Talk:2010s Haiti cholera outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Location[edit]

The location needs to be more precisly descibed. --Kslotte (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Title[edit]

The rest of the local outbreaks have titles with the year at the beginning. This article needs to be switch with its redirect for accuracy and consistency. See Wikipedia:Name#consistency jsfouche 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsfouche (talkcontribs)

 Done because of consistency, but it violates the naming guideline WP:PRECISION. --Kslotte (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In the news candidate[edit]

This article is currently an candidate for In the news on the main page. Help expand it, so it will be classified as a releasable news. --Kslotte (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

some links to consider[edit]

>> Cholera clinic sparks Haiti protest Lihaas (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

grammar[edit]

I explained my removal, but someone restored them without an explanation. Just to re-explain. the "An" is before a vowel, and whether an acronym or not "United" would still be led by a vowel. Also the "suspected source for the epidemic was the Artibonite..." is past because the investigation into it is completed and beyond that. Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, in English, the letter "U" and word "United" are pronounced with an initial consonant sound, the palatal approximant (as in the word "you"). Try pronouncing the sentence "Tomorrow there is a union meeting" vs. "Tomorrow there is an union meeting", and listen for which sounds right. "An" gets used before words beginning in vowel sounds, regardless of spelling, which is why "an X-ray" is correct, but "an union" is not (and in some dialects you might hear "an halibut"). If you still consider this usage incorrect, may I suggest avoiding the issue altogether by rephrasing to eliminate the indefinite article in the problem phrases? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

seems Cholera.the bodies PH balance is off the normal scale for too long..not virus as much as its CONDITION of the patients acid level.

Controversy section[edit]

I removed the Controversy section a few days ago but someone has restored it. I don't feel that it fits very well. IMO, that info would be much better in the Reaction section, perhaps with a subtitle. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A riots section? or dometic sub-section of reactions perhaps?
 Done see if it looks better though.Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Republic Spread[edit]

According to BBC ([1]) the Dominican Republic has reported it's first case of cholera. Perhaps a table should be made of cases in each country. Also, should further spread occur I suggest the article should be renamed 2010 Hispanola cholera outbreak. Thanks. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done adding the spread, but its too early for a table yet. Only 1 in DR and all in Haiti.(Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).
Now in the Dominican Republic has had 238 cases and 1 dead, and it doesn't count the more than 100 of venezuelans recently infected (this week) after attend a wedding reception in a resort at La Romana.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12263115 /
http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/salud-publica/republica-dominicana-confirma-primera-muerte-por-colera/ (in Spanish)
Nacho (Contact me) ★ 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

2010-2011 Haiti cholera outbreak[edit]

I hope you all agree with me that this article should be rename. Nacho (Contact me) ★ 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did it, and I didn't see this message before :) Diego Grez (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should be renamed. Even if this really is the first outbreak in Haiti (unlikely), it's still against naming policy. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vaccines[edit]

Would you consider building upon the data that is reported under "spread" when referencing the report issued by the University of California beyond the predicted increase in infection and mortality? Vaccines could be an area to showcase, even if only, for a sentence worth. The study from University of California suggest the use of vaccines and antibiotics to assist in prevention and cure, along with providing just 1% of uncontaminated water, can be instrumental in reducing the predicted numbers of outbreak.

Dennis Chao of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington found that vaccinating 5% of the population would reduce the number of cases by 11%. 30%, double-vaccines, would reduce the cases expected by 55%

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) said "at the beginning of the epidemic, vaccination was considered, but given the limited global vaccine supply and other issues [such as fairness], cholera vaccinating was not considered practical."

David Sack a vaccine expert at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland said stockpiles of the vaccine are available but limited as the World Health Organization (WHO) seeks to determine how many are available and should be kept in supply.

Sack placed blame on the United Nations, saying their fault estimates hindered the organization's preparedness. Sack said "had the UN ordered the production of vaccines back in October, there would have been enough for use in high-risk areas, there would not have been a problem of limited supply."

Citations: http://defend.ht/lifestyles/articles/mind-a-body/787-study-un-projections-of-cholera-inaccurate http://www.npr.org/2010/12/10/131950133/doctors-urge-cholera-vaccine-for-haiti-neighbors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.125.199 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Here is a NYT update: [2] Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Update 2013[edit]

This is a history of the early days of the epidemic: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/10/in_the_time_of_cholera in this book http://www.amazon.com/Big-Truck-That-Went-Disaster/dp/023034187X/ref=la_B008QBQ9WI_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348005948&sr=1-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.171.6 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Update/Move 2014[edit]

This should be updated and moved to show that the outbreak is still ongoing - CDC has it listed as ongoing and links a document that says there were nearly 7000 cases in 2014 up to June. 37.201.203.104 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 Haiti cholera outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)