Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

See also: Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table, File talk:H1N1 map.svg, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country, and Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline

Why is the A-H1N1 virus just lethal in Mexico?

Concerns about the Mexican Health System

It is important to understand the biological facts of flu. It seems that evolution is not well understood to many physicians. What makes the virus evolve?

Many physicians may say that virus evolve but not How! 

Populations of organisms evolve according to their environment.

A bad Public Health System helps to spread pathogen agents.
Stressing pathogen agents populations force them 
to develop new resistant strains to known treatments 
like antivirals and antibiotics.

Mexican public health system is oversaturate, an important lack of drugs forces physicians to prescribe what is available not what is needed. Physicians in the public health system never have time to upgrade their knowledge, no research is done. The IMSS (Mexican Institute of Social Security) used to do some medical research, a recent director forbid any research activity, in his opinion it was unnecessary.

Many people have died of curable diseases just because they did not got immediate attention. I know cases of people that have died of cancer because they got an appointment 3 months after they ask the service at the IMSS, at that time the curable stage changed to a terminal stage. Under this conditions as a patient would you ask help just for a cold? What could be your attitude as a physician working in an oversaturate clinic, when you receive a cold patient? Take paracetamol and go home!

This facts should be discussed in the article. The A-H1N1 is not the unique killer, a destroyed Public Health System not providing correct attention to public health. This irresponsible omission is a latent danger to develop new resistant strains of pathogen agents. Apart of all the people dying of curable diseases, just for lack of medical attention.

A bad quality and insufficient Health System is an 
important cause of diseases in this flu sprout. 

Please include this information in the article.

Update the main page table - 2 more deaths in US TX and AZ. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6425771.html

What is the sort order?

There is a table listing the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths by country. If the U.S. has the most cases, why is Mexico listed first? What is the sort rule? It appears arbitrary. Edison (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is first, confirmed deaths, then for countries with no deaths, number of confirmed cases. Edison (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as long as the WHO don't officially raise the pandemic threat classification to level 6, the chart should list firstly the confirmed cases, then the probable cases and (at last!) then the confirmed deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Valence (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that some significant countries, e.g. Mexico, no longer track your second sort field, probable cases. That makes sorting rather difficult. Victor Engel (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, but the most important field is still the number of confirmed cases. And at a relatively low level of about 3, 4 confirmed cases, no country would stop reporting the PROBABLE cases. On the other hand, it's statistically very unlikely that two countries (e.g. Mexico and the US) will have the same number of CONFIRMED cases. Liberty Valence (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea to sort in order of confirmed cases at first. In my opinion, number of suspected cases isn't a correct criterion for listing. Also, why is Costa Rica at the fourth position with just 8 cases? Comt Till (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely splitting into three main catagories; countries with both confirmed cases and confirmed deaths; then countries with cases but no deaths and countries with suspectd cases last would be logical. It represents the natural progrssion of the flu within the country. Suspected cases is an unreliable perameter as countries such as mexico and canada have stopped reporting them. this makes them singly useful in the case of order for countries with no confirmed cases but just suspected. Thus, The current order is fine. Wuku (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

of course if two countries show the same level of infection with respect to all figuers (not very likely but possible in the newly infected countries, it is logical and also practical to just add them to the bottom of the table, therefore making it chronological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuku (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The current criteria is alphabetical in case of ties, which is a lot easier to maintain and not prone to reporting biases. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should suspect cases (sub)column be dropped from main table?

Are we at the point where the suspected cases column is being meaningless? Should it be dropped?

Please see discussion at table page and comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)

California questions the Mexican origin of the flu

Please read here: http://www.exonline.com.mx/XStatic/excelsior/template/content.aspx?se=primera&su=pulsonacional&id=590520&te=nota (it is in Spanish). In brief: There were earlier cases in California at the end of March (as we already know). Now health authorities of California question the Mexican origin, since those children didn't have contact to pigs, nor have a travel history to Mexico. The strain already existed in California, before it was detected in Mexico. Maybe something for the article, useful reference...?--201.153.19.149 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You would think it would be written in English if California said something.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably just mexico trying to lay blame elsewhere.Drew Smith What I've done 12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely, it is to find in English, too, because the health authorities of Claifornia say so, not Mexico. I just came across this by accident, not because I looked for it. Weird, that you say that Mexico tries to blame. I have never seen anything like this (but the opposite: others blame Mexico and call it the origin of the flu with patient zero, who can obviously not be the first person who fell ill since there were evidently earlier cases - in California). I get quite sad with these kind of comments that just shows how biased people are with languages/nationality.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I got sad over reading comments on the internet once. I got over it though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't expedct me to answer that, do you? ;) Anyways, I wanted to point out this article (there are others on the same topic) so it can be considered and added if it is of any use.--201.153.19.149 (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I don't have references at hand, but the general point was that since many people can have this flu in a mild form, it has probably spread a number of places before there were problems in Mexico. For unknown reasons, Mexico had more severe cases, and fatal cases. There is no reason to believe that it wasn't 'around' as a mild form for awhile, since no one would be testing for it. There does seem to be merit to it being ranging through Mexico/Southern USA more so, which makes sense, as flu doesn't generally develop/flourish in cold climates (most flu goes on a spring/fall cycle, and most flus develop in Asia). This flu could have started in Asia, for all we know. The only point we can draw is that Mexico, for reasons unknown, other than possibly being part of having less health care available, had more severe cases and more fatalities with a new virus. /okay, a 'quick' note, but not a short one. Kavri (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Clusters of deaths involving influenza usually are due to secondary infections. Maybe the Mexico death toll reflects an intersection of this influenza strain with a nasty strain of pneumonia-causing bacteria. --Una Smith (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Much was made of the fecal lagoons being in close proximity to those suffering from the outbreak in Mexico. My first reaction to those stories was, "What, flu is transmitted via fecal lagoons?" Don't viruses require a LIVING host to propagate? It makes sense, though, that the fecal lagoons could be an area where various bacterial contaminants would thrive. Perhaps they are a factor in the increased death rate. Victor Engel (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The lagoon theory is silly, actually, because such environments are full of free-living bacteria that gobble up viruses along with everything else. To replicate, viruses need to get inside living cells of their host species. The usual intersection is in a hospital, and not necessarily a local community hospital. Patients in need of intensive care are likely to be transferred to a tertiary referral hospital. --Una Smith (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic parity of articles

Pandemic parity of articles

I see that a lot was done on the swine flu outbreak. However looking at other pandemics (especially TB and HIV, which are ongoing and killing far more people) there does not seem to be parity of reporting on deaths, confirmed cases etc. Also the way they are separated is different.

It would be good if wikipedians could source in the same way and try and get accurate figures for these other pandemics. They might be useful for improving wikipedia's standing and commonality allows accurate comparisons as to how bad flu really is not in this case.

I am wanting that as an ENCYLOPEDIA ARTICLE there is a similarity given that all 3 are in fact current events this would be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.66.223 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for common look/feel of articles where it makes sense, etc. However, I think the logic of grouping Influenza,AIDS, and TB together as an example, as they are all current epidemics is faulty.

First there are any number of epidemics in various areas of the world, cholera being one that is being seen quite frequently.

Second, any kind of 'comparison' really has no merit.

-Influenzas are RNA viruses that are primarily spread through the air, though surface contamination and body fluid contact are also major ways of transmission. There are vaccines, but much depends on which viruses are used, and when certain viruses make the rounds, in terms of efficacy. Influenzas can be caught by all populations, though those in a weakened state or without good medical access will likely have more deaths occuring.

-Tuberculosis isn't a virus at all, it is a mycobacteria, and someone that is vaccinated against it will not get it through exposure. Also, tuberculosis is often latent, with some people being asymptomatic and never developing it fully. Tuberculosis is also predominantly a problem in developing nations that don't have access to vaccines and anti-biotics.

-HIV is a virus, but it is one that suppresses the immune system, is transmitted by direct body fluid, and in many cases can be prevented with proper care taken in areas of sexual contact, medical procedures, etc. There is no 'cure' for HIV or AIDS, and until recently almost all HIV carriers developed full-blown AIDS, and almost all people with AIDS died. There is still much to be understood about the exceptions that have been appearing where some people are life-long HIV carriers, or where someone with AIDS is living a very long time.

/end of educational rant, but seriously, lets be careful about 'comparing' things... as the saying goes, apples vs oranges. Kavri (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that apples and oranges are both fruits. They can be compared in all sorts of useful ways. Victor Engel (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks very much for the comparison with HIV, TB and Flu which elegantly makes the point that they are diseases (not psychological conditions, and not taxonomically related, but still commonly causing illness in people with zoonoesis aspects) and thus can be compared in an epidemiological way. Cholera is not a pandemic, all the others are. How they manifest and the public health responses, media circus acts and information to the people show how they can be compared and usefully informed. Cures and treatments and biology are just part of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.66.223 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory: Human Created Virus

I reverted that entry. The CDC says there is no evidence to support that claim. Nothing in the reference says the WHO is taking it seriously. There is a long intro about the author of the theory that is not pertinent to the article. The contributor reverted the revert. I suggest it get removed again. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A notable virologist who even participated in the creation of Tamiflu has shared a paper which the WHO has considered credible enough to consider investigating. It's been reported by Bloomberg, AP, and other notable news sources. Please refrain from removing it as a fringe theory; it has not been rejected and while it has not had a full critical review from the scientific community, the study's author is a noted virologist. If it were a fringe theory the WHO would have disregarded this researcher. He's a well educated with a long track history in this field. You might not feel comfortable with the idea, but the Virus has been called notable by many doctors for its unique genetic make up. This researcher has put together a paper detailing his findings and its being investigated seriously. Feel free to expand the section, but for now, it is notable, it's in the news, it is pertinent to the article and it provides an explanation for how its genetics came to be. Maybe I'm wrong but I would assume this to be important to the genetic aspects of it. Yawaraf (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You and your assumption are wrong. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Better to be nice and not get personal. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't take their wrongness personally. It would be wrong of them to do so. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying "you and your ... are wrong", i.e. personal attack, say "assumption is incorrect'. This is non personal. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel for pointing out my error. I'll wait and see how this pans out in the scientific community which is what I should have done in the first place.Yawaraf (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed per WP:REDFLAG - exceptional claims require exceptional proof. A redlinked scientist publish in an "unnamed journal" do not constitute "exceptional proof." --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Once his research as been peer-reviewed and published, we can discuss this further, but until then this unpublished hypothesis is not suitable for inclusion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Will wait on peer-reviewed and published paper. Yawaraf (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for the peer-reviewed publication is probably a good idea. However, I think it should be noted that just because the author of the report is redlinked, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. He does appear in Wikipedia, in fact, in the List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science for 1993. He's not just any John Doe out on the street. He does appear to be the real deal, as far as being a distinguished professor. He has a page here as a member of the Emeritus Faculty of the Australian National University. Looking on the internet, Adrian Gibbs' name surfaces many times in connection with virology and specifically with influenza genetics and molecular biology, including an apparently influential book from 1997 called Molecular Basis for Virus Evolution from the Cambridge University Press. Don't be too quick to dismiss something simply because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the author. Wikipedia isn't yet omniscient. Age Happens (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the author is red linked or not. What matters is how plausible the theory is, what evidence exists to back up the theory and associated references. According to the CDC there is no evidence to back up the theory. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the wait and see approach. I just want to make sure that being redlinked isn't somehow connected with an assumption of implausability. We should wait and see. After all, it is even possible that a distinguished professor can go off the reservation a bit in old age. Linus Pauling famously went just a little kooky towards the end of his life. It isn't impossible that professor Gibbs is just wrong. But it also is possible that the CDC is wrong. The CDC became somewhat political during the Bush administration and it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they are ignoring reasonable research for reasons other than scientific accuracy. We'll just have to wait and see.Age Happens (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I was saying that the guy wasn't notable enough that we could include something merely on the basis he postulated it. I wasn't trying to imply that it makes it untrue - just that it is not notable at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO weighed in on this today:[1] They say it's not lab created and the theory is wrong, though they do acknowledge the virologist's past achievements. OcciMoron (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: I've mentioned some number of CDC and WHO officials by name here, who do not yet have articles in Wikipedia. The "redlinking" of names has absolutely no significance, except to show that despite millions of articles, Wikipedia's coverage of the public health community is still quite poor. But regarding this hypothesis, Nancy Cox of the CDC also stated that proof was lacking,[2]... and she even has a stub article. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What does 'human created' means?

I have listen several rumors about A-H1N1-2009 is a human created virus. Amazing! synthetic biology is believed to be very mature to design and create a new malevolent virus.

Human created does not necessarily means a human designed virus

A-H1N1-2009 is in fact a human created virus, it is the result of evolution by the interaction of birds, pigs and humans in farms.

Even if genetically designed, it does not necessarily means Malevolent created virus

Some research is done in studying virus sequences in order to predict future mutations. Given the predicted mutations it is possible to synthesize the new sequence to produce vaccines with `dead' attenuated viruses before the virus evolves to the predicted mutation. As far as I know this method is not mature yet.

 My suggestion is you can add information about 
 such theory in the article, just be careful 
 checking citations, being serious not alarmist.
 It means, be clear about the context in which 
 it may be true, and the possibility of 
 the hypothesis.

Suggested edits to "Symptoms and Severity"

This is a proposed revision to this section which I feel is warranted now that the flu is steadily growing. The links that were deleted were no longer needed as they dealt with timely news facts, dates, places, stats, etc. which are now mostly history. Because this section is one of the most important to visitors, I recommend keeping it simple and uncluttered. All of the facts are paraphrased from the CDC site and redundancy trimmed out. I also felt that bulleted lists are worthwhile.

==Symptoms and severity ==

See also: Swine influenza#In humans, for symptoms in previous cases.

The CDC has stated that the symptoms of this new H1N1 flu virus are similar to the symptoms of seasonal flu and include the following:

• fever,
• cough,
• sore throat,
• runny or stuffy nose,
• body aches,
• headache,
• chills and fatigue.

A significant number of people who have been infected with this new H1N1 virus also have reported diarrhea and vomiting. People at higher risk of serious complications include people age 65 years and older, children younger than 5 years old, pregnant women, people of any age with chronic medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), and people who are immunosuppressed (e.g., taking immunosuppressive medications, infected with HIV).

===Avoid contact with others===

If you show symptoms for the flu, expect them to last a week or longer. You should stay home and avoid contact with other persons, except to seek medical care, if necessary. If you leave the house to seek medical care, you should wear a mask or cover your coughs and sneezes with a tissue. In general you should avoid contact with other people as much as possible to keep from spreading your illness. The CDC believes that this virus has the same properties in terms of spread as seasonal flu viruses and may likely be contagious from one day before they develop symptoms and up to 7 days after they get sick. Children, especially younger children, might potentially be contagious for longer periods.

===Symptons requiring medical care===

Children - emergency warning signs

• Fast breathing or trouble breathing
• Bluish or gray skin color
• Not drinking enough fluids
• Severe or persistent vomiting
• Not waking up or not interacting
• Being so irritable that the child does not want to be held
• Flu-like symptoms improve but then return with fever and worse cough

Adult - emergency warning signs

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
• Pain or pressure in the chest or abdomen
• Sudden dizziness
• Confusion
• Severe or persistent vomiting
• Flu-like symptoms improve but then return with fever and worse cough

Any comments or suggestions would be helpful to see if this would be good replacement text. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is guide-like writing that doesn't warrant outright replacement. While doing so, you also narrowed the scope of the section to cover only the symptoms and prevention (which is already covered in #Prevention and treatment), removing other key details that are more relevant worldwide such as mortality rates and demographics of deaths, all of which are referenced regardless. Also, keep in mind that this portion of the article is meant to be encyclopedic; there's a reason the external links section is there. - 60.50.246.240 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelike, newslike, or hyrid?

I agree that the suggested layout and facts above, which you don't like, was more "guidelike" than before. But with a section called "Symptoms and severity," using primary sources like the CDC, which was aimed at the average visitor needing basic information, and which itself uses the "guidelike" format, I'm not sure it's accurate to say this is not encyclopedic. The article already has graphs, charts, and lists which are meant to keep the details organized for readability and reference. So it would seem that if there's a list of symptoms, then there's a purpose to keep those in a neat list also, even bulleted, due to potential the value to many readers. Being in the TOC means that anyone could just skip over it.

The alternative presentation of facts for this section are like the typical paragraph below, which you put back in. Are you saying that this sample paragraph is more useful and relevant to a topic on "symptoms and severity" than the earlier one? Personally, if I kept it in, I'd put it into a new article called something like "2009 swine flu statistics."

At a press briefing on April 27, acting CDC director Richard Besser stated that out of 40 confirmed cases in the United States at that point, only one individual was hospitalized. He also revealed that the median age was 16 years "with a range in age of 7 to 54 years". By May 5, with 642 confirmed cases in the U.S., the age of the patients ranged from 3 months to 81 years, with 60% of cases occurred in people less than eighteen years old. In all, 36 patients (9%) required hospitalization and two people died.

The alternative would be some hybrid of the two formats, but unless and until someone writes one out, then we should consider what we have. Any comments or suggestions? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Like the genetics section, any information about disease symptoms and severity should be a general overview, then noting sourced information specific to this outbreak, and providing a link to the Swine Influenza artcile where detailed information should be listed. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

graph

found on the Spanish wikipedia:

76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A cumulative bar graph is an odd choice. Currently we are using and updating two graphs here:

File:Influenza-2009-cases.png

File:Influenza-2009-cases-logarithmic.png

|→ Spaully^₪† 10:15, 14 May 2009 (GMT)

It has a good, clear and impressive colour scheme and authoritative style to.--86.25.53.120 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic versus Epidemic versus Other

I see that in the article's opening sentence the word epidemic has been changed to pandemic. The WHO have not yet raised the Pandemic Alert level to 6: we are still at level 5, 'Pandemic preparedness'. Was there a reason to change from epidemic to pandemic at this point in time? --Dionliddell (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To add to this. As soon as I saw that the article was now talking about a 'pandemic', I thought straight away that the WHO had raised the alert level. For others that view this page (sometimes obsessively as I do) they may also think that that is the case. I personally think that the article should be reverted back to epidemic, and only changed to a pandemic if we go to level 6. --Dionliddell (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just saw a recent article just a few minutes ago clarifying that the WHO has still not raised it to a pandemic, so it would seem that this page should either use epidemic or refer to the 'Pandemic Preparedness' state. I'd change it myself, but for the fact I'm a relatively new user on a massively viewed page. Lost puppies (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some WHO doctrine seems to have drawn from , (if someone can check that). Back in 2005, raised the issue of ambiguity in this definition, but it doesn't seem to have been addressed anywhere I can find. LeadSongDog come howl 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the WHO slacking?

Just a question, not a proposed addition or anything, but it seems we should be in alert level six. The criteria for level six is described as sustained community outbreaks in two or more WHO regions. Obviously North America is sustained, and now there are 100 confirmed cases in spain along with the various numbers reported by neighbooring European countries. Sounds like a sustained community outbreak in another WHO region to me. So whats up with this? Is the WHO sleeping?Drew Smith What I've done 10:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I agree but they're the professionals. Anyway, this really isn't the place to be discussing this. Jozal (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree. I have read up on that and as far as i can see we are at phase 6. There has been human-to-human spread in multiple countries in multiple WHO regions. I don't know how they define sustained though... this may be the answer. It may be by time, or rate of spread... there could also be political reasons behind the delay. The fact that so far only 65 (<!%) have proved fatal cases, and/or not wanting to cause undue panic may affect how quickly they declare pandenic phase. wuku (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some proffesionals. Makes me think they switched out the band for the scientists. It'll cause more panic if it gets worse before they declare a pandemic. Think about it, if they wait till hundreds of thousands are dead before they call it, people are gonna freak and think its worse than it is. If they do it now, people will realise a "pandemic" really isn't as bad as it sounds. Drew Smith What I've done 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it sustained? I don't think so. Look at the graphs on the main page. It looks like the rate of spread has been steadily decreasing for a while now. Take that in combination with normal weather trends, and I think it's likely this thing is going to peter out. Victor Engel (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the morning figures released on the WHO website show that the growth of spread was sitting at around 128%, give or take a few, then 4 days ago it suddenly dropped to around 110%. I wonder why such a pronounced change? iRipple 15 May 2009 (NZ) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Table updates...

How often is the data table updated? I feel it should be a regular update eg. midnight everynight, so that the data shown is always up-to-date as far as the previous day. Of course i don't know whether someone has to read all the sources and do the update manually which makes my suggestion impractical. comments please wuku (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to be done manually. It's usually done when someone reads an article in the paper and sees a new number, and goes home and updates it. But I'm sure there are a select few who scour the planet every once in awhile to make sure every countries numbers are up to date.Drew Smith What I've done 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia censoring human made virus article

it was added as fringe.are you out of your mind.its mainstream news.WHO is investigating it and it is fringe. dont censor the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.8.212 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a video about it: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/SwineFlu/story?id=7584420&page=1

The truth is a Scientist said the sky might be falling. Wikipedia editors decided this isn't noteworthy at this time. See earlier discussion, titled: Fringe_theory:_Human_Created_Virus.   CDC and others said there is no evidence to support the theory.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How does one locate such an earlier discussion? Victor Engel (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Fringe_theory:_Human_Created_Virus   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article about Foot and Mouth disease escaping the laboratory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7290078.stm   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes foot and mouth disease just got up and walked out of the lab. "Talk to you guys later, Bye" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, it is an interesting hypothesis, but until his paper has been peer-reviewed and published there is nothing solid to base a discussion on. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and personal opinions generally do not get mentioned here, even if personals opinion of a notable person and published by a reliable source. Try wikinews, but be quick about it! Stale news isn't news. --Una Smith (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The WHO has now come out in public opposition to this paper. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/health/policy/15flu.html Daveonwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move of "Genetics" section

I think a brief summary of the genetic makeup of this virus should be kept in the article, but most of the Genetics section - oriented more toward biologists - should be moved to influenza virus where it seems to have a much more relevant context. However, if it's moved, it should probably go into the talk page so redundant material can be surgically removed and new facts grafted in by one of their resident editors. Comments? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, 2009 Outbreak should be a summary of the outbreak itself and the reaction, detailed medical information should be in the virus article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Una Smith (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with moving, with a summary left behind and a link to the "main article" in the section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of infections map

Looking at the source, Australia and Thailand appear to be properly specified as "1+" infections, but they are showing up with the colour of the "50+" category. Anyone know what's going on? --π! 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

References

(please keep this at the end of the talk page)