Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

How many ignorants are required to spread paranoia into the world?

Funny, people are starting to believe everything they read on CNN before even reading a little bit of real scientific information. C´mon digest info before starting to use surgical masks and driving everybody to madness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.154.75 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed deaths column?

Could you add a "confirmed deaths due to swine flue" column in the box in the upper right? Right now there is only a "possible deaths" column. the "confirmed deaths" would be incomplete, of course, but I have seen some of those #s reported in the media. Matthias5 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from another section Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

20 are so far confirmed to have been caused by the new virus. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8020676.stm --78.146.237.39 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A Chart Suggestion- Infections Over Time

I hate to suggest this, but given the daily changes to the table on the article page, what I would think would be more useful than the geographic maps would be a cartesian graph with X being the date (days since "case zero") and Y being the number of reported infection per region/country/city/etc. Thus a line showing number of infections over time could help visualize the rate of infection. Different lines could be used for different countries or to show total infections vs. terminal infections. I picture something like dshort's economic Four Bad Bears graphic. Such a graph may also be useful to visualize "waves" of reported infection as well as illustrating how the rate of infection may differ between countries, or, if the data exists, between other epidemics/pandemics. Eventually (but hopefully not) such a graph may need to be adjusted to account for population rather than raw numbers. Or maybe a logarithmic version would be useful as well. Such a graph may be generated with Calc or maybe the Bar Box Template (or another Wikimedia template). If such a copylefted chart doesn't exist already (I'm guessing it does somewhere), this might be a good place to get it started. Any thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I made a crappy version of what I mean. I'm terrible with Calc, but this is the general idea. The source for these numbers are early reports on the forum at Flutrackers, a Huffington Post article about patient zero (suspected to be at least two weeks before April 13, or about April 1) I found, and the NYTimes timeline. Probably should have connected the dots better, and scaling the Mexican suspected cases crushes the US cases, but hopefully someone can do a better job of this with a sophisticated database/spreadsheet.

Template:Image

--Replysixty (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart Suggestion:::

If you want to send along the spreadsheet for the data, then I can help make a chart. I think it would be best to upload to wikimedia commons. That way people can edit and update easily.Enviropearson (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a spreadsheet expert- basically I have 3 rows- days from "case zero", US infections, and Mexico infections (we could add more). As the numbers came in on that day (and numbers were changing per-day), I picked one report, noted the source, and then put it in the box. Then made a clumsy graph of that. I know we can do better. We would need to decide methodology, since the reports are varying, and even within a single day the numbers increase. If Wikipedia supports graphs (which I couldn't find) we'd be able to do this a lot easier. Otherwise, we need to find a centralized point to collaborate (Google Docs doesn't support graphs... does Zoho?). Maybe a mysql-backed database that could generate graphs on-demand..? ie, mapview, by country, by demographic etc. This will require good solid info. Maybe the CDC could be the central source? do they provide this raw data already? --Replysixty (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracking table update time request

Hi there. As a random user, I've come to see this article as the current summary of data coming from all over the internet, and there's an information I would love to see on the tracking table when coming to check the news. It's the date and time the tracking table was last edited. Could it be possible to add a "last edited at hh:mm, dd:mm:yy" field at the top? Or even add such a field for each country entry, written small in a side column? With the speed at which updates can come from all over the world it will probably help editors, as well as the general public. Thanks for your work anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.195.210 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was the outbreak first detected in Mexico?

The source citated in this section about the origin being in Mexico doesn't mention anything about that. The information I've found metions that the first cases were detected in California. Can anybody give a correct citation of this? Concerning the first deadly case, is it feasible that the virus mutated in that person? I read the source, and it says so, but it's not very reliable. We should just put in wikipedia that it was the first deadly case. Thank's--Ricardo.m.r. (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO documents state that the increase in influenza-like illness associated with this new strain was first detected in Mexico, in 3 so-called local outbreaks. The new strain was first detected in California, in a county bordering on Mexico. News of the new strain triggered Mexico to send samples from their local outbreaks to Canada for testing and some of the samples had the same new strain. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

World Organization for Animal Health

The OiE put out this "A/H1N1 influenza like human illness in Mexico and the USA: OIE statement" released today in Paris clarifying that "There is no evidence that this virus is transmitted by food." I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. LeadSongDog come howl 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This has also been cofrimed by other sources. It is mentioned in one country where they banned North American Pork (Really how much pork does Romania import from North America?). It could be mentioned there or in a trade section if the bans become a widespread or sustained response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

brazil

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina's respone not notable?

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Seperate articles for certain topics

The article is growing quite big by now, and hence I think it's time to start moving some topics out to seperate articles. TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases and responses by country

What about we move this chapter to a seperate article as was done similarly with the article of the Mumbai attacks back in November? TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am supportive, as per WP:SS; the collection of responses is quite large already and I believe we can reasonably assume it will get larger. We can leave a summary of responses on this article. Cordovao (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Will be necessary sooner or later as more cases are reported.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Initiated. TRBlom (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed yet. The article is still within acceptable size limits and most of the country subsections have very little content. --auburnpilot talk 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite long already, containing quite a list that is also affecting the list of contents. Anyhow, it won't shrink, only grow, so let's just be there on time, so it won't get annoying for the reading to scroll all the way past it. TRBlom (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's actually not that much info; all the level-four section headers make it appear longer than it is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the readability tool, the moved content only accounts for about 17 KB of prose (excludes references, images, and the like). It's not so much that it needs to be split into a second article. Each country should be fine with a subheading and a few sentences describing the issue. When it goes beyond a few sentences, a separate article for that country should be created. I just don't see a need for a Cases of and responses to the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. --auburnpilot talk 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the creation of new pages on an as needed basis. I think a good rule of thumb is any nation with a confirmed case gets a page and any big nation that takes really drastic action also gets a page (like if China were to seal their borders, for example), and their listing on the main article page is reduced to perhaps a sentence or two and the link to the new page. If this thing burns itself out, we can always recombine, but if it suddenly crops up in several dozen countries all at once, there will be a lot of remedial page creation to be done in a short time. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ video and US deaths

The video cited for the 111 suspected cases in New Zealand gives a figure of 20 cases and 6 deaths in the USA. In my opinion this makes it an unreliable source, since that is not consistent with any other data (I'm aware of) cited on this page. --π! 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We've seen this before... Scroll up. Its several hours old and no one else is collaborating this: I'd attribute it to some kind of mix up on the numbers by the graphics guy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I scanned the page for "death" before adding this, but it's there as "6 dead". Silly me. Should we take down the NZ info or mark it as possibly unreliable? Or just leave it since it's the best we have? --π! 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press says "nearly 2000" in Mexican hospitals with "serious cases of pneumonia"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124081528924558633.html#mod=article-outset-box

What do we make of this? This is the first I've seen an outright report that nearly 2,000 people are hospitalized with serious anything. I have a feeling--yes, yes, OR--that not all the news is getting out of Mexico based on this, since this is the AP now saying this. What do we do with this? This is directly counter to a lot of the commentary that's been coming from the Mexican government. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do with this? Panic, that's what. (Seriously, though, I advise we leave the figures the same and cite this in the possibility of the disease being more virulent than thought. Odd there wouldn't be any reported cases of pneumonia north of the border, though.) --π! 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US, most deaths associated with influenza are due to secondary infections resulting in pneumonia. But those deaths are the most likely to be laboratory tested for influenza, so it is highly unlikely that this strain has killed anyone in the US. It would have been detected immediately. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, this is a cumulative total, so does not mean that 2,000 people are in hospital at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another note: the lack of deaths outside Mexico suggest the possibility that the deaths in Mexico are due to the intersection there of swine flu with something else, such as an especially virulent pneumonia-causing bacterium or a problem with hospital sanitation. --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the last paragraph in the top section?

The concern of what the millions of schools and universities will do because of the flu is a main issue. I ask whoever keeps deleting it to stop. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep re-adding it. I do not say this because I don't agree with your aim, but because you may risk breaking WP:3RR. The onus is on a poster who adds something original to, if the add is contested, bring up the issue here to the talk page to gain approval before trying to re-add again. What is the text you wish to add, and from there you may gain community approval which will mean your text will stay. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Earliest confirmed case to date, Feb 2009 in La Gloria, Mexico - 3 independent sources it appears

A four year old boy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-search-outbreak-source

Clinical test confirmed, on this, per the article, but oddly the Mexican government is claimed--outright--in the article to downplay this (how do you downplay a clinical lab test which confirms it??).

It appears this article in Grist Magazine from this past Saturday, which I posted here, was correct-- La Gloria as of now per several sources and lab tests at least appears to be where this began. The Smithfield Food connection is there too, but read these two articles. I haven't seen any test-confirmed results in any sources earlier than this. This also lines up squarely with Dr. James Wilson's blog analyzing the situation here, so we have 1) one of the world's leading experts in the field in a WP:RS compliant blog post, 2) a major news source confirming it and lab tests, 2) other news sources also identifying this. What can/should we do to mention this earliest appearance of the bug in La Gloria? rootology (C)(T) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now moved from phase 3 to 4

acording to cnn the w.h.o. have moved from phase 3 to 4 --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give us a link to your source? Cordovao (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find a Internet link but CNN International just had a grapic saying "Mexico:WHO raise to phase 4" (or something similar)--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it is on the cnn.com front page as breaking news--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Unfortunately, linking to the CNN front page is temperamental as the text on there changes frequently, but based on the seriousness of the WHO change I expect a proper article will be up shortly for us to link to. Cordovao (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27/swine.flu.international/index.html " (CNN) -- The World Health Organization has raised its pandemic alert level in response to the outbreak of swine flu that originated in Mexico, U.S. homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday. Relatives of flu patients wait oustside Mexico's National Institute of Respiratory Diseases. The move indicates the world body has determined the virus is capable of significant human-to-human transmission." --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_20090427/en/index.html --82.103.205.150 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Flu cases in Sweden turn out not to be swine influenza

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrunk TOC

I added {{toclimit}} to this article, as the table of contents was getting a bit long. The only thing it did was eliminate the very long list of countries under each continent header (see before and after). This will allow people to still find the relevant information they seek, without having to scroll/scan through the level 4 subheadings that will likely only increase in number. --auburnpilot talk 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph concerning Schools and Universities?

There is a big issue about what schools and universities are doing to prevent the spread of the swine flu. I have written a paragraph and referenced it. Does everyone agree to keep it at the beginning?

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed while numerous of other schools and school districts in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students. It is of great concern many U.S. schools and universities will be forced to close within upcoming weeks to prevent the spread of the flu." TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball predicting the future upcoming weeks. Especially without sources. See no particular reason schools are more important than everything else shut down in Mexico. Should be in the country specific sections.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed[33] while other schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[34][35] On April 27, 2009, Mexican Government officials announced the first nationwide shut down of schools in history.[36][37]"

Now? TheCoolOne99 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but why only mention schools when almost everything is shut down in Mexico? In the intro we should only provide a general outline.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Government Reaction

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Border

Is it really neccessary to say, "Following this discovery in the states of Texas and California (which border Mexico),"?

This seems like extremely common knowledge and adds pointless bulk to the header. Thoughts? 205.155.5.206 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a US reader probably knows that, international readers may not. It's only three words, leave it. Wine Guy Talk 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it could be reworded to, "Following this discovery in the bordering states of Texas and California."74.220.66.33 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit. There are American and Mexican states involved, including Mexico State (which is a state in the nation-state of Mexico), and furthermore the D.F., like Washington, D.C., isn't a state at all, but is exactly congruent with Mexico City. Fortunately that level of granularity isn't called for in the opening paragraph. kencf0618 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First "mutation" in a woman from Oaxaca

I have altered the claim that the virus mutated inside a woman from Oaxaca. This is just a mistake on the part of the Mexican headline writer. If in fact a virus mutated inside a person or an animal that was then unlikely enough to be tested, the test should reveal a mix of pre- and post-mutation viral RNA not found in later cases. Resurr Section (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First case in Argentina

Can anyone please update the map and add Argentina as a possible case? Here is the reference (in Spanish).

Brazil: Belo Horizonte registers one more suspect of swine flu

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

I think that the edit code is harder to read by unformating the inline citation templates and blurring the distinction between text and code. Why not use the format in this article [1], it makes no difference to the article display format. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; though, it's hard to keep the citations formatted correctly/consistently in such a high-visibility article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany: the 3 possible cases no swine flu

As of the german newspaper "Maerkische Allgemeine" the 3 possible cases in germany are now proved to be NO swine-flu infections. -Validom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Also, in Spain there are 26 possible cases, not 35, plus one confirmed.--Fryant (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There had been lots more "possible cases" in Germany, but all negative. Currently there's only one possible case in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/47/466627/text/ —85.179.140.94 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Cases in Massachusetts

This is probably worth updating the North American map. It's already on the US page. Two people are being tested in Massachusetts after a trip to Mexico.

Here is the reference (different than the one for the US page):

--Rick 69.43.113.2 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New about mexico

Classes are suspended country-wide. There's been a lack of surgical masks and vitamin C complements. Most mexican can't travel by airplane since almost all flights need a connection in Mexico City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.89.104 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added that classes are suspended nationwide at the beginning of the article.

TheCoolOne99 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases in the United States

There are new posible cases in new US States, the references are in the main article. I think the North American and US map should be updated. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why they took away Brazil if Brazil has 3 suspects of the Swine flu?

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

8 New Cases in Canada

8 possible cases in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Here VeronicaPR (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed they have over 60 Cases of Swine Flu and now at Level Yellow.

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Five new probable cases in New Jersey

CNN JUST announced they have news of five probable cases in New Jersey. Once another source comes online or on air can someone make a yellow highlight of the state on the map; I don't know how. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been new posible cases in ther states such as Idaho, South Dakota, North Carolina, etc, the references are in the main article of the US.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme consistency

The world map was updated with a new colour scheme, which no longer matches the rest of the maps on the page. --π! 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: 3 for 11 the suspect cases of swine flu..

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

S Korea Suspect case

Sam bristol (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) S Korea has a suspected case, as reported on Asia Pacific news. Could someone add it? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/425395/1/.html

Done. Veronica 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restructure for readers

Having detailed similar information by individual country makes this article too large and provides poor reading. Some suggestions:

1. A new section to summarise common and notable "National responses". I don't see the point in itemising every country's similar announcement on this page. Delete these.
2. A new page for (List of ?) possible cases by country. If the topic is regarded as news rather than encyclopedia-worthy, move it to wikinews/wikia.
3. A new page for the virus strain and/or ilness. This article is about the outbreak. Specialised articles also help attract experts.

--Zigger «º» 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Other nations may not be all that interesting to a citizen of a particular nation but his own nation will be. Both cases and other responses which are quite diverse. Wikipedia is not written for the readers from one particular nation. Ignore what is not interesting.Ht686rg90 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

By poor reading, I meant lack of narrative flow and appropriate focus. Having dozens and potentially hundreds of items is a list, not an article. I have no problem with an individual article per country or a list page. --Zigger «º» 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested earlier today that the "Cases and responses by nation" should be moved to a separate article (or list) but it was rejected then since the material was not very big in size compared to rest of the article.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See "Seperate articles for certain topics" above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cases and responses by nation" is now 40kb. This is certainly large enough for a page. Any opinions on this point, or the other suggestions? --Zigger «º» 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ready for its own page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as I didn't see the need a few hours ago, I don't see the need to split it now. The section is not 40kb, but less than half that at 19.9 KB (when calculating WP:SIZE, references, images, and other formatting should be discounted). --auburnpilot talk 02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would favor splitting, if barely. The section is quite large and is only poised to get larger. Not to WP:CRYSTAL, but if we believe that in a short time even more countries will be listed and we'll have to split, why not just do it now? Oren0 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this section as being mostly a list, showing annoucements (screening/quarantine/pork-bans/cases/test-results) by country. WP:SIZE excludes lists from "readable prose". To me, the issue is more about whether it is a list, and if so, whether it should comprise 50% of the article. --Zigger «º» 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Background information

Canada's early contributions are missing from the background. Mexico contacted Canada to ask for help in identifying the virus on April 17th, Canada had confirmed Swine Flu by April 20th. Canada's confirmation of Swine Flu in the Mexico samples was very important in the early recognition that people were dying from this, that Mexico was a hot zone and that the Mexico virus is the same as the California virus.

1. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/sn_swine-eng.php

2. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/04/24/mb-swine-flu.html

Dumuziwik (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, evidence exists of a February outbreak in the eastern Mexico state Veracruz. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30434921/ This should be added to the background section. Dumuziwik (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added edit notice to this talk page

FYI, to try to control some of the chaos that this talk page is becoming, I have added an edit notice to this talk page (just click "edit" to see what I'm talking about) advising people who just want to add updates to country case counts to do so at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. I recommend that conversations regarding individual cases be moved there so that this talk page can be about the actual article contents. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases by country

Why are we maintaining a runny tally on these cases? At this point every continent except Antarctica and Africa has cases reported, and I'm sure that will change as it seems we are only at the beginning stages of the discovery/outbreak. Is there some specific relevance in it? Even if so, can we reliably prevent the cases from being doubly counted when some article posts "x" number of new cases and then another article reports "y" cases that they aren't the same ones? If it is decided we need to track every nation's caseload, should we not set criteria for a source (e.g. health ministry for each country)? --MartinezMD (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. --Una Smith (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 149 deaths

This source doesn't support the statement: "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source [165], [166], and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042702017.html do support the statement "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City." Dumuziwik (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases are deiliberately under-reported in my state.

Here in North Carolina, I'll quote our media reports: "The state is encouraging providers to only report more severe cases – people with higher fevers or more prominent respiratory problems."

Thus the patchwork of private care here gets a state mandate to under-report flu symptoms. Just wonderful. And ignorant. The state can't be bothered with identifying and quarantining the less-inflicted. I'll bet that in another week we will all be shut-ins. 172.129.205.158 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The primary goal of the US influenza surveillance program is to detect new strains of influenza that kill people. So, yes, they prefer reports of people with severe influenza (and/or pneumonia). This new swine flu strain causes mild influenza and appears not to be killing anyone, except in Mexico. Usually, influenza alone does not kill; what kills is pneumonia due to a secondary bacterial infection. Anyway, your doctor cannot report influenza, only influenza-like illness, and most of that is not influenza of any kind. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of that excuses doctors at this juncture from not reporting mild cases of ILI where I live. The new strain is suspected to have been spread here and it can and should be quarantined. BTW, isolated populations were spared from the Spanish Flu by travel restrictions during that period, proving that not every governing body during that era was inept... not that the fatalistic WHO sees much merit in travel restrictions now. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

diarrhea is NOT a symptom

The diarrhea that these spring breakers have is freaking travelers diarrhea - e. coli. It's possible to have 2 infections at once people... come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? --Vessol (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your sorce? Where did you get your info?--Ken Durham (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The CDC disagrees. [2] Wine Guy Talk 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 50 confirmed US Cases

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=6782396 69.231.128.137 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rate of death in Mexico compared to other countries

Reading the article, I wasn't able to find exactly why the rate of death in Mexico is so much higher than in other countries. Is this solely because other countries are more developed with better medical care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.250 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it has had more time to incubate in Mexico as it originated there? --Vessol (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

At least one hospital in Mexico initially lacked antiviral drugs and most stay-at-home mild cases are likely not getting reported. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard much more dire news from Mexico, as in the number of dead being much higher, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for anecdotal evidence. --Vessol (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the high level of air pollution in Mexico City is so high that it weakened people's lungs. Resurr Section (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be temperature related. How does Mexico differ from the US? Mexico is a lot hotter for one thing. And for a virus that spreads through the air and attacks the lungs, air temperature is most definitely relevant.Hawthorn (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware many of the deaths in Mexico appear to be from pneumonia which could be from a secondary or co-infection. This could be an existing problem in Mexico that is spreading there but not elsewhere so far (which could also be related to the quality of healthcare there, environment etc). It's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware of but the poorer quality of the detection systems and healthcare, the fact that it's only recently been detected et al mean that many of those with lighter symptoms who had the disease were not detected. See [3] for some discussion Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They could potentially have a higher rate of survival, and we wouldn't know it if they underreport cases (common amoung the poor who would not be diagnosed/treated). We have weeks or months to get the information. Anything now is speculation. Stick to the available facts. --MartinezMD (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean by 'it's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware' Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is total speculation, but haven't the US cases been mostly children? The 28 at that one school in New York represents more than 1/2 of confirmed US cases as of yesterday I think. If like the 1918 infection this one tends to kill people with mature immune systems (see Cytokine Storm), that alone could account for the discrepancy. Also, if we assume this has been in Mexico longer, say a month or so, it's had much longer for those deaths to accumulate (how far back in time does the Mexico "attributed" mortality list go?) If we're looking at the "tip of the iceberg" for each country's infections, I suspect the base of Mexico's iceberg is much broader than that of the US. As the virus spreads in other countries and a broader swath of the population is infected, my non-educated guess is the larger sample will result in a wider spectrum of severity. Like I said, total speculation. --Replysixty (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the virus is always changing when it's circulating in human bodies. As higher the virus population is, as higher the mutation rate, too. And the virus population in Mexico is far more higher than elswhere. For example, I chatted with a friend from Mexico yesterday and she said that she had fever, and her grandfather, too. A lot of people in Mexico don't go just to the doctor because of fever, and other cases have shown that the virus can disappear quickly with only mild symptoms. That means it is not adapted to humans well. On the other hand it is quite possible that the dark figures of infection are far higher and only some of the virus strain are leading to death. It needs some time to understand the virus. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets not speculate about the mortality rate based on mexico - currently there is so little information available. Two things: 1: there are suggestion the epidemic started all ready in february, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-search-outbreak-source, with all ready 1800 cases in a small town, leaving a a bit more than 100 for the currently confirmed cases. 2) There are fatal cases in various regions of mexico, which is highly likely to requires lots of cases even with a mortality rate of 10%. For me enough reason to believe there is a fair bit of under reportage. Therefore, I think, no good estimation can be made of the case fatality ratio or what so-ever. Lets wait for reliable data on this issue. You will need a good case definition and reliable data, both not available at the moment. Maybe there should be a statement that it is discussing the difficulties of estimating such a rate. On top of this, treatment, age, quality/access of health care, environmental factors etc. will make this ratio very time/place/situation dependent - even with the exact same virus. (AJvH (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

South Korea

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

timeline?

I think a useful section would be a timeline for the disease. People in the far future who are dealing with another outbreak will want to use this entry as research and being able to see how the disease progressed would be very useful for them when dealing with something similar.

It would also be useful for now because people who want to look to see if something major has happened they can just check the timeline without having to parse through all the entries in the history. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested graphing the rate of infection and created a (lame and poorly researched) example above. I may move those comments down here as I just picked a random spot for it, but if you scan for the graphic, you'll find it. --Replysixty (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Except the data we have is about when reports of infection were published. In many cases, those reports do not mention when the person's symptoms started, or even the date on which the sample was taken. Case in point is the little boy living near the pig farm: he got sick and recovered weeks ago and as of last night his sample was reported to be the oldest found so far in Mexico, but from context it appears the sample was obtained some time in April. The first spikes in influenza-like illness were first detected in Mexico in mid March, so a sample collected in April tells us little about the origin of this outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed cases.

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the Top

This article is now bigger than the 1918 Spanish Flu article. Around 60 million people died in this one. Is this outbreak really more serious than the one in 1918? Wallie (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because the 1918 Spanish Flu article was more significant in terms of death rate it does not mean this article should not be bigger. Many things are different between now and then, now there is more information readily available then there was back then, due to globalisation this swine flu can travel between countries a lot faster and there are more people in the world now that will become affected. Therefore more information is warranted, wikipedias purpose is to ensure all information about this can be accessible in one location, if you have any issues with that you need to speak to the media to stop reporting, therefore the page will not be updated.121.221.95.47 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. On that reasoning, if this 2009 version exceeds 60 million in deaths, I guess you will still think that the "death rate" doesn't matter. As for countries affected, I can assure you that many countries were affected in the 1918 outbreak. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also think about the amount of sources this article has. In pure article text, the article isn't even that big. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources? The article should be NPOV. If there are 60 million killed, the same coverage should be given to both events. I just think that the POV is sometimes pushed by the younger folks. Some who were around in 1918 might have a different POV. After all they are living through both the 1918 and 2009 outbreaks. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The scope is different. Now news travel immediately, before it took days before they were published. Comparing events happening almost 100 years in between is even malicious. There wasn't internet, there wasn't Wikipedia, there was a global war, healthcare wasn't as developed as today, and viruses didn't travel as fast as today. There are too many differences to compare them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it malicious? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a current news service. I just disagree with some people. I think the 1918 incident was more serious than the 2009 one is now. Others may think that the 2009 one is more serious. Wallie (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1918 was 90 years ago; of course there's going to be more information on a current flu epidemic than an historical one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to present a balanced view. I would have thought that 60 million deaths was significant. Older people used to think it important. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to younger folk in the 21st Century. That's the way it is I guess. :( Wallie (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing prevents anyone from improving the 1918 flu pandemic article. If you think that one should be longer, fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died. The old guys who lived through it think it was important. Does that not mean anything? Wallie (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be bigger than this one. Read up on it and be bold. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Moni3. :) Wallie (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a paper document, and articles can be of any length. We don't set lengths for articles based on how important some people think the subjects are - "It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died." They should all be as long as possible, within our content guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, WP:VER and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffers from recentism, and from the desire of editors to be part of whatever is currently in the news. Every blurb on TV sends people scrambling to their keyboards. Eventually it may get pared down (and the 1918 article may get improved). The 1918 epidemic poses no threat to my family's health, but this one might, so it is of concern. This a consequence of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" compared to "an encyclopedia with an editorial board." Wikigroaning" refers to noting things like the coverage of Outer space versus Star Wars. Things in pop culture or in the news get far greater coverage than important historical things. Edison (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed infectred in Bilbao (Spain)

The 3rd confirmed infected

http://www.berria.info/albisteak/33519/Bilboko_gizonezkoak_txerri_gripea_duela_baieztatu_dute.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.200.204 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Animate the map?

Just an idea to animate the File:H1N1 map.svg to show reports of infection. I can't animate, but... thought someone else might be able to. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a static image is preferred in case, per WP:ANIMATIONS. However, if you're suggesting to keep the main map at the top, and just adding another version of a map (an animated one), I'd say that's a wonderful idea. hmwithτ 17:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Face mask comment by UK health secretary

J removed a paragraph regarding a statement by the UK health secretary:

"However, in the United Kingdom, Health Secretary Alan Johnson told MPs on April 27 that, "Although we are aware that facemasks are being given out to the public in Mexico, the available scientific evidence does not support the general wearing of facemasks by those who are not ill, whilst going about their normal activities."[120]"

J's explanation was "Prevention and treatment: Rm nn quote from someone with no medical background that may, in fact, be quite inaccurate and, I regret, dangerous if people are searching Wikipedia for advice."

Firstly, the health secretary of the UK is almost certainly acting on scientific advice so its dubious to claim that his advice is dangerously inaccurate (and misleading to say he has no medical background). Secondly the article is not giving medical advice but reporting that of others (amongst other things). If there is a notable criticism of the health secretary's statement then that could be included. Otherwise I think it should stay. I've reincluded it. Barnaby dawson (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Its more imporatant to include information that goverment officals make then for us to try and determine what is medically best. And if you think the UK's director of Health has no medical expertise, well your going to love the fact that there not one of the 20 US Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, Surgeon Generals, DHS) is currently filled by a Senate approved nominee as directed by the US Constitution. Which means the response is currently being run by Dept of Homeland Security; 'Hey, if we can screen luggage, we can call ourselves medical experts.' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

References

While it is essential to include only referenced information, I would encourage people to be economical with them. We have now 200+ references and many no doubt with the same information. If at a loss for what to do (...) please do look at finding good overall references for sections to try to keep them as concise as possible. I have been trying this with the table, but it is a never ending process. Thanks, |→ Spaully^₪† 14:48, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

It does not matter. The references prove that what is being stated is fact. Please include references in all posts! Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as mentioned. However, if possible use 1 reference for several points. It does matter as it makes tracking references and updating them difficult thereby potentially reducing the accuracy of the article. This is especially relevant as time goes on as some sources change and become outdated. |→ Spaully^₪† 15:08, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

The article is far too big. It is growing faster than the virus. Already it is bigger than the 1918 Spanish flu (the article, not the event). At this rate it will soon be the biggest article in Wikipedia. Wallie (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a major event that is In Progress. The article will shrink when the event is over.--Ken Durham (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile 5/8 DO NOT have the flu

Reference: http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355620 Translated to English: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emol.com%2Fnoticias%2Fnacional%2Fdetalle%2Fdetallenoticias.asp%3Fidnoticia%3D355620&lp=es_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Blopa64 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile has now 18 Unconfirmed or suspected cases

Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blopa64 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Prior influenza season" incorrect interpretation of source.

Sorry, I do not remember my wikipedia username or password so I can't edit this myself. The last sentence of "Prior Influenza Season" reads: Furthermore, from December 2005 through February 2009, a total of twelve human infections with swine influenza were reported from ten states in the USA.[45] The source it cites is http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/?s_cid=swineFlu_outbreak_internal_001. However, that source does not contain the information in that sentence. Somebody please remove the misinformation, or correct the source. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed this sentence as I couldn't find the details in the citation either -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China, new case reported

A new case has been repoted in china. We should update the main page. --Ken Durham (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When are you suppose to wash your hands?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main page is already out of date, and needs to be unlocked

64.105.0.160 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With the amount of traffic this page is getting, it's best that it is locked. We can't risk vandalism giving readers untrue information. You can use {{editprotected}} to request edits in the meantime. hmwithτ 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Map "H1N1_map.svg" incorrect

The map H1N1_map.svg is not is up-to-date according to the table "Cases by country". There are no confirmed nor suspected cases in Costa Rica as erroneously the map states:

Costa Rica Free Of Swine Flu, But Maintains Alert --Ornitorrinco (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved. Thanks for the notice. CB...(ö) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it has not been resolved at all, the map still states that Costa Rica has susspected cases, which is wrong.--Ornitorrinco (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one confirmed case in Costa Rica.[4] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The section for the United Kingdom shows a map of the Republic of Ireland with the caption "currently none". As the RoI is not part of the UK, can't this section be renamed "UK and Ireland" OR can the map be re-captioned? doktorb _words^deeds 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, its misleading to say the least. Ireland has 6 suspected cases at the moment.--78.16.190.221 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more cases to the Mexico Column

Mexico in all probability has many more cases than it is reporting. It should at least be 630 more. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-flu29-2009apr29,0,5107384.story

What about putting an asterisk or a plus sign by the number to indicate that there are probably more cases than are being reported? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite Error

Just a heads up. There appears to be a cite error on the info box. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to be fixed now. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Resolved

Looks like there is a confirmed case in Costa Rica. Here is the source (in Spanish):

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/abril/28/pais1948013.html

If this is true, could someone please update the table, as I don't know how to edit it.

(By the way, why can't I edit the table? Seems I can only edit the text.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy2005 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The table is a template. -- Grochim (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate removed from article

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 was the most serious influenza pandemic of modern times. An estimated 50 million people died worldwide.

I added the image at right to this article under the section Pandemic concern. It seemed very relevant to include an image of the most serious modern flu pandemic in the section that already specifically mentioned that previous pandemic in the same section: much like the deadly Spanish Flu of 1918. Shortly afterward, Calliopejen removed this featured picture candidate with the edit note "rm irrelevant image - not related to this disease"[5] I believe this removal was made with a mistaken rationale, and would like to reinstate the image. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fully agreed; the image should stay in the article, especially considering the widespread comparisons between this outbreak and the 1918 pandemic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it should not be here. Yes this outbreak may turn out to be like the 1918 epidemic but it might also turn out to be like the SARS outbreak or other much less severe flu outbreaks. Why aren't we putting a picture of SARS or the Hong Kong flu in the article? It is silly to include a photo of a completely separate flu outbreak here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The swine flu outbreak hasn't been compared to SARS nearly as much as it's been compared to the 1918 pandemic. See [6], for example. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's largely because it's much less dramatic. (To the extent that the viruses themselves are similar genetically I still don't think that justifies including this photo.) And in any event this photo is just of nurses doing some sort of demonstration. Nothing historically important is going on in the photo. (And to boot the caption was totally misleading by not explaining what's going on, because it looks like there's a dead body on the stretcher.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The image is of high historical significance. Moreover, an incorrect caption should be simply edited, not completely removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just changing the caption isn't necessarily sufficient if the image looks like a dead body and most people will just skim over it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) The section is called pandemic concern. Surely it's appropriate to illustrate the 1918 outbreak; the image itself is fairly mild: a demonstration of public health measures taken at that time, not long rows of hospital beds etc. It is relevant, and not alarmist. Would it help if the caption specified more clearly that this was a demonstration photograph? Durova^Charge! 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the image need, the disease as yet only has the potential to become a deadly pandmeic. No deaths have occured outside of Mexico and the vast majority of cases are limited to those who have had recent travel to/from Mexico. While I agree with the need to detail the potential and to compare and contrast the outbreaks; comparisons of the current situation to the 1918 pandemic take a substantially different human reaction given a visual image. At this time, that comparison is premeture, unwarrented and is borderline Inducing Panic. It is the visual equivilant of showing the WTC in every article on terrorist bombings in India. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with image need in its relevance to the article. While it absolutely gives historical perspective there is no spot in the article that currently involves historical perspective in any great detail. Simply drawing parallels to the 1918 pandemic does not warrant this picture's inclusion. If a section were to be created specifically to draw contrasts and comparisons of this outbreak vs. previous outbreaks/epidemics/pandemics and draw historical perspective (a totally different discussion) then I can see where the inclusion of this image may be warranted. In the current form of this article though I don't see how this picture could provide useful insight into the current flu outbreak. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed case in Costa Rica

Resolved

source: http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/abril/28/pais1948013.html

The costa rica health department has confirmed a swine flu infected. Confirmation was given after the results of a second test where available from the US Centre disease control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.158.217 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This kind of information is being gathered on Wikipedia here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article split

I see someone split out the country-by-country section, which I think was probably a good decision as a general matter. Now, however, we need to rebuild the section in this article. I think a good approach would be a focus on countries where actual cases are suspected or confirmed, a only brief mention of the various restrictions on travel and pork import etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should only be a summary as usual for main/daughter articles.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too short now. While the "one country, one single-line paragraph" approach wasn't the best, we need to have a summary of at least the effects in North America (whether more granularity is needed is debatable, although I'd be in favor of it) and Europe. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Table needs to be updated

According to the "2009 Swine Flu Outbreak in US" article, there are 70 proven cases and 200+ possible cases in US whereas the table in this article shows 68 and 300+ respectively. Which number is correct I cannot tell, but the other table should be updated.

The same thing also goes for Spain (2 proven, 40 possible in the main article, 3 proven, 32 possible in this article).

Sincerely, 88.233.100.240 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That table is transcluded from another page. Information for the table is being gathered on Wikipedia here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia

Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia. Looking for source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[7] SF Chron quotes the LA Times ""Coroner's Capt. John Kades (KAY-dis) says tests are being run on two bodies to see if swine flu was a factor in their deaths, but there is no confirmation that the disease killed them. Kades offered no other details of the men."" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[8] ""Coroner's spokesman Craig Harvey said Bellflower Medical Center reported the death of a 33-year Long Beach resident Monday afternoon from symptoms resembling swine flu. It's that diagnosis that needs to be confirmed," Harvey said. "An autopsy will be performed to establish the cause of death."" --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for archive?

Could someone with the experience please archive this talk page? It's getting way too big. I'd do it myself but don't know how to, yet. Thank you! Jozal (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This happens automatically on coversations that are 12hours old. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the enlightenment. :) Jozal (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of manual archiving while we wait for the bot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. The page was getting massive. hmwithτ 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

California Governor declares state of emergency

Just pick this up from here. [9] -Xavier Fung (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confermed with CNN--Ken Durham (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added on US page with Reuters source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

added man made theory

plz improve it.added with a lot of proof. dont del it just cuz it is loony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Please recheck your article and post non-youtube references.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this user failed to sign, but regardless of that, I've deleted the section. It was clearly original research and relied upon self-published sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He failed to sign so that we could not report his vadilisum.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) You can look at the edit history to see who added it. Not sure it should be considered :vadilism." The "man-made" claim was referenced to a Youtube video of a "9/11 Truth Investigator" and journalist named Wayne Madsen. Youtube is not usually permitted as a reference. But the section included other well referenced information CNN about missing virus samples and Times of India about how "Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic" from March of this year, thus not directly related to the present. Putting this info out as a possible cause of the present epidemic would be original research and synthesis. We should not get ahead of the scientific and news reporting community in being "disease detectives," but neither should we censor inclusion if any reliable sources examine the genesis of the outbreak and look at accidental or intentional creation and release of the virus. Edison (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is reason enough; these sources are not exceptional. In fact they are barely tangental. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it violated our content policies. You're right, it's no way vandalism (spelling notwithstanding!) and I think that Ken went way out of line giving a vand-warning to the user concerned. But there we go... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Calm talk}}

I am just a little touchy about people posting things without any kind of proof at all. I do NOT consider youtube to be a reliable reference! How was I out of line?--Ken Durham (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were out of line because you accused a user of vandalism, when in fact, he just breached WP:NOR. Perhaps you should re-read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF before leaving threatening messages. In future, {{uw-nor1}} {{uw-nor2}} etc. may be of use to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Check Google News for reliable sources discussing whether the flu could be man-made: The Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, said on April 28 the "deadly swine flu virus could have been man-made." The same statement was reported by Agence France-Presse. Telegraph.co.uk has an article from April 27 "Beware of swine flu conspiracy theories." The responsible route is to have a section stating the conspiracy theory, with countervailing statements to the contrary. We do not have to maintain an artificial implication that opinion of experts is equally divided. There is not a huge amount of material at this point on the question one way or another from reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

how was I threatening? tell me that!--Ken Durham (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very tone of voice there is threatening. Tell me that! is threatening. What you should be saying is, "I didn't consider what I said to be threatening, what specifically were you referring to?" And what I was specifically referring to is/was this - it says that the section was deleted marked as vandalism (untrue: I deleted it, and said nothing of the sort) and that it was a "false section"... I'm sure that the user thought they were behaving appropriately.

All I'm suggesting is that you need to calm down a little, and refresh your memory of what vandalism is. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what. I think I am letting the wikistress get to me. I should take a wikibreak, don't you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Durham (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist (April 27) had the article "Is swine flu a bioterrorist virus?" with a discussion of how the odd combination of viruses could have arisen through normal processes.They discuss the conspiracy theories. They say "Yes, it's possible that this virus was created by a mistake at a research laboratory or a vaccine factory." But they say it is more likely a result of how we operate farms. Edison (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Split "Atribbuted Deaths" column

You can split this column in two (confirmed and posible deaths) like "posible and confirmed cases", this make the information more readable, and dont mix cases, that is important. And in the Mexico row there is only 20 confirmed deaths showed in the references, you could update the link with the information of 26 deaths or fix the error. --Programacion en Estado de Ebriedad 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The map

I like it! One person has been caught coughing in Russia, and so they chalk up one suspected case - so most of the top of the world gets to be painted bright orange. Wallie (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the map is intended to show what countries have been affected, meaning colouring all of Russia yellow is an unavoidable effect. Cordovao (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have an easy solution but I don't think Putin would like my Siberian Liberation plan. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Container Explodes on Train

IMHO it should be at least mentioned in this article: [10] --romanm (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think so. As the article says in its introduction, "the virus was not the mutated swine flu that has killed around 150 people in Mexico and that has already spread to parts of Europe." As a result, I believe the incident is not notable enough for inclusion into the article. Thank you in any case, though. Cordovao (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also says "the dry ice melted" which I sincerely doubt, and which makes me question the reliability on scientific matters of the writer. Edison (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update maps

The maps should be updated, there has been one confirmed case in Costa Rica, and unconfirmed cases in other states in the US.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the use painted in dark red??? are those deaths confirmed by the California Health State Department??--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The two recently deceased people have not been confirmed as having swine flu. Cordovao (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't appear that Russia and Thailand still have suspected cases. (Perhaps it was updated and someone just forgot to remove these?) --π! 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

CAREFUL WHAT WE SAY!

We must be very careful in what we write. Someone put a WHO heading and wrote in the first sentence "The World Health Organization (WHO) saw no need at this point to issue travel advisories warning travellers not to go to parts of Mexico or the United States."

Some people just read parts of Wikipedia. The CDC advises NO TRAVEL to Mexico unless essential.

We must be mindful of what we write. Maybe a warning on top or write carefully like saying the WHO didn't advise but the CDC later came out with a warning. Swine flu is no laughing matter. We'll see thousands dead. We could see millions dead. Dying is not funny, despite what vandals do. User F203 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not say "We'll see thousands dead". There is no proof of that. I do see your point regarding relating the WHO and CDC responses. Cordovao (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a resource for coordinating responses to emergencies. Both references should be included out of interest but not as a reference in an emergency. Also, stop being so melodramatic about it, I'd be incredibly surprised if we see even ONE more death from this Virus. 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are already over 100 deaths from the virus. rootology (C)(T) 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I said one MORE death. With the actions that governments are taking, the situation SEEMS under control. I'm not trying to troll or play the thing down, I'm just stating my opinion 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion shows how serious the situation is. People think only 100 dead. We will definitely see thousands dead. Just look at the common flu every winter. That kills thousands in the US and 250-500,000 worldwide (see this article, someone else found this figure). This flu is more worrisome that the yearly flu every winter. Therefore, at least a few thousand dead is a certainty. Hopefully, not millions dead. User F203 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I apply "We must be very careful in what we write", something you wrote, to something else you wrote "at least a few thousand dead is a certainty. Hopefully, not millions dead." Anyway, please read WP:NOTFORUM before making any further comments on what you believe will happen. Thank you in advance. Cordovao (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that lots of people will die is not the main point. The main point is that we have to be careful and not be a WHO spokesman. The CDC does have travel advisories. This distinction is important in an article about something that is going to kill many people. Everybody knows many will die, just not how many. I hope it's not as many.User F203 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that many will die? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no such statement has been made by an external source, and certainly not with that level of certainty. Neither Avian Flu, nor SARS ever broke 1000, so time will be a better judge of that possibility. Point taken on the 'be careful anyway' as it is a serious topic, but the WHO did say they didn't believe it was containable. The reactions by individual governments has differed including a complete travel ban by Cuba. The WHO comment could be put in a section about reactions to the potential epidemic, but shouldn't be at the top of the page given the disagreement in related official sources. The thousands comment has already raised alarms on this talk page alone, so I think it's safe to say it is a matter of being careful as well. aremisasling (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposition/remove chart?

The chart at the top of the article is getting a little out of hand (i.e. massive). Would it be better to remove the chart and only have it in the subartice 2009 swine flu outbreak by country? Or should it be moved? (Maybe to the by country section?) The problem with moving it is there would have to be a big space because the table is much much longer than the by country section now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes, a further column was added, that's why. Better is to delete a column, either Confirmed or Attributed deaths. We don't have much figures to fill the columns. -- Grochim (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We can fix it/format it better (we have enough smart people for that) but I'm still opposed to removing it from the top of this main article. It's an invaluable resource, and the best single focal point for where things stand. rootology (C)(T) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We could hide it in a collapsible box. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, imo, Juliancolton. Cordovao (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the map at the top and the collapsed chart next to the by country section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the table should remain at the top; it is a much better reference than the map since the map shows no differentiation between countries with many confirmed cases and those with only 1 or 2. My suggestion would be to split the table in two, with one table for countries that have confirmed cases and a second, collapsible table with possible cases below. Another alternative is to only have a table with confirmed cases, since it's getting to a point that every time someone gets a headache in a country it gets reported as a possible case. Wine Guy Talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Map Colours

Can we please bring back the original black/red/yellow scheme. The current colours are pretty poor, plus it will be harder to distinguish between the colours as the affected country gets smaller.

Agreed, we also already know the ocean is blue. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah leave the oceans white.

I agree that black/red/yellow was better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms

Nowhere does this article specifically discuss the symptoms of this disease (except the picture). If they are the same as every other swine flu, then maybe a sourced statement to that effect should be added. (And maybe a brief summary of the symptoms with a pointer to the complete article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico case count?

Any sources on these counts? It's been at 1995 for some time--has there been no new news out of Mexico? rootology (C)(T) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico's offically returned to the thrid world. Their Dept of Health has put a defacto ban on letting health care workers talk with the press and put an end to press confrences. Likewise the Mexican press has the crack investigative journalism skills of Channel One. Don't expect much for the next few days. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me augment my comments. The Dept of Health is still giving press confrences but is (accoring to the transcripts I've found) not mentioning numbers at large, only a few particular cases here or there (~of these 26 cases on this date 5 were postive, ~of the 24 cases on this date 3 were positive). IMHO when you have 1000s hospitalized and probally 1000s more at home trying Tamiflu and Tijauana knockoffs, the response to whitewash numbers is just pathetic. The Mexican style of press conferences isn't the same as in the United States, its more standing up infront of a crowd of photographers letting them snap pictures for 15 mintues, giving a 30 minute speech that contains more praises for goverment workers than useful information, and maybe taking one or two questions from friendly reporters. As far as the ban on letting workers talk to the media, that came from Anderson Cooper 360 on April 27th, I can not find a transcript though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the Mexican government has banned all contact with the news media? That sounds insane. rootology (C)(T) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so that is the case, then? I saw talk of adding a note in the table that Mexico is known to be underreporting. If this is an established fact, it should be clearly pointed out. --π! 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you establish it? It would bascially require a reputable source discounting the Mexican goverment. Frankly I don't think Janet Napoletano, who is more interested in keeping guns out of Mexico than stoppig people who have the flu from crossing the border, is going to do that. As far as the American media, they're too busy covering Britians Got Talent. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact the information of Mexico are quite poor, in comparison to the United States. I miss for example the current number of the laboratory confirmed cases and deaths. We had at first 20 confirmed cases, and then there was from one day to the another 172 confirmed cases. I think in a week more they will suddenly publish 2000+ cases or more. Is it so difficult to publish the current cases? For Mexico, apparently, yes. -- Grochim (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the CDC has a count tracker right on the frontpage of their site, since it updates based on state Dept of Health statements and CDC testing its not always the first updated but it has a timestamp and is updated consistantly. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fatality rate

This article is saying the fatality rate is 7%, 4.5% higher than Swine Flu. It cites "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society", a quarterly philosophy journal. The actual report is based around Spanish Flu, and has nothing to say about swine flu whatsoever. Where did they get this figure?

I'm guessing they got it by dividing the total deaths by the total cases? --π! 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know the total number of cases. We have numbers from various sources we post, but no one really knows. 273 dead out of 2528 gives you a mortality rate, but not the correct rate. What if there are an additional 2500 we don't know about or an additional 25000? Fact is until it burns out in at least one area, having infected as many as it will, we just won't know. I vote we stay away from mortality rates until a very reputable primary source(like WHO or CDC, not like the Daily Mail or CNN) puts a number out there. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against putting together "information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources." A health official stating a mortality rate would be legitimate for the article. A Wikipedia editor dividing a number of attributed deaths by a number of estimated cases,to arrive at a mortality rate would not be appropriate. Edison (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

'Hundreds Of Kids' Have Suspected Swine Flu

"Many hundreds" of schoolchildren in New York are sick with suspected swine flu, according to the city's health commissioner. [11] -- Grochim (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many columns in table; suggested merging of refs

I think there are too many columns in the 'Cases by country' table, perhaps the references should be merged into the other columns such as the table in 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States? This would also make it clearer which reference is for which number in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nskrill (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I second this. Someone want to be bold and fix it? hmwithτ 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the way it was yesterday... does anyone know why it was changed? --π! 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd check the edit history of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. In the meantime, I made the refs column thinner. hmwithτ 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be easter for the reader, because they wont know which reference is the right one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I separated the confirmed and suspected deaths because three editors separately suggested it. You can change it back if you want; I'm indifferent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 cases in Venezuela

Can anyone add Venezuela and update the map?? And Uruguay has one case, here are the references, they are in Spanish Venezuela, Uruguay--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are suspected cases for those who don't speak Spanish, but yeah, let me add them there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

To all who have contributed positively thus far, I wanted to say well done. The outbreak is a sensitive and fast changing issue, and the quality of the article at the moment stands as a testimony to the value of the Wikipedia community. Thank you, and let's keep it up. Cordovao (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed! Though I haven't personally contributed to the article(s), I've been watching them progress and maintain a high quality despite the huge amounts of information flooding in. Well done, everyone. Jozal (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We're all going to die. 75.164.159.67 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But the article will survive ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, great response Grochim. Cordovao (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grochim gets a point. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia longa, vita brevis, mutatis mutandis. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful and not just focus on the WHO. Those who want WHO's viewpoint can go to their website. The WHO and CDC are starting to have separate opinions. NPOV requires that WP not be a WHO spokesman. I see no problem now but let's be mindful when editing. User F203 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDICAL applies here?

Is there a template we can use to advise of this disclaimer? Seems appropriate here.  GARDEN  20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did but someone removed it. I'm not going to fight over it even though it should be there. User F203 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Use one at the top of the talk page if you want, but not in the article per WP:NOT and WP:NDA. Cenarium (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the info.  GARDEN  21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The no disclaimer is not policy, just a guideline. I don't favor huge banners that say "this article may be full of lies and may be wrong" but I've seen warnings in articles of active hurricanes before. User F203 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to 2009 H1N1 Flu Outbreak

It is clear that pigs only play one part in this disease, and their place in the transmission chain is no longer a threat. Humans are now primarily transmitting this disease, and thus a normal flu name would benefit Wikipedia's community better. In addition, a governmental agency (USDA) requests that it be referred to this way. Wikipedia should stand for official sources, and not what independent media stations are saying. Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name you are suggesting? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most sources call it "swine flu", so we should use that per WP:UCN. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

However, many people are confused as to whether pork spreads this disease. It does not, according to multiple sources. If Wikipedia clears this confusion by changing its article name, then its community will benefit. In addition, swine flu is a misnomer because this strain contains avian, human, and swine components. Nintendo 07 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So? It's the name it is commonly known as which is the most important thing here. What one government agency (that I for one have never even heard of) says is unimportant in this case.  GARDEN  21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO and the CDC continue to refer to it as Swine Influenza (Flu). Those are the most official sources there are for this. Wine Guy Talk 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We reflect the sources. . .why would we care about what the USDA wants to call it? It's NPOV that's reflected here, not the view(s) or agenda of a gov't agency. Move back to original title unless a case can be made that this new name is more common (unlikely in my view). R. Baley (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion in this thread, the article is currently at 2009 swine flu outbreak.  GARDEN  21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

according to an AP article, Israel claims the name is offensive to jews and muslims and should be changed to Mexican flu (one can imagine the people of Mexico would be none too pleased with that!) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieHZRubAS3lyjn2GBiCPkXkHrXwwD97QROAG0 for better or worse, I think it should remain with the name it started with. sherpajohn (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The best common name for this is disease is "Mexican flu". People have named earlier epidemics of the influenza virus as "Spanish flu", "Asian flu" and "Hong Kong flu, based on the area in which they may have (but not necessarily did) first appeared. Wikipedia should therefore use the name "Mexican flu" for the current epidemic.Corker1 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent Avien Flu outbreak would be a counterexample to that. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone actually calling it that? We're not prescriptive here; we should use the name being used. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Every source I've seen so far including several in other languages, calls it swine flu. It's common to the point of regular translation. aremisasling (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine flu" may not be the usual name for the disease much longer. Farmers are complaining that the name may hurt their businesses. Corker1 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Data Needed

• The layout of the article and chart deliver a 'snapshot' perspective on the outbreak. It is very difficult to see how things have evolved over the past several days, which in turn makes it difficult to estimate where they might end up.
• The page needs to offer a better "outbreak-over-time" experience. Right now the only way to get a feel for where things are headed is to look at previous revisions.
• As officials have stated infection is 'unlikely to be contained', this outbreak could last a while, and therefore additional incentive exists to add time data to this article.

Attributed/Confirmed Deaths Confusion

May I suggest that the "confirmed deaths" be incorporated into the "attributed deaths", since confirmed deaths are by definition attributed? So still have two columns, just have the confirmed deaths added to the tally of attributed deaths. Or add (unconfirmed) to attributed. It's a little confusing as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.165.37 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

US Attributed Deaths

Resolved

I noticed that the attributed deaths column has "Two" listed under the US. I feel this is very misleading considering the original source: http://www.ktla.com/landing_news/?Two-Possible-Swine-Flu-Deaths-Probed-in-=1&blockID=277903&feedID=171 states that these two deaths were likely NOT attributed to the new swine flu strain.

I think that when writing about the first attributable US deaths, wikipedia must be VERY careful in what it writes. The first US deaths is an extremely significant event and needs to be checked and re-checked before that first "1" is put up there. I suggest that the attribtued deaths column entry for the US be reverted to "zero", until there is serious speculation among experts that a death is attributed to the new strain of swine flu. I will not edit myself as I am not that experienced but I suggest that someone change it. Vihsadas (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This has since been fixed, but I do not know what the proper protocol is in marking this complete, or removing the topic heading altogether... Vihsadas (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Genes From Pigs Only, Not Humans or Birds

See http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/swinefluupdate/. I would update the article with this information, but at the moment I'm occupied. Emw2012 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's confirmed by more sources. This journalist can't even spell the University of Edinburgh correctly, which makes me severely doubt the quality of his research. Many other sources have claimed that it has the human/avian/swine components, so I think we ought to make sure that's thoroughly debunked first.62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps need to be updated

The maps need to be updated, i see that not even Costa Rica wich has one confirmed case has painted in red, and Honduras and Venezuela has new cases Honduras.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC

CDC vs WHO

When there was a SARS outbreak, the WHO issued travel advisories to certain cities (ie Toronto). The CDC issued a similar statement saying that traveling was fine. Respiratory therapists considered the reaction to be overblown. WHO is used in this article, I suggest the use of the (more level headed) CDC. Any comments? BFritzen (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we tell people what they both say. There is no need to choose one over the other. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a global perspective on all events, and when we're dealing with an international disease outbreak, this is particularly important. Why use the CDC when we have a perfectly decent, authoritative, official global authority? Turkmenistan may also have a particularly level headed health department, but using their advice as the benchmark would be absurd. Why should this change for the CDC? 62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)