This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why is the section on Neuraminidase inhibitors so bad?
It didn't tell me what they are. I would have liked to see, "neuraminidase inhibitors act on the protein X-and-so that buds the newly-formed virus off the host cell...." The sort of thing that would tell me what a neura inhibitor actually is.
Instead it's all about why the author thinks they are bad. It sounds biased to me, and I'm a random user with no prior knowledge. The same sentence "the benefits of neuraminidase inhibitors in those who are otherwise healthy..." appears twice in this article, a third time on the page for neuraminidase inhibitors. I think someone is spouting their personal belief.
In the second paragraph, there is a grammatical error.
"It can also likely be spread by touching surfaces contaminated by the virus and than touching their mouth or eyes."
Should read something like...
"It is also likely spread by touching surfaces contaminated by the virus, and then touching the mouth or eyes."
Take whatever liberties you wish with the wording I chose, the important change is that the "than" should be a "then". :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done for now: you didn't provide a source and I don't have access to the one given in the article so I can't make this change. However, our Spanish Flu article does give a case-fatality ration of "10 to 20%". I will post a note at WP:MEDICINE to have this looked into. Thanks for bringing this up. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
From an admittedly quick read, the cited Nature article doesn't actually give a case fatality rate. It does say "The case fatality proportion (CFP) was ten times higher than in all other influenza pandemics...", citing "Nicholson, K., Webster, R. G. & Hay, A. J. Textbook of Influenza (Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, 1998)" and "Frost, W. H. Statistics of influenza morbidity with special reference to certain factors in case incidence and case fatality. Public Health Rep. 35, 584−597 (1920)". The authors of the Nature article also assumed a CFP of 2% for their own modelling.