Talk:Prevention of influenza

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read in entirety before any deletion considerations

I realize that this article is not a traditional Wikipedia article by any means. Given the threat of the prospect of a resurgence of the pandemic H1N1/09 virus in the Northern Hemisphere in the coming months of cold weather, I believe traditional Wikipedia policies should be forgone in order to engage in a public service that would certainly be responsible for the saving of many human lives.

Here is my argument:

Websites that convey crucial information about the preventive measures people can take to drastically reduce their chances of becoming infected with swine flu are very under-trafficed. All that needs to be observed is the reach of given websites. Important sites that deliver concise, crucial information have the following traffic rankings (all according to Alexa.com):

the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website (at[1]) is currentlty the 2,244th most visited website on the Internet, with a reach of 0.049% of global users visiting the page. Similarly, the website for the World Health Organization (WHO) (at [2] is the 2,970th most visited webpage on the Internet, with a reach of 0.028% of Internet users visiting the site. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the 7th most visited site on the Internet with 9.66% of Internet users vising the site. Given recent stories in the news that indicate that up to half of the people in the United States could become infected, up to 90,000 people may die from the virus (CNN.COM Article)(and largely young people, as they are more susceptible to the virus, AND belong to the demographic that uses Wikipedia the most), and the fact that the vaccine for H1N1 will not be widely available until approximatley the likely time the virus spikes(WebMD:"H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Delayed"), it is clear that if Wikipedia were to create a simple information page that contains a short and clear indication of simple, preventive measures, it seems clear that, even if one human life is saved (which is certain to be the case if this is implemented) it would not only justify the breeching of standard, accepted policies of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, but it would also be morally imperative, and I believe Wikipedia would have an obligation to create such an article and display it prominently on Wikipedia's main page (or at the very least prominently display it on the related pandemic and swine flu articles). This all being said, the content I have added to the article is a mere proposal, and additions, deletions, and alterations are obviously welcome.

Here are important pages that I believe contain information that should be moved into a prominently displayed Wikipedia entry (this brief list is obviously not exhaustive):

Once again, please keep in mind that, while one could make the argument that other public service announcements may save lives, this one is most likely to garner attention and be followed, as the public in general is anxious over swine flu, and will readily visit a page that is relevant to them, as opposed to some seemingly random public service announce that the general public has no interest in viewing, or even following after reading it. In acting in their own self-interest by adopting simple behavioral changes that reduce their chances of contracting H1N1, the public will also reduce the spread of the disease in general, hence reducing the number of people infected, and hence the number of deaths.

I hope my arguments have been clear and that they have been thoughtfully considered. As long as this is done, I accept the judgment of my peers. Sagan666 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article scoped to H1N1?

The present title is "H1N1 preventive measures" but all of the content applies to the seasonal flu as well. Why not just Influenza prevention? Melchoir (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually prefer moving the article to something more charged that will attract more visitors, like Swine flu preventive measures (I chose to the title I did to be more "scientifically proper"). I'm not even sure many people realize the connection between influenza, H1N1, and swine flu. Additionally, the lists made by the CDC and WHO that I give here are addressing the specific subject of swine flu and H1N1, and not influenza in general. Sagan666 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I see no problem with the coexistence of articles like Influenza prevention and Swine flu prevention. Given the breech of Wiki's policies if these articles continue to exist, I think minor replication and overlap will would be permissible. Sagan666 (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you seem so sure that such articles necessarily breach policy. We already have pretty well-populated sections of articles such as Influenza#Prevention, AIDS#Prevention, and Malaria#Prevention. Add in Wikipedia:Summary style and it's a short leap to Influenza prevention, AIDS prevention, and Malaria prevention. (The last two are currently redirects to different scopes.)

My problem with the coexistence of Influenza prevention and Swine flu prevention is simply that the articles would have the same content, except that the latter will always be doomed to lower quality, because it will have fewer sources. Melchoir (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu or H1N1 are currently old news (2018). Flu season of 2017-2018 in the U.S. is now being called a pandemic. The point is that the flu mutates and human ability to manage it also changes. I'm in favor of keeping the topic more generic (e.g. Flu Prevention) and not try to manage any one strain of flu, as it continues to mutate and the way the populace reacts to it does too. Otherwise, start writing articles about each strain of flu. I don't think WP was intended to be used as a highly technical research forum, so please keep the article more generic. Kill the "H1N1 preventive measures" redirect, and keep to the more general topic of the current title of "Influenza prevention". --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you mention that there are sections in other articles that describe prevention, I think that the gravity of the situation merits the existence of separate articles. It is much easier for a casual internet user/wikipedia reader to find themselves to an entire article about prevention, as opposed to merely a section. Perhaps you are correct that the coexistence of articles with similar content is not merited or even desired. I have actually set up several redirects of article titles along the liens of ones that have been mentioned. They are listed below (they all link to H1N1 preventive measures):

If anyone thinks that any of the above would be a more appropriate title for the article, feel free to move it (I am just interested in the delivery of concise, high quality information on the prevention of disease). The reason I mentioned earlier that this would be a breech of regular policy is that an instruction manual for preventing disease is not traditionally considered encyclopedic. I am not versed enough to kjnow if this would actually amount to a disagreement between exclusionists and inclusionists, but I suppose there is a chance that that is what it reduces to. (And I would hence be incorrect that the existence of this article would be a breech or guidelines). Sagan666 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll move it to Influenza prevention then.

I don't spend much time on AfD -- I used to, then I got the heck out -- but I can imagine some ways to avoid the instruction-manual trap:

Write as if for a generic audience. Part of this is just tone. But part of it is also supplementing the information for individuals with information for researchers, policymakers, and community leaders. Influenza#Prevention is a good place to start.
Provide in-depth research. Presumably behind every recommendation made by the WHO or the CDC lies a series of experiments that inform the recommendation, along with "primary source" journal articles and "review" journal articles. Rather than just parrot the lists of recommendations, explain them.

I don't see myself doing much of the work here; I just want to provide guidance. Good luck! Melchoir (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use Images

There are many good sources providing images (e.g. about hand washing). And images are much more easy to grasp for many people, than words and words and words. I guess that the owners of the copyrights would gladly give a permission to use such images in this article. Would be worth asking... FHessel (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You need to discuss influenza vaccines and the prophylactic use of antiviral drugs. Other topics could be included are if school and public building closures slow the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of facemasks. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Opinion

Lately there has been resistance (in the U.S. at least) by some to support vaccination, since there are known side-effects and increasing reluctance by the populace to support it. Some discussion of the merits/risks of vaccination should be undertaken in this section. Some news articles (in the U.S. at least) are calling the 2017-2018 flu season a pandemic. --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Station1 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza prevention → Prevention of influenza – WP:COMMONNAME: "prevention of influenza" (1,070,000 google hits) versus "influenza prevention" (193,000). b uidhe 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Google hits are notoriously inaccurate. If you go down to the last page, you can see that there are 134 hits for "prevention of influenza" and 163 hits for "influenza prevention". The purpose of these statistics is not to show that "influenza prevention" is more common, but to establish that Google is inconclusive so we should look to qualitative arguments to decide the case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts, if you doubt common name, take a look at the ngram results. I also think that "prevention of influenza" is better on subjective grounds. b uidhe 08:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per WP:CONCISE. See Cancer prevention and Suicide prevention which have similar titles. Interstellarity (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I question whether WP:COMMONNAME is applicable when the proposed title adds one word rather than introducing a different term altogether. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concise Red Slash 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.