Talk:Influenza A virus subtype H1N1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Viruses (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image of Virus[edit]

How about including these pics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Where can i read Genetic Code (RNA/DNA) of H1N1[edit]

Where can i read the Genetic Code (RNA/DNA) of H1N1 ? Juergen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Type "H1N1" into the search box at which for example produces as the first of eight links. Go to the bottom of that page and click where it says "Click here for Sequence Viewer presentation (base sequence and aligned amino acids) of selected region" and you'll get what you are looking for for Influenza A virus (A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1)) segment 8, complete sequence. It appears that all 8 segments are available here. WAS 4.250 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Peolpe always talk about add things and don't worry about the good things. Would you rather die thinking about bad things or good things? Think about it,and think hard and long.

Headline text[edit]

In which BSL 3 Lab. are today Examples of H1N1?

Every BSL3 Lab in World can order Exampels from CDC, there is no Limit!--ARMYOF12MONKEYS (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Why is the current outbreak getting a bigger coverage than the 1918 outbreak? Is the 2009 version considered more serious by experts? The 1918 outbreak killed 60 million people, far more than World War I. The world population was far smaller then too. My own view is that 1918 was still far more serious. Please include comments. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the huge coverage today is that we have mass media now, which was lacking in 1918. So far as I'm aware, no experts have said the current outbreak will have anything like the same mortality as the 1918 - for all the panic, it doesn't seem like an especially horrible flu strain. (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is also a historically interesting question. I was 9 in the 1957 pandemic, and in the university during the 1968 pandemic but I have no memory of any reference to the 1918 pandemic. While investigating it on the Internet I found and interesting article that asserts that the event was largely "forgotten" by historians and tries to explain why. (The Spanish Lady “Forgotten”: American Historical Memory and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918-1919 by Derek R. Long Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of History: Middlebury College January, 2008). I wonder how many people would know about it now if it weren't for fears of another pandemic and the associated research.Unseen worlds (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen stories on the news over the past 7 years reporting that a new unknown influenza, like the 1918 outbreak, was expected. H1N1 is part of a natural cycle of the swine flu. It occurs approx. every thirty years. Another new swine flu is expected, about thirty years from now. The outbreak of 1918 has always been referenced, to my knowledge, over the past 20 years in the media (tv,books,popular culture,war movies). There have been since the 1918 outbreak, specialized labs studying the swine influenza virus. The 1918 outbreak had an impact like the black plague, I would guess that people didn't have to mention it because they were there and survived it, and everyone knew how their society had been greatly changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Second para of lede[edit]

The second para of the lede contains the following statement:

When the 1918 virus was compared with human flu viruses in 2005, it was noticed that it had alterations in just 25 to 30 of the 4,400 amino acids in the virus. These changes were enough to turn a bird virus into a version that was human-transmissible.[1]

This reflects the contents of the cited source (from the New York Times). But it makes no rational sense. The 1918 virus was more than capable of human transmission; it caused a major pandemic. And 2005 human flu viruses are also human-transmissible, otherwise they wouldn't be human flu viruses. So how can changes between the two have any bearing on turning a 'a bird virus into a version that was human-transmissible'.

I suspect that the NYT has garbled the words of the, no doubt eminent, researcher they were reporting on. Can anybody clarify this?. In the meantime, I will remove the statement. -- Starbois (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now removed -- Starbois (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First para of lede[edit]

I'm new, so forgive my approach. The first paragraph is internally inconsistent. It says both that H1N1 is the most prevalent cause of influenza, and that H1N1 is responsible for [only] a few percent of influenza cases. FN1 - which addresses only U.S. cases, by the way -- confirms that H1N1 is only a small portion of influenza, and that in 2004-5 H3N2 was the most commonly reported. It would be correct, from the source, to say that Class A influenza is the most common cause of influenza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WHO Levels - graphic vs. the text on the reference page has a key difference[edit]

Reference point number 4 references the WHO page detailing the (currently defined) phases of a pandemic. Unfortunately, if someone were to just "read the pictures" on the page they would be left with the wrong impression that Phase 5 is in itself a pandemic alert. The text on the page actually indicates the proper definitions that are assigned to each phase.

As such I made a minor edit to change (pandemic) to (pandemic imminent) in the opening section since the actual pandemic is only indicated by WHO when they raise to Level 6. --Electprogeny (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong quote on "Mexican" influenza[edit]

The arcticle states: However, as the virus has not yet been isolated in animals to date and also for historical naming reasons, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) suggests it be called "Mexican influenza".[11], but the site pointed by the 11 footnote does NOT CALL the virus "Mexican Flu" but "North American Flu".

This is just plain wrong, someone please mend that.

Alexbsa2 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Verified the reference quoted is indeed misquoted so I edited the page for you. --Electprogeny (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If in the past we have called influenzas by countries like the Russian Flu and the Spanish Flu lets not treat Mexico any different. It originated in Mexico so it should be called the Mexican Flu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are names for influenza outbreaks; the influenza strains involved have their own names. --Una Smith (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all quoted above, this no longer has to be named swine (as currently it is) but with a region name. Moreover, there is an official Organization which has named it that way first, so it is the way it should be. Therefore, renaming to "North American flu". --Tunneltunnel (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Reverted. There are only two commonly used and accepted names for the current outbreak - Swine and A(H1N1). Since the later is a designation of the strain, and is in fact the title of our entire article (for obvious reasons), it is not acceptable. Every news source refers to it as Swine flu (The NYTimes for example). The OIE itself refers to it as "Swine Influenza" on its homepage. We may have a new name in time, but calling it anything other than Swine flu on the H1N1 page will mislead people. ~ Amory (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer, I cannot agree with the reversion. It is true that the OIE homepage has a link to the "Swine Influenza", but it talks about the "pig common influenza", which is the equivalent to the normal/usual influenza in humans (no the current outbreak). There is also a link where states that this is the reason why the current influenza outbreak should not be called Swine Influenza, as this is what leads to real confusion. Regarding the name the press is used to, please do not understand I mean that NYTimes is an untrustworthy source, but some times they can be wrong. This naming issue has not been handled properly since the beginning, and nobody has provided a clear guidance about this (even WHO, which uses the strain name), except the OIE statement. Therefore I think "North American flu" is the name that has to be used. --Tunneltunnel (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the naming issue hasn't been handled well, as everyone involved is concerned with more pressing issues than posterity's nomenclature. However, without belaboring the issue, that only strengthens my point. It is currently called the Swine Flu and, should it be renamed appropriately in the future, we can change the heading then. If Wikipedia existed 90 years ago, we'd have a heading "The Great War," until of course, the late 30s and early 40s, when it would be renamed to WWI. The OIE can recommend all it like, but it simply has not taken - anyone not privy to this discussion would be confused by hearing "North American flu." I look forward to naming it the Mexican Flu, but not yet. ~ Amory (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth - only some influenza outbreaks received regional names. Have we already forgotten about the Avian flu outbreak from a few years back? In this case just about every reputable resource I read lately makes a very great point about how this is more of a hybrid strain than a swine, avian, or human overly dominant strain. What I do not understand is why anyone would try to actually argue that on this page which is titled specifically for the H1N1 strain - that is appropriate to refer to this strain in the article by only one of the geographic references used in the vernacular. In my opinion I think this should be referred to as "Influenza A(H1N1)" within the article WITHOUT excluding the vernacular. It would be completely appropriate to sublink the nomenclatures simply as a means of recording it for posterity. I don't think it would be incorrect or inappropriate to make it very clear that this strain is officially designated as its current name while pointing out that this same strain has been cited unofficially with two different regional names, as well as the predominantly suspected gene variant which gave it the original nomenclature of swine flu. I think that does justice to all points while remaining both faithful to the title of the article as well as being as complete as possible without being unnecessarily biased.--Electprogeny (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize by strain[edit]

This article currently is organized into sections about outbreaks. I propose that it be organized into sections about notable strains. Eg, A/New Jersey/1976 (H1N1) was one of two strains of concern in the 1976 influenza outbreak; the other was a strain of H3N2. This organization would help to clearly define the content of this article. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the currrent status of this H1n1? Is it still active around the world or is it finally "dieing" out?Halkaide.m (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of the virus, by chronology[edit]

I added the renaming part with reference item 16, at the time, to give the chronological date for when the name of the virus went from "swine flu" to "Influenza A" - which happened on April 30th. I didn't see who made the edit to that statement and renamed the virus again to the current "Influenza A(H1N1)" but to do so within the cited statement was incorrect.

In point of fact it was not Influenza A (H1N1) on the date I cited. I do not know what date they added the (H1N1) to the name, but it was not on the date I gave. I figured the best way to stay accurate as well as incorporate all the proper data points would be to make the slight distinction for chronology's sake but to leave the cited article the same.

If someone has a better idea that does both ideals justice I'd be good with that, I just wanted to make sure that the historical record didn't get blurred for expediency's sake. --Electprogeny (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All the various names used in the media for this new strain are pre-existing names that refer to multiple strains. Even from the start there was no one name by which this new strain was known. --Una Smith (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoax merge[edit]

if H1Z1 Virus is to be kept, it should likely be merged here. Thoughts feelings? ./zro (⠠⠵) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "is to be kept?" ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I Am The Creator Of H1Z1 (Wikipedia Page) And I Think First It Needs Expansion, More Detail, And Better Cites Than "LA Weekly" I Would Like Someone Here To Take That On

I don't think this rather tasteless, and not even particularly well-known, internet hoax is appropriate to be merged here, particularly not while H1N1 is killing people around the world. I've put it up for AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And I've deleted it, as an obvious WP:SNOW decision. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that said people might see the hoax and not know if it was real or not, if they come to wikipedia to verify there fears would be relieved. I saw it before real news said it was a hoax i was afraid i would die it is nessary so people can learn that is just a hoax and not go through life afraid. I also told my friends and I felt like a fool telling them it was a hoax after falsy making them scared there lifes were in danger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon (talkcontribs) 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the page about the hoax shouldn't be kept, I'm sure wikipedia has pages on other notable hoaxes. Were you seriously uninformed enough to believe viruses creating zombies?Philman132 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It was not notable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Trace the roots[edit]

Why do people work on problems when it is already late?

People should focus on animal viruses first before it jumps on affecting people.If it do happens like what is happening now, don't you think it's too late?

What? Wait for another mutation?

"we're like a drunk looking for his keys".__bryan walsh, Time magazine,may 18, 2009 issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is not enough money or resources in the world to do what you suggest. Even trying to keep track of H5N1 in bird species in Africa has proven impossible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I am proposing that H1N1 India, a page that I found on new page patrol, be merged into this one. Talk amongst yourselves. --I dream of horses (T) @ 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Center of Disease Control and Prevention" to "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" --Phord (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Influenza prevention[edit]

This is not really about this article but it is a call for help on a related article, influenza prevention. My hope is to eventually have this article put into the "In the News" section, but it does not yet have appropriate content nor is it of high enough quality. I would like a consensus for this article and experienced editors to improve it. Any helpful edits to this article are greatly beneficial. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

External links for consideration[edit]

Please consider these external links for possible inclusion in the section "External links" and their information for possible inclusion in the article.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

InFACT Global Initiative - External Link for Technical Sub-section[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}Please add to External Links under Technical

Background: InFACT (International Forum for Acute Care Trialists) is a collaborative network of investigator-led research groups that study the optimal care of acutely ill patients, from their initial presentation in the community through their support in the intensive care unit (ICU) to their rehabilitation and integration back into society. Many of the world's leading clinical care organizations are members of InFACT, and are helping lead a global study on the impact of the 2009 H1N1 influenza.

Building on existing clinical registries of patients with severe H1N1 infection developed by the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, ARDSNet, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG), the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) in the United Kingdom, InFACT has developed a common registry to capture data describing critically ill patients with severe H1N1 infection. This large registry will permit real-time analysis of the H1N1 pandemic, and enable collaborative studies of epidemiology and risk factors, management strategies, and clinical outcomes. The goal is to share research, expand an online library of critical data for use by ICU personnel around the world, and attenuate severe H1N1 disease in the developing world where its toll will be greatest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarrgo (talkcontribs) 13:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The guidelines for external links do not allow us to add links that serve no purpose but to promote the website being linked. I didn't see any information on that website that added to the article. Regards, Celestra (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

The first sentence claiming H1N1 is the most common virus causing flu conflicts with the substantiated point with a reference right after it that it is not. I think the last edit adding it was the most common virus causing the flu was added recently and does not fit the paragraph and is probably not true since it has not been the case according to CDC figures in the US for the 12 years prior to the latest outbreak. I would suggest the editor correct this.


Thank you. Corrected. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This sentence (under 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic Illustration of influenza antigenic shift. Main article: Pandemic H1N1/09 virus) made me laugh out loud. But it's probably not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

14,000 people died, but everyone lost their shit because it was supposed to be the end of the world. (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 but not 1918 in the introduction?[edit]

Why does the lead discuss the 2009 pandemic, and not the other pandemics and epidemics -- including 1918-19? This entry is about H1N1, not the 2009 pandemic.

Harrison's [2] says that H1N1 had pandemics or epidemics in the following years:

1918-19 Severe pandemic
1933-35 Mild epidemic
1946-47 Mild epidemic
1977-78 Mild pandemic
--Nbauman (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of date references/ add more about public response[edit]

The section of 2009 H1N1 pandemic refers to a study that will be published in 2009, which has obviously passed. Futhermore, there have been a number of interesting studies that were published in 2010 and later that deal with the public response to the pandemic and the uptake of recommended measures. I think this article would be better if it included a bit more about the public response to the pandemic. It would be worth considering referencing some of these articles while updating this section: SteelFisher et. al. "The Public's Response to the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic", Jones and Salathe "Early Assessment of Anxiety and Behavioral Response to Novel Swine-Origin Influenza", and, if we are willing to including studies from outside the US, Rubin et. al. "Public perceptions, anxiety, and behavior change in relation to the swine flu outbreak".

Irisjune (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring[edit]

The existing hat link is much needed as people may notbe aware of the differences between pages dealking with pathophysiology virology and epidemiology and waste time on the wrong article. I had proposed adding a better hatlink to the Ebola article but the editor who I am reverting now has a history of questioning my good faith and vigorously contesting almost any idea I have. I tried discussing even the simple hatlink first before just adding it and not only did he corral up a second for his point of view he then raced onto this page to change it to the bare bones hatlink as he has on the Ebola page. This is an egregious case of a subject matter 'expert" , or so he claims, who believes he has the right to unilaterally control WP on his chose topics. Now look at the problem created as peopkle who intend to link to the epidemic get the pathophysicology page as I discovered on the page for Tom_Frieden which linked to the wrong page. WIthout good hatllinks we are in a bad wayWikidgood (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is where I demonstrate how thee deletions of hat links harms Wikipedia and its readers by removing a tried and true navigation aid Wikidgood (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References below here may not pertain to the above section[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Hazard in Hunt for New Flu: Looking for Bugs in All the Wrong Places". New York Times. 
  2. ^ Kasper, Dennis L; Braunwald, Eugene; Fauci, Anthony; et al. (2005). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 16th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 1066. ISBN 0-07-139140-7 Check |isbn= value: checksum (help).