have no place here. It's bad enough when we were trying to compare lab confirmed cases between countries with different levels of testing rigor, but to begin trying to compare numbers once countries are pulling numbers out of their proverbial nether regions would be a mistake on our part.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimates are all that will be meaningful from now until after the pandemic has peaked, so perhaps a section on their nature and limitations might be useful. Servalo (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO: "H1N1 flu pandemic fastest-moving ever, now pointless to count every case.

"The World Health Organization said earlier on Thursday that the H1N1 flu pandemic was the fastest-moving ever and that it was now pointless to count every case." July 16, 2009. Available at BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8154419.stm Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1642970020090716 Ergo, the giant table at the top of the article counting every case is confirmed to be pointless, as many have long suspected. The valuable screen space it occupies should be put to non-pointless use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.165 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"In past pandemics, influenza viruses have needed more than six months to spread as widely as the new H1N1 virus has spread in less than six weeks." - WHO.[4]

And the incident rate in the UK is falling up a cliff. I agree, the table is useless and a waste of space. The progress of the pandemic should be illustrated by cases per 100,000 where data is available. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you read the original? It does not say, that it is pointless to count every case. Actually it says:

The increasing number of cases in many countries with sustained community transmission is making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for countries to try and confirm them through laboratory testing. Moreover, the counting of individual cases is now no longer essential in such countries for monitoring either the level or nature of the risk posed by the pandemic virus or to guide implementation of the most appropriate response measures.

The WHO is painting a differentiated picture of countries in different stages of the pandemic. For countries in early stages of the pandemic it is still important to count cases (and there are many countries still in the early stages). These countries would have no place in a table, where we only count cases by the 100,000. And data will not be available either, at the moment it is enormous to publish numbers like that, but in one or two weeks, nobody will bother to give such estimates (it will not be new(s) any more). And we can also do better, than just throw the table out. Many people want to know, where exactly we stand. And I cannot believe, that any text is able to resemble such a fast evolving situation in real time. So I think the best way is to adapt the table to the new situation and use it to give the readers the quick overview as to where the pandemic is most active right now. | FHessel (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many people do want to know where we stand right now. And it is a fast evolving situation. The question I ask is, Why are we attempting to stand between people and information? Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to pretty up a table? We are making things too hard on ourselves. (Yes, the table has been good practice, all skills are transferrable, but if things start to happen quickly . . . we will need to experiment developing some new skills. Get in there and make some mistakes! And as long as they are transparent mistakes, it's all for the good.)

One method I have proposed is a "Current Situation" section, mainly news articles because that's what's most readily available, but also CDC announcements, WHO announces, etc.---when you find something good, go ahead and excerpt it when you get to the first good part. Tell us where you found it and what date it is. Leave it transparent. Trust your fellow readers to do some of the work and possibly incorporate into the main body. New articles are added at top and older articles are dropped off the bottom.

It is a "messy" situation. And instead of merely telling our readers this, why don't we let them see for themselves?Cool Nerd (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 briefing note 3 [as above]
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_surveillance_20090710/en/index.html
16 JULY 2009 | GENEVA " . . . to closely monitor unusual events, such as clusters of cases of severe or fatal . . . " That has been the crucial question all along--How likely is it that the virus will mutate into something more lethal? Cool Nerd (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The UN may have given up counting due to some goverments fakeing figures and running cover-ups.--86.25.2.224 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you all agree that the table is completely useless? I don´t think so. While some countries have stopped counting cases, all of the countries are still counting deaths, officially and by journalists, that gives a magnitude of the situation. Though I have to admit the page looks cleaner now.Acolombo1 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it was less than helpful. The table probably, all too often, illustrated laboratory testing capacity rather then the real flu incidence. On the June 25th, the CDC estimated that the US had more than 1 million H1N1 cases, while the table of lab confirmed peaked at ~34,000.[5] A research group in the UK says the true attack rate (percentage infected) many not be known until after the pandemic is over, the number ultimately revealed by testing people for antibodies to the virus. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I've been using the table here to track numbers and it's greatly appreciated. I'd rather they be include, but if not, at least put a link to where they ARE being kept. Or is Wikipedia giving up and no longer providing consolidated numbers? Kf6spf (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The table should be kept as some countries are doing their own case counts irregardless of whether WHO has stop their own counting. Also its important to keep tabs on the number of deaths so the future we can make an accurate prediction on the % who have been affected fatally.Roman888 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No we can't : The tests being conducted on a minority of cases, the datas are irrelevants. Nor we should since it would be a original research. Iluvalar (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're flat out wrong. Deaths are not irrelevant. In fact, fatalities are probably the most relevant piece of data we have -- and have nothing to do with the laboratory-confirmed cases argument. The fact that countries will no longer test everyone with the sniffles for H1N1 does NOT mean that they're going to quit tracking who dies from it. Fatality figures are essential, they aren't original research, and they need to remain at the top of the article.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, let put that 779 identified deaths worldwide in the last 3 months alongside the 250 000 to 500 000 annual deaths for typical epidemics at the top of the page. It's certainly the most relevant fact we have. Iluvalar (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not comparing like with like, though. The first figure is a flu surveilance figure and the second is an estimate. Even in the US these figures have not historically been comparable (a difference of 20 times is not unusual). The figures are probably even further out of line worldwide. We'd be better off with an estimate of the number to have died from H1N1 so far and I haven't seen anyone try to produce such an estimate yet. Barnaby dawson (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that number of official cases of H1N1 and related deaths are not irrelevant, even though WHO or some countries have stopped counting the number of cases. Most countries are still counting the number of cases, including the European Center for Disease Control who is tabulating the number of cases. And as such the table should remain at the top of the table. We shouldn't use the argument regarding estimates vs official counts, to delete or move the table.Roman888 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Angola update

A old coddger has died of it on his farm, near Luanda [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]! --86.25.2.224 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

your information is completely made up. All your links are none existent.--86.161.173.88 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead as summary

Am reverting some lead material in order to maintain its purpose as a summary. The body material was removed and added to the lead only, with the explanation that it was a "duplicate entry." Per WP:Lead section, we should try to keep the lead as an introduction, so the body should be the place to have the details and citations. The lead is supposed to duplicate some of the body material.

The edits also changed the citation format to what the editor called a "standard cite format," which is really just a templated form. I see those kinds of changes done a lot, and it's usually not a problem. I personally use the simpler form because it requires a lot fewer words; is easier to edit; and allows for multiple referencing with the simple "ref name" tag. I rely on WP:Citing sources (excerpts):

Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred . . . . Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style."

For a citation to appear in a footnote, it needs to be enclosed in <ref> tags. You can add these by typing <ref> at the front of the citation and </ref> at the end. Alternatively you may notice below the edit box there is a list of "markup" which includes <ref></ref> - if you highlight your whole citation and then click this markup, it will automatically enclose your citation in ref tags. Optionally, one may add the name attribute by using <ref name="name">details of the citation</ref>. Thereafter, the same footnote may be used multiple times by adding <ref name="name"/>.

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Citation format: You are referring to WP:Citing sources, but your quotations are misleading. They refer to one of five ways of presentation ("Citations are usually presented within articles in one of five ways"), namely 'General reference', 'Footnote', 'Shortened footnote', 'Parathentical reference' or 'embedded link'.
The section citation styles will give you an introduction, which information is typically included in references. Furthermore "you should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected."
2) I do accept, that you moved my clarifications to the data reporting section. What I cannot accept is, that you are reintroducing a false interpretation of the WHO statements. Please read carefully the NYT article. You will see, that they refer directly to the WHO briefing note of July 16. Now, this briefing note does not justify the NYT statement, moreover the directly linked WHO document 'Interim WHO guidance for the surveillance of human infection with A(H1N1) virus' states, that even if they are not reporting individual cases anymore, "all countries should inform WHO on a weekly basis of their [...] deaths." (page 6), which is contrary to the NYT article. Is there a justification for deleting the primary source and using a secondary source, which is citing the primary source in a faulty way? Clearly not!! I will change the article accordingly, and please, do not use the faulty NYT citation again.
3) Only as a minor point. The NYT writes:
"Many epidemiologists have pointed out that, in reality, millions of people have had swine flu, usually in mild form, so the numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases were actually meaningless. And performing the tests has overwhelmed many national laboratories."
Your citation says:
"partly because data estimates, according to many experts, were becoming "meaningless" and laboratories were overwhelmed simply testing for the flu"
On such a way the experts are now saying something about the overwhelming of labratories, which the original NYT article did not say in that way. I will not change that, because I think, that you will find a better solution than me.
FHessel (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe WHO's statements are changing too often. You quoted them as saying "all countries should inform WHO on a weekly basis of their . . . deaths," as why the NYT story is faulty. But all I could find that was similar to that quote is the one below, and actually makes the NYT conclusion more correct than the "faulty interpretation" you mentioned. At best, the WHO statements seem fairly ambiguous as to their future reporting requirements and they are clearly not requiring countries to report all cases, just clusters, deaths, etc.

WHO statement: [11]

For all of these reasons, WHO will no longer issue the global tables showing the numbers of confirmed cases for all countries. However, as part of continued efforts to document the global spread of the H1N1 pandemic, regular updates will be provided describing the situation in the newly affected countries. WHO will continue to request that these countries report the first confirmed cases and, as far as feasible, provide weekly aggregated case numbers and descriptive epidemiology of the early cases.

For countries already experiencing community-wide transmission, the focus of surveillance activities will shift to reporting against the established indicators for the monitoring of seasonal influenza activity. Those countries are no longer required to submit regular reports of individual laboratory-confirmed cases to WHO.

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The table pointing every case should be moved to less-valuable real estate

As long as someone wants to reflect lab-confirmed cases for reference purposes, the bottom of the article is a good place to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.116 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Data reporting and accuracy

I added the first paragraph back in (with one sentence deleted) because it contains important context for data reporting from past experience with seasonal flu. This is particularly the case with the passage addressing the reporting of flu deaths. Barnaby dawson (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the WHO will stop counting cases, the oversized screen area devoted to the table of the cases it counted is of historical interest, only

"As of Friday, the CDC reported more than 40,000 laboratory-confirmed cases of the virus (commonly known as swine flu), 4,800 hospitalizations and 263 deaths. Experts believe more than a million Americans have been infected, however. Schuchat said the CDC would probably stop reporting cases soon because most people who are infected don't get tested.

What does this have to do with deaths? How, precisely, is the ever-changing number of fatalities "of historical interest, only"? Laboratory-confirmed cases have been useless for comparison purposes all along because every country tests differently -- but fatality figures are another story.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"The World Health Organization, which has reported nearly 100,000 confirmed cases worldwide, said Thursday that it would stop counting cases because that required too much unnecessary work by health authorities. The agency had said a week earlier that it recommends local agencies no longer test for the virus unless they have not previously had cases or there is an unusual outbreak.

above via http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-flu18-2009jul18,0,6483644.story

Canada will also quit counting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.15 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one bit if WHO stops counting the number of cases. Individual countries continued their own official counting of their cases, irregardless of WHO's direction. Leave the table where it is! Roman888 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The table contains no accurate information on either actual cases or deaths. The source data is only useful for revealing the spread of this new strain; but since this Wikipedia table lacks date information, it is not even good at that. It is worthless. It is data compiled by people who know nothing about what the data means. Go write an article on something you know something about. Or read the sources this article uses and then you too will know why this Wikipedia table is worthless. The worth of something is not measured by the time put into it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. ike9898 (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only are you rude, you're wrong. The figures we use for fatalities are the most accurate figures we'll ever have, unless some new global government steps in after the pandemic, orders every suspected case dug up and exhaustively tested. Fatality figures are based on national health department figures, and figures assembled by investigative journalists. The only objection you could have with them is that they don't include fatalities that weren't tested for flu, but since we have no way of forcing anyone to test every death for H1N1, the figures we are using are absolutely the best available. The fact that normal flu is blamed for 36,000 deaths a year when in truth nobody tracks how many die from the flu, and very few deaths are actually directly blamed on it, does not mean that we should allow the same sloppy, pulled-out-of-thin-air attitude to apply to Wikipedia and our own summation of this unfolding event. I don't know why a small minority here is so stubborn on this one issue, but to try to ignore or dismiss our only neutral numerical data on the pandemic makes no sense. These numbers aren't made up. They aren't estimates. They aren't lies. They're the record of known, tested, confirmed patients who have the swine flu, and who have died because of it. To suggest that they don't belong front and center in our coverage of the pandemic is absurd. 68.111.62.56 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The table was misleading and did not contain accurate data. The WHO stopped counting all cases, as did several individual countries. The UK stopped testing on the July 2nd and only a fraction of cases were tested in the US; the CDC estimated on the June 25th that more than 1 million Americans had H1N1. I deleted the table and replaced it with two maps showing the distribution of H1N1. This addresses the concerns expressed by those who wanted to keep the table, that it was useful for tracking the spread of the disease. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources to refute the fatality figures used in compiling the table, please share with the class. Otherwise, removing the only hard data we have on the expansion of the pandemic is little better than page vandalism.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To that end, please remove the second map as it is misleading (and does not contain much data at all). New Zealand has had sustained community transmission for a while (hence the shift of pandemic response phase to 'manage it')[12].
It is a shame to have lost the deaths column of the table, since, at the very least, New Zealand is doing definitive testing on any possible fatalities due to novel H1N1. The information on deaths is reliable and updated every day. I believe most countries' health organisations would have these numbers publicly available.--121.73.176.163 (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

THe WHO said that they will stop counting each cases but they will be updating the deaths, so if you guys decided to keep the table, i think at least the deaths should be kept. --Vrysxy! (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions on removing the table (and other dubious data) are further down the road on the 2009 flu pandemic by country page, that's where the table is sourced. If you want to keep the table, let your opinions be known there. There is an argument against the claim that it keeps track of all deaths - there is inevitable disparity between tracking deaths between devloped and non-devloped nations. Who can confidently claim that all deaths are counted in Sub-Saharan Africa?

The argument that because some nations won't admit to fatalities we should simply ignore all data on deaths makes no sense. The data we *do* have comes from reliable, attributable sources. As such, it absolutely should remain in the pandemic article. It's the best hard data we've got on the pandemic. If anything, it still needs an expansion to include a column showing how many deaths have been reported in the past week, so users can easily spot where the flu is currently causing casualties.

That said, if New Zealand (and others) is doing a good job tracking infections and deaths, then very well, cite data on the 2009 flu pandemic in New Zealand page. Since the UK, Canada, US and a growing list of others countries are not now and never counted all cases, I can't see why keeping a table that mixes myth and fact is wise - the progress of the pandemic is best displayed qualitatively not quantitatively. -Diamonddavej (talk) 14:34, 19 July

2009 (UTC)

Keep the table as it is. Just because a few countries and WHO have stopped counting the number of cases, doesn't mean we should remove the table. There are other countries that still making their own individual official counts. Plus the European Centre for Disease Control is also tabulating the number of cases worldwide, including the death totals for each country. What is the reason for removing the table other than knee-jerk reactions after seeing WHO and some countries stop counting the number of cases? Roman888 (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, on this page, is the appropriate place to discuss whether the entire table should be repeated in its entirety here, on this page. Its unfortunate prominent position here comes at the cost of moving down off the initial screen and hence obscuring a great deal of information more current, salient and useful than the table. If the table is kept, move it to a position appropriate for reference matter.

Which brand-new sections of the pandemic article do you feel merit a place of prominence ahead of our consolidated fatality chart? And, what do you mean precisely by "initial screen"? Do you just mean that they have to scroll down to get the rest of the article, or do some portions of it cut off on some Web browsers?68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the point of the table is to show the extent of spread, it is actually counterproductive. Unwary readers will confuse documented cases with the actual extent of spread -- hundreds of times larger. Of far greater value would be information about authoritative estimates of the actual extent of spread -- so great the WHO will no longer undertake to report cases. If the point is to provide data for readers to distill fatality ratios, the distilled ratios (currently around 6 per thousand) would be both more concise and more useful by far. This history table is, and will remain, weighted heavily to the early cases, when more cases were being reported and tested. It thus gives undue weight to the results of those cases, which occurred when swine flu was milder, and fatality ratios derived from it were lower, than they currently are according to more recent data. Hence the history reflected in the table is of little current salience at best, and confusing at worst. This history table merits a position toward the end, appropriate for historical data. Not at the top.

Could you please provide links to the articles where it's shown that hospitals, newspapers, and national medical bureaus are going to stop paying attention to folks who drop dead with flu conditions in a pandemic? Lab-confirmed infections are now a matter of historical interest. Fatalities are not. Not only would estimating fatality ratios begin to knock at the door of original research, which is forbidden here, but it'd be taking a badly broken piece of data (lab-confirmed infections) and allowing it to skew our good data (deaths). What in the world would possess us to do so? Put the lab-confirmed infections into an archive somewhere, add a column for fatalities within the past week, and keep the fatality table at the top of the page. Deaths will remain current and pertinent until nations try to cover them up -- and even then, a table like this could help make their absence more visible.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note of explanation just below the table's title, to try to make sure that the reader realizes what the table really represents - a summary of official reports, and that there is reason to believe that the true numbers are different. I support keeping the table but I also agree that it is very easy to misinterpret what these numbers mean and don't mean. If you can improve the wording of the 'disclaimer' please do, but I think it should be as brief as possible; right now it fills two lines the way it is formatted in this article. ike9898 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE GRAPH, Venezuela now has a death person

Thanks! Ministro Mantilla ratificó que virus AH1N1 está controlado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.18.153 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Britain's 100,000

Health Secretary, Allan Johnston is saying by the end of August there could be 100,000 new cases per day by the end of August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.137.106 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's only 55,000 [[13]], Sir!--86.25.8.46 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Egypt reports first swine flu death

Egypt on Sunday reported its first death linked to swine flu after a 25-year-old woman coming back from a pilgrimage to the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia died in hospital, the health ministry said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-World-Rest-of-World-Egypt-reports-first-swine-flu-death/articleshow/4796514.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.187.168 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please change the table sort order back

There has been an extensive discussion about how useless the data on confirmed cases is -- to now begin sorting the table based on that useless data boggles the mind. It needs to be changed back to sort based on fatalities. I also do not see why a change like this was made without any discussion first.68.111.62.56 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deaths first sort order. The change was made unilaterally without discussion and violated the long standing consensus on what the sort order should be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

35 deaths in australia

35 deaths now in Australia. http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/news-200709 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.187.168 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting deaths figures in perspective

GB (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article states 30 deaths in the UK and has not been updated for over two weeks. The actual number of deaths from Swine Flu in the UK reached a count of 29 last week. Let's put the figures in perspective showing the ratio between the number of cases/deaths from Swine Flu and the total population of each impacted country. Based on the WHO figures:

			Cases	Deaths	Cases	Deaths
	Country	Population	Laboratory confirmed	Confirmed	Ratio between country population and number of cases (%)	Ratio between country population and number of deaths (%)
	United States	306 971 520	40 617	300	0,0132	0,0001
	Argentina	40 000 000	3 056	186	0,0076	0,00047
	Mexico	109 955 400	14 229	128	0,0129	0,00012
	Chile	16 454 143	11 239	68	0,0683	0,00041
	Canada	33 212 696	10 817	49	0,0326	0,00015
	Australia	21 007 310	14 037	37	0,0668	0,00018
	United Kingdom	60 943 912	10 649	30	0,0175	0,00005
	Thailand	61 500 000	512	28	0,0008	0,00005
	Brazil	191 908 598	1 175	20	0,0006	0,00001
	Uruguay	3 477 778	550	20	0,0158	0,00058
	Peru	29 180 900	2 796	14	0,0096	0,00005
	Costa Rica	4 195 914	503	12	0,012	0,00029
	New Zealand	4 173 460	2 443	11	0,0585	0,00026
	Paraguay	6 831 306	175	10	0,0026	0,00015
	Ecuador	13 927 650	394	8	0,0028	0,00006
	Colombia	45 013 672	202	8	0,0004	0,00002
	El Salvador	6 000 000	452	6	0,0075	0,0001
	Bolivia	9 247 816	715	5	0,0077	0,00005
	Philippines	96 061 680	2 668	4	0,0028	0,000004
	Spain	40 491 052	1 302	4	0,0032	0,00001
	Guatemala	13 002 206	374	2	0,0029	0,00002
	Venezuela	26 414 816	281	2	0,0011	0,00001
	Dominican Republic	8 745 000	108	2	0,0012	0,00002
	Jamaica	2 804 332	44	2	0,0016	0,00007
	Hong Kong	7 018 636	1 964	1	0,028	0,00001
	Singapore	4 608 167	1 217	1	0,0264	0,00002
	Panama	3 309 679	541	1	0,0163	0,00003
	Brunei	381 371	346	1	0,0907	0,00026
	Honduras	7 639 327	123	1	0,0016	0,00001
	Egypt	81 713 520	130	1	0,0002	0,000001
	Tonga	119 009	2	1	0,0017	0,00084
	Other		17 174	0
	Reports Total	6 773 000 000	145 538	963	0,0021	0,00001

What perspective, precisely are you going for here? Bearing in mind, of course, that the point of Wikipedia is to avoid "putting" anything in perspective. To provide a perspective would be to violate neutrality. We're to provide neutral information. For instance, with your figures, someone could jump to the inaccurate conclusion that the swine flu is no big deal. Particularly if your numbers were coupled with the criminally inaccurate guesstimates experts like to trot out showing how "normal" flu kills a half-million people a year worldwide, and 36,000 in the United States. When, in reality, *nobody* dies from the regular flu. Not where flu is listed as cause of death. The fatality figures we have for swine flu aren't made up, which is why comparing them to the mythical 36k/500k is such a pointless endeavor. Swine flu fatalities point to real people, who are really dead, and who wouldn't be dead had this swine flu not entered the human population. If it's perspective you're looking for, find some fatality figures for regular flu based on actual, confirmed, case-by-case deaths due to the flu, and put those side-by-side with what we've got so far from the swine flu pandemic. Or, find some figures on swine flu hospitalizations, and put those up next to regular flu hospitalizations in the same geographic region. The numbers I saw weeks ago for Utah (I don't go digging for data, I leave that to the more dedicated folks -- I just swing by Wikipedia, to enjoy the fruits of their labor) showed that swine flu hospitalizations had already nearly reached the same numbers as Utah would see over the course of an entire season of regular flu. If anything, I object to our including quotes from experts who refer to the 36k/500k mythos, because both numbers merely serve as an empty reassurance to the public that whatever happens, it's not so bad. It's just the flu. At the very least, I'd like to have those quotes carry a disclaimer about the fact that 500k/36k is purely conjecture based on extrapolation and inference.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In calculating cases/population and deaths/population the above table carries a heavy point of view. Namely that confirmed infections are tolerably close to total infections (almost certainly false in the USA for example) and that confirmed deaths are tolerably close to total deaths (which historically hasn't been true according to the CDC). The perspective it introduces is not NPOV and cannot become part of this article.

I cannot agree with 68.111.62.56 regarding the status of historical estimates of seasonal flu mortality. These are figures for which we have multiple independent and credible sources. Furthermore, I have seen no source claiming that historically confirmed deaths estimate total deaths (as 68.111.62.56 seems to be arguing). Barnaby dawson (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau part of China (PRC)

Please reach a consensus on both Hong Kong and Macau either being part of China (People's Republic of China) or separate territories. Both Hong Kong and Macau have separate numbers of confirmed cases in the table while the map shows one confirmed death in mainland China. (One death only in Hong Kong) Jolazzzang (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent articles

There are a lot of differences between the pictures, tables and articles about this subject. For instance, in the timeline there is a death in Malaysia, which is not in the picture nor in the tables. And China is black on the map, but I can't find a death in China on the tables and neither on the timeline. Similar cases with North Korea, French Guyana, and some others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

South Pacific!

Chew on this, mate! A US sailor has fallen ill and possibly even died [[14]] on a aid trip from US Samoa to Tonga, Kiribati and the Marshal Islands! The Yank either got it of a sick native or did the Seppo really bring it to the territory and cause Samoa's out break? --86.25.11.99 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

Are the 100,000+ cases in Argentina real? Yes, it´s an estimate given by health minister Juan Manzur on July 3rd 2009!--86.25.11.99 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korea (DPRK)

I found this in an archive and will Google up some sources...

It's on RTE, a North Korean Communist party official has just died of Mexican swine flu in Sepo county!.--Qministrator (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --Qministrator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...assuming it has not been gaged by the reclusive nation's politburo.--86.25.11.99 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Why isn't there a section about the controversy surrounding the whole thing? I mean, wouldn't it be relevant to include references to some of the so-called conspiracy theorists who claim it's all a hoax designed to trick people into taking vaccines that would supposedly make them more vulnerable to the flu? I don't want to be a doomsayer, but I have to admit that a lot of it kind of fits the sayings and writings of people like David Icke, Alex Jones, et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.75.149 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See the neutral point of view policy, especially the piece about undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The virus in argentina is different from the one in US and Mexico

Is that enough to be considered a mutation?

Here's the news link, official confirmation should be available shortly.

[15]

Sarejo (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)