![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Everything began when Virginia-based Smithfield Farms went to Mexico. In 1985, Smithfield Farms received what was, at the time, the most expensive fine in history – $12.6 million – for violating the US Clean Water Act at its pig facilities near the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia , but when NAFTA came into effect 1994, Smithfield Farms moved its harmful practices to Veracruz, Mexico so that it could evade the tougher US regulators. Reporter Jeff Teitz reported in 2006 on the conditions in Smithfield’s US facilities. Pigs are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment. The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals became lethal and pigs start dying.
Consider what happens when such forms of massive pork production move to unregulated territory where Mexican authorities allow wealthy interests to do business without adequate oversight.
I think a useful section would be a timeline for the disease. People in the far future who are dealing with another outbreak will want to use this entry as research and being able to see how the disease progressed would be very useful for them when dealing with something similar.
It would also be useful for now because people who want to look to see if something major has happened they can just check the timeline without having to parse through all the entries in the history. -- 24.87.88.162 ( talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea to animate the File:H1N1 map.svg to show reports of infection. I can't animate, but... thought someone else might be able to. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we use Google Earth tracker as Animated map. Google Earth has feature that tracks the virus by time, location and the condition of the infection. [1]-- Saab 1989 ( talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The map H1N1_map.svg is not is up-to-date according to the table "Cases by country". There are no confirmed nor suspected cases in Costa Rica as erroneously the map states:
Costa Rica Free Of Swine Flu, But Maintains Alert -- Ornitorrinco ( talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is one confirmed case in Costa Rica. [2] Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More recent comment re portugal moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More recent comment re google map links moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The map is again incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.105.5 ( talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to state something like that, at least tell us what is wrong. Viet|Pham ( talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
plz improve it.added with a lot of proof. dont del it just cuz it is loony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
I don't know why this user failed to sign, but regardless of that, I've deleted the section. It was clearly original research and relied upon self-published sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it because it violated our content policies. You're right, it's no way vandalism (spelling notwithstanding!) and I think that Ken went way out of line giving a vand-warning to the user concerned. But there we go... ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢
18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
Calm talk}}
{{
uw-nor1}}
{{
uw-nor2}}
etc. may be of use to you. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢
18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
you skeptics want legitimate source
hre you go
http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-04-28/Swine_flu_is_manmade_virus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/is-swine-flu-a-bioterrorist-vi.html
just cuz a RT news was on youtube it was not news worthy.wiki is biased against alternative news. manchurian candidate 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
IMHO it should be at least mentioned in this article: [3] -- romanm ( talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Times isn't a more reliable source than SSA or WHO. Please stop using any newspaper or magazine as a reliable source of information for confirmed cases. Regarding Mexico take the information either from SSA [4] or WHO [5] , just as you are taking information for confirmed cases from CDC for USA [User:Konegistiger|Konegistiger] 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konegistiger ( talk • contribs)
1st edit in discussion, so I apologize if I'm doing it wrong. The Washington Post has 336 confirmed cases in Mexico on their front page this morning. That count is also reflected in their interactive web map. Raydawn ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody vandalized the mexican case count. It has been lowered to 49 to reflect this source, when a much more reliable publication (The Times) has stated it to be at 159. Click for article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.46.253 ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Any sources on these counts? It's been at 1995 for some time--has there been no new news out of Mexico? rootology ( C)( T) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is saying the fatality rate is 7%, 4.5% higher than Swine Flu. It cites "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society", a quarterly philosophy journal. The actual report is based around Spanish Flu, and has nothing to say about swine flu whatsoever. Where did they get this figure?
An other problem is the number of people died by the swine flu. In Mexico there are only 7 deaths confirmed. It means that the other cases could have been caused by other diseases. It is impossible to calculate the fatality (and even an estimated of it) if only the 5% of the deaths are confirmed.--
Fixvon (
talk)
19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this information should be included as well:
However, flu death toll in Mexico could be lower than first thought, said on 04/29/2009 Dr. Gregory Evans, head of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada and a member of a federal pandemic-planning committee( http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1547114):
There was a lot of speculation and what seemed to be evidence there were dozens and dozens of deaths. Careful analysis showed these people likely died of something else, and not flu. That's really good news, and that would fit with what we've seen outside of Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.96.104 ( talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a template we can use to advise of this disclaimer? Seems appropriate here. GARDEN 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I did but someone removed it. I'm not going to fight over it even though it should be there. User F203 ( talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Consult your doctor if ill or your local public health officials for local information. |
![]() | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. This article is written by the internet volunteer community, not the Wikipedia Foundation. Consult your local public health officials for official information |
Sorry, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Use one at the top of the talk page if you want, but not in the article per WP:NOT and WP:NDA. Cenarium ( talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The no disclaimer is not policy, just a guideline. I don't favor huge banners that say "this article may be full of lies and may be wrong" but I've seen warnings in articles of active hurricanes before. User F203 ( talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Quoted from the policy guideline
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles:
There are a few exceptions to this: ... * temporal templates such as {{current}} or {{future film}}. These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia ...
Seems quite applicable in this case. Readers should be advised that available info is in flux. Plvekamp ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the attributed deaths column has "Two" listed under the US. I feel this is very misleading considering the original source states that these two deaths were likely NOT attributed to the new swine flu strain. [1]
I think that when writing about the first attributable US deaths, wikipedia must be VERY careful in what it writes. The first US deaths is an extremely significant event and needs to be checked and re-checked before that first "1" is put up there. I suggest that the attribtued deaths column entry for the US be reverted to "zero", until there is serious speculation among experts that a death is attributed to the new strain of swine flu. I will not edit myself as I am not that experienced but I suggest that someone change it.
Vihsadas (
talk)
21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This has since been fixed, but I do not know what the proper protocol is in marking this complete, or removing the topic heading altogether... Vihsadas ( talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The deaths listed for the US lists one, but there should be a (2) for suspected. There is an unconfermed death in CA. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/Story?id=7456439&page=2 at the bottom of the page. Anon 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.117.36 ( talk)
The only US death is incorrect. That was just a Mexican baby that travelled to Mexico to see family and got sick, after he/she got back he/she died from swine 'flu. I too suggest that it goes back to "zero". Yaggayaggayooyoo ( talk) 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Anon 07:37 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The maps need to be updated, i see that not even Costa Rica wich has one confirmed case has painted in red, and Honduras and Venezuela has new cases
Honduras.--
Vrysxy
¡Californication! 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC
I agree.--
Parker1297 (
talk)
20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
When there was a SARS outbreak, the WHO issued travel advisories to certain cities (ie Toronto). The CDC issued a similar statement saying that traveling was fine. Respiratory therapists considered the reaction to be overblown. WHO is used in this article, I suggest the use of the (more level headed) CDC. Any comments? BFritzen ( talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm not sure it's worth having a whole independent section for the WHO. Maybe it would be better to integrate that info as appropriate throughout the article. Maybe some sort of omnibus response section that incorporates the WHO info as well as info from the 2009 swine flu outbreak by country article? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better global organization than the WHO? CDC is American true, but they are not prone to fearmongering. And fearmongering can lead to real death. Swine flu vaccine has given people Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Which is more dangerous? I just don't think WHO has a good track record and I agree that both should be used. BFritzen ( talk) 16:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
surely the WHO should take presidence over CDC though it should be mention, just because america is a larger country, the greater good i think therefore the WHO. dowdssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.171.37 ( talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Some physicians in the US are recommending the use of masks when in public.[102] The purpose of a face mask is to effectively cover a person's mouth and nose so that if a person is around someone who is infected
Could this be changed to uninfected,
I do not have references of it, but the use of masks has three purposes. The first one is when healthy persons carry them, so they do not breathe the tiny drops of saliva floating in the air, that might contain the virus. The second reason to wear them is because some people have the virus and don't know it yet; the mask stops the saliva drops that might come out from a carrier person (even if he/she fells still healthy). The third reason, and probably the most important, is that common population feels less scared when they think, that they can do something against the virus. It makes then fell safe; this way they do not make lots of silly thinks like self medication.-- Fixvon ( talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The BBC news reported a day or two ago that some doctors believe face masks need to be changed every so many hours to still be effective and that there is nowhere near enough. I cannot remember the exact amounts but i wonder if someone who knows better than me could put this in as it seems to be quite an important fact Willski72 ( talk) 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"United States" and "United Kingdom" are breaking over two lines in the table for me, but the counts aren't, causing the counts to not properly line up with the countries they refer to. -- π! 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to say US & UK. They're pretty common abbreviations, and they link to the articles.
hmwith
τ
00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed
The same thing is happening with New Zealand now, but I'm not sure if there is any come abbreviation that would work.-- 69.148.8.183 ( talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Table discussions should be held at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. (There's a very small "d" link at the bottom of the transcluded table.) -- Zigger «º» 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
PAHO's Influenza cases by a new sub-type: Regional Update (28 April 2009 13:00 WDC) (Epidemiological Alerts Vol. 6, No. 14) describes the early Mexican illnesses as SARI (severe? acute respiratory infection), but also mentions "SARI/ ILI" in the surveillance section. SARI is currently absent from the 2009 flu articles. Does anyone have more information on this? -- Zigger «º» 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Mexican flu" be mentioned as an alternate name? According to Israel, it should be called that, therefore it is an alternate name that is used. [11] [12] [13] 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
unproductive discussion about whether editors think the name "Mexican flu" is racist |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Terrible! Giving the flu a national name. How racist is that for an idea, whoever suggests it! Wallie ( talk) 06:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|
American deaths are expected. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_he_me/med_swine_flu ---- Sky Attacker ( talk) 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Last night Mizbot removed four threads, but the deleted threads do not appear to have been added to the archive pages above. 172.129.75.13 ( talk) 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen more than five iterations to the formatting of the table that shows the number of cases. Would it be possible to decide on a column format and simply stick with it? Some of the changes are less than meaningful, like moving the totals from the bottom of the table to the top. Plus we've had data in three to four (and maybe more!) columns. -- 76.241.85.38 ( talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Edgar Hernandez, 5yo boy, contracted from Smithfield Farms ( Smithfield Foods) pigfarm in Veracruz, Mexico (state), according to CNN, Sanjay Gupta. (aired 9am EDT 29 April 2009 CE) 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 13:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I already mentioned it in the discussion of the time line: That boy (in other sources said to be 4 years old, probably at the time of the illness) fell ill on 2nd April (check http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fg-mexico-flu28-2009apr28,0,1701782.story). Therefore, the two confirmed cases in California at the end of March must be presenting the "patient zero" (so far). The other cases in La Gloria were "normal flu" (as it already says in the article). Please point this out.-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September 2008 in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, says Laurie Garrett, Council on Foreign Relations of USA.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
""Flying pig flu" has been suggested as a more accurate description of the virus' genetic makeup."
Are you serious?? Is this vandalism?? Dvmedis ( talk) 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have heard several people calling it Flying Pig Flu. They seemed to find the humor in it comforting. Perhaps this would lessed panic and allow cooler heads to prevail. Calling it swine flu is what made the Egyptians start slaughtering all of their swine. Their job would be a little harder if they were looking for those pesky Flying Pigs... 96.253.121.137 ( talk) 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.
Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]
The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]
I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will propose the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
For disasters (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention), the recommended format is "<year> <place> <event>". Examples: 2006 New York City plane crash, 1700 Cascadia earthquake. This is only a "soft" recommendation, if no other more appropriate name is available. Counter-examples include Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, Pan Am Flight 103, Minoan eruption, Krakatoa (no separate article about its best known eruption), Cyclone 05B (1999) and Kyrill (storm).
Does "1 (1)" indicate one death total or two? This is unclear. -- π! 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Better is to put a table where all figures appear separately (no number appears included in another one) t clear things up. The most important figures are the confirmed cases and deaths, from my point of view. That should be the ones that should appear very clearly, without causing confusion. -- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that it shouldn't. To make it even clearer an * below the table could give the explanation that the figures are not accumulated. Just as an idea. Maybe the head of the table can be renamed to clear things up. For suggesting something, my English isn't that good. Any idea?-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you view this as pendantic but the "demic" root refers only to people. The disease cannot be endemic in pigs. In livestock the term zootic should be used, as in enzootic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.241.102 ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "endemic" is used in the technical literature in precisely the way it is used here, and is applied to plants and animals, as well as viruses. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think national efforts to prevent the spread of disease (travel restrictions, pork import bans, etc) should be merged into the prevention/treatment section because they are similar to the content that is already there. The cases by country section could be shifted to be a short summary of where and when cases were reported after the initial outbreak to give better chronological coverage. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the first I've seen for a N99/N100 respirator recommendation. Most other sources I've read and seen indicate that an N95 is sufficient. While N95 is NOISH rated for 95% efficiency, that is under specific flow circumstances (85L/m I think, which is supposed to be breathing under heavy work loads), with a specific "external concentration", for all sized particles; the efficiency of an N95 respirator is often much higher than 95%. NeoteriX ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any really good reason why "Hong Kong" should be listed rather than "China" in the country column of the table of data? Hong Kong is not a country, it's just a specially-administered part of China. 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the maps gone now? The external maps used to be linked underneath the orange/red/dark red map. But now there is only one link in the 'external links' section. The other map link has been removed. Unfortunately, it was the other map that is far superior in its depiction as well as being up to date. - However I do not recall the url for that map any longer, it was the second google map that used pins with numbers of deaths indicated per region. -- Lexxus2010 ( talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the Google Maps is maintained by a guy called Henry Niman who is well known to have done exaggerated and false claims in previous epidemics. Just google it. The fact that has been cited in the last days by thousands of web pages and blogs does not mean that the map is 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 ( talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello I am from Iceland and wiki said that there are 2 people in Iceland infected but it has just been diagnosed as negative. http://visir.is/article/20090429/FRETTIR01/727631714/-1 here is a link about it but of course you cant understand it :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.95.113 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nintendo 07 ( talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Every source I've seen so far including several in other languages, calls it swine flu. It's common to the point of regular translation. aremisasling ( talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth including a section on the virus's name somewhere in the article. I've seen a number of news stories about proposals to change it.
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The LA Times is reporting (via Reuters) that Israel is now going to call this the "Mexico Flu".
[3] I'm thinking that this what we should be calling it from now on. All previous flu outbreaks have been referred to from where the outbreak began (think Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, etc.) It's only a matter of time (I think) before the major media outlets call it this, and it also falls more in line with how these flu outbreaks have been handled in the past.
Pharmaediting11 (
talk)
23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the english wikipedia the last one which changes the lemma? It's not a swine flu, because it has genes from swine, bird and human influenza. It isn't even proven if the virus can infect swines. -- Micha L. Rieser ( talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
-- 88.147.75.244 ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ECDC is calling it: "the Novel Influenza A/H1N1 Strain." This isn't really just Swine Flu, I think we all know that now. But this seems a bit more accurate, plus, in 1337 it would read: "Heinie." (Just some brevity, let it go.) BFritzen ( talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should I move the page to "2009 H1N1 outbreak"? According to NBC Nightly News, the government is starting to call it the "H1N1". [4] -- Goldblattster ( talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.
Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]
The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]
I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will change the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
POSSIBLE TITLES
What is the criteria being used to determine "confirmed deaths" ? Confirmed by what criteria, and confirmed by what organization(s)? Furthermore if the organization in charge of "confirming" deaths has a hierarchy within it that enables a single person or sub group within the organization to control the release of data then that is not an acceptable criteria in itself. Confirmed deaths should require more than one source. Ideally 3-4 sources. Am I wrong? 99.254.216.48 ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's a reliable source that's fine. RaseaC ( talk) 16:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we all take a deep breath and pause. The scientific community, the media and govenrment agencies are hashing out what to call this flu even as it develops. It is a moving target we are not going to hit. We have no idea what the common name will eventually be and it is not our job to decide that name, only report it. The current name "swine flu" is not egregiously wrong, is a commonly recognised name for the disease and commonly searched for on Google (6,550,000 results vs 813,000 for H1N1). Most wikipedia articles use the year at the start of the article name. And this is at least an outbreak, if not worse. So, I would like to move that we temporarily lock the name at it's current status ("2009 swine flu outbreak")and then discuss it again in 1 week. That should hopefully give enough time for a common name to coalesce in the public consciousness. We are spending a lot of time and energy arguing over what the article should be called rather than improving the actual article. Nosimplehiway ( talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Prior influenza season, just after source 59 it reads "The improvement was attributed ,in part" not "The improvement was attributed, in part", might want to fix that.-- Launchballer ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, said Laurie Garrett at the Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The four articles do mention that particular kind of virus, for the human-to-human transmission at least for the two children in California and for the one in Texas in mid-March; that is still earlier than 2nd April for Edgar Hernández Hernández (the linked article I put here says so: "He contracted the disease on April 2"). At least, Edgar is not "patient zero", for sure.-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?ref=health . Don't know if we should do anything about it. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed instances in which this article has grossly exaggerated information from its sources to indicate that the phenomenon known as a cytokine storm may be causing some of the deaths in Mexico. So far, the CDC and WHO have released no information indicating that a cytokine storm may be taking place in A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) patients or patients with related viruses, so there is absolutely no basis for this theory. All sourcing on it was based on speculation from the media or from sources with no experience on this virus. While cytokine storms are theoretically possible, there is no evidence that they do occur in this virus strain, so they are not factual symptoms. OcciMoron ( talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"The symptoms of swine flu in people are expected to be similar to the symptoms of regular human seasonal influenza and include fever, lethargy, lack of appetite and coughing. Some people with swine flu also have reported runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." from [20] As well as-- " Clinical Findings
Patients with uncomplicated disease due to confirmed swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection have experienced fever, headache, upper respiratory tract symptoms (cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea), myalgia, fatigue, vomiting, or diarrhea. Complications
There is insufficient information to date about clinical complications of this variant of swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. Among persons infected with previous variants of swine influenza virus, clinical syndromes have ranged from mild respiratory illness, to lower respiratory tract illness, dehydration, or pneumonia. Deaths caused by previous variants of swine influenza have occasionally occurred. Although data on the spectrum of illness is not yet available for this new variant of swine-origin influenza A(H1N1), clinicians should expect complications to be similar to seasonal influenza: exacerbation of underlying chronic medical conditions, upper respiratory tract disease (sinusitis, otitis media, croup) lower respiratory tract disease (pneumonia, bronchiolitis, status asthmaticus), cardiac (myocarditis, pericarditis), musculoskeletal (myositis, rhabdomyolysis), neurologic (acute and post-infectious encephalopathy, encephalitis, febrile seizures, status epilepticus), toxic shock syndrome, and secondary bacterial pneumonia with or without sepsis." from [21]
As you can see, the CDC expects symptoms to be no different from normal seasonal influenza, and hence, no cytokine storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OcciMoron ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2 Confirmed cases of swine flu in South Africa. The infected individuals were given medication and sent home. Should this be allowed in the face of a pandemic on the horizon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdjeva ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source that this was confirmed? Hdstubbs ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to sound alarmist, but, oh no! With the large number of AIDS victims there.... A confirmation please. BFritzen ( talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the infections in the United States occurred in the continental US.
In the interest of accurately conveying information visually, should we include Alaska as being marked black? It is so geographically separated that in the sense of tracking a flu pandemic, I think it should stand on its own. I know that when I first saw the map, I thought that it meant there WAS a case specifically in Alaska. I pulled up the CDC data and see that there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyHuston ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
same for Hawaii. I appreciate this is by "country", but with very large countries this can be rather misleading. Lovingly painting every Arctic island of Canada for "confirmed cases" seems a bit beside the point. Perhaps it would be better to work with circles with sizes proportional to the number of cases. Such an approach would convey an actual idea of the impact of the swine flu, as opposed to the incidential point of "areas of affected countries". -- dab (𒁳) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
We can go for rigid rules or common sense. Breaking the US by states tends to be US centric and may be better for the US article. However, Alaska is so big and separated that it could be colored separately. What would we do if East and West Pakistan still existed as one country? So far apart that coloring them separately might make sense. User F203 ( talk) 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The current article is hugely impressive, not the least due to it's apparently having evolved so far in only 4 days. From looking at the change history, it's pretty clear that contributors are making serious efforts to improve the document. So I view my suggestion as minor, but think it could be helpful: The thrust of the article, now, is primarily historical and technical, with the opening immediately jumping into things like origins.
I suggest having the opening paragraph serve to give a casual, non-technical reader some insight about this in lay terms, to respond to lay concerns.
For example, the article does not make clear that the disease is infectious rather than contagious. Also, the fact that the global display of symptoms (and individual course of the disease) is apparently globally on a par with typical flus, probably would be enormously helpful.
I'm specifically not offering candidate text because I simply don't know enough to be confident in anything I'd write.
In any event, folks, many thanks to those contributing to the article.
/d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecrocker ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. The opening is looking better, thanks. On further reflection, I suggest modifying it a bit more, along the lines of --
"The 2009 swine flu outbreak is an epidemic that began in April 2009 with a new strain of influenza virus. It is also called Mexican flu,[52] swine-origin influenza,[53] North American influenza,[54] and 2009 H1N1 flu.[52] Within days of being identified, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries. The WHO and CDC are concerned that this outbreak may become a pandemic; however, as of 29 April, WHO is not advising restriction of regular travel or closing any borders"[14] U.S. and European cases are, so far, primarily mild while the Mexican cases have led to multiple deaths. Whereas most influenza strains affect the elderly and young children worst, this strain has primarily caused deaths in people between the ages of 25 and 50.
It takes text almost exclusively from elsewhere in the article, and focuses primarily on the facts and fears a non-technical reader is going to want to see information about.
Davecrocker ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Everything began when Virginia-based Smithfield Farms went to Mexico. In 1985, Smithfield Farms received what was, at the time, the most expensive fine in history – $12.6 million – for violating the US Clean Water Act at its pig facilities near the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia , but when NAFTA came into effect 1994, Smithfield Farms moved its harmful practices to Veracruz, Mexico so that it could evade the tougher US regulators. Reporter Jeff Teitz reported in 2006 on the conditions in Smithfield’s US facilities. Pigs are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment. The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals became lethal and pigs start dying.
Consider what happens when such forms of massive pork production move to unregulated territory where Mexican authorities allow wealthy interests to do business without adequate oversight.
I think a useful section would be a timeline for the disease. People in the far future who are dealing with another outbreak will want to use this entry as research and being able to see how the disease progressed would be very useful for them when dealing with something similar.
It would also be useful for now because people who want to look to see if something major has happened they can just check the timeline without having to parse through all the entries in the history. -- 24.87.88.162 ( talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea to animate the File:H1N1 map.svg to show reports of infection. I can't animate, but... thought someone else might be able to. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we use Google Earth tracker as Animated map. Google Earth has feature that tracks the virus by time, location and the condition of the infection. [1]-- Saab 1989 ( talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The map H1N1_map.svg is not is up-to-date according to the table "Cases by country". There are no confirmed nor suspected cases in Costa Rica as erroneously the map states:
Costa Rica Free Of Swine Flu, But Maintains Alert -- Ornitorrinco ( talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is one confirmed case in Costa Rica. [2] Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More recent comment re portugal moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More recent comment re google map links moved to bottom of page. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The map is again incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.105.5 ( talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to state something like that, at least tell us what is wrong. Viet|Pham ( talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
plz improve it.added with a lot of proof. dont del it just cuz it is loony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
I don't know why this user failed to sign, but regardless of that, I've deleted the section. It was clearly original research and relied upon self-published sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it because it violated our content policies. You're right, it's no way vandalism (spelling notwithstanding!) and I think that Ken went way out of line giving a vand-warning to the user concerned. But there we go... ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢
18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
Calm talk}}
{{
uw-nor1}}
{{
uw-nor2}}
etc. may be of use to you. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢
18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
you skeptics want legitimate source
hre you go
http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-04-28/Swine_flu_is_manmade_virus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/is-swine-flu-a-bioterrorist-vi.html
just cuz a RT news was on youtube it was not news worthy.wiki is biased against alternative news. manchurian candidate 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate ( talk • contribs)
IMHO it should be at least mentioned in this article: [3] -- romanm ( talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Times isn't a more reliable source than SSA or WHO. Please stop using any newspaper or magazine as a reliable source of information for confirmed cases. Regarding Mexico take the information either from SSA [4] or WHO [5] , just as you are taking information for confirmed cases from CDC for USA [User:Konegistiger|Konegistiger] 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konegistiger ( talk • contribs)
1st edit in discussion, so I apologize if I'm doing it wrong. The Washington Post has 336 confirmed cases in Mexico on their front page this morning. That count is also reflected in their interactive web map. Raydawn ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody vandalized the mexican case count. It has been lowered to 49 to reflect this source, when a much more reliable publication (The Times) has stated it to be at 159. Click for article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.46.253 ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Any sources on these counts? It's been at 1995 for some time--has there been no new news out of Mexico? rootology ( C)( T) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is saying the fatality rate is 7%, 4.5% higher than Swine Flu. It cites "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society", a quarterly philosophy journal. The actual report is based around Spanish Flu, and has nothing to say about swine flu whatsoever. Where did they get this figure?
An other problem is the number of people died by the swine flu. In Mexico there are only 7 deaths confirmed. It means that the other cases could have been caused by other diseases. It is impossible to calculate the fatality (and even an estimated of it) if only the 5% of the deaths are confirmed.--
Fixvon (
talk)
19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this information should be included as well:
However, flu death toll in Mexico could be lower than first thought, said on 04/29/2009 Dr. Gregory Evans, head of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada and a member of a federal pandemic-planning committee( http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1547114):
There was a lot of speculation and what seemed to be evidence there were dozens and dozens of deaths. Careful analysis showed these people likely died of something else, and not flu. That's really good news, and that would fit with what we've seen outside of Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.96.104 ( talk) 01:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a template we can use to advise of this disclaimer? Seems appropriate here. GARDEN 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I did but someone removed it. I'm not going to fight over it even though it should be there. User F203 ( talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Consult your doctor if ill or your local public health officials for local information. |
![]() | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. This article is written by the internet volunteer community, not the Wikipedia Foundation. Consult your local public health officials for official information |
Sorry, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Use one at the top of the talk page if you want, but not in the article per WP:NOT and WP:NDA. Cenarium ( talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The no disclaimer is not policy, just a guideline. I don't favor huge banners that say "this article may be full of lies and may be wrong" but I've seen warnings in articles of active hurricanes before. User F203 ( talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Quoted from the policy guideline
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles:
There are a few exceptions to this: ... * temporal templates such as {{current}} or {{future film}}. These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia ...
Seems quite applicable in this case. Readers should be advised that available info is in flux. Plvekamp ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the attributed deaths column has "Two" listed under the US. I feel this is very misleading considering the original source states that these two deaths were likely NOT attributed to the new swine flu strain. [1]
I think that when writing about the first attributable US deaths, wikipedia must be VERY careful in what it writes. The first US deaths is an extremely significant event and needs to be checked and re-checked before that first "1" is put up there. I suggest that the attribtued deaths column entry for the US be reverted to "zero", until there is serious speculation among experts that a death is attributed to the new strain of swine flu. I will not edit myself as I am not that experienced but I suggest that someone change it.
Vihsadas (
talk)
21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This has since been fixed, but I do not know what the proper protocol is in marking this complete, or removing the topic heading altogether... Vihsadas ( talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The deaths listed for the US lists one, but there should be a (2) for suspected. There is an unconfermed death in CA. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/Story?id=7456439&page=2 at the bottom of the page. Anon 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.117.36 ( talk)
The only US death is incorrect. That was just a Mexican baby that travelled to Mexico to see family and got sick, after he/she got back he/she died from swine 'flu. I too suggest that it goes back to "zero". Yaggayaggayooyoo ( talk) 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Anon 07:37 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The maps need to be updated, i see that not even Costa Rica wich has one confirmed case has painted in red, and Honduras and Venezuela has new cases
Honduras.--
Vrysxy
¡Californication! 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC
I agree.--
Parker1297 (
talk)
20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
When there was a SARS outbreak, the WHO issued travel advisories to certain cities (ie Toronto). The CDC issued a similar statement saying that traveling was fine. Respiratory therapists considered the reaction to be overblown. WHO is used in this article, I suggest the use of the (more level headed) CDC. Any comments? BFritzen ( talk) 22:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm not sure it's worth having a whole independent section for the WHO. Maybe it would be better to integrate that info as appropriate throughout the article. Maybe some sort of omnibus response section that incorporates the WHO info as well as info from the 2009 swine flu outbreak by country article? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better global organization than the WHO? CDC is American true, but they are not prone to fearmongering. And fearmongering can lead to real death. Swine flu vaccine has given people Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Which is more dangerous? I just don't think WHO has a good track record and I agree that both should be used. BFritzen ( talk) 16:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
surely the WHO should take presidence over CDC though it should be mention, just because america is a larger country, the greater good i think therefore the WHO. dowdssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.171.37 ( talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Some physicians in the US are recommending the use of masks when in public.[102] The purpose of a face mask is to effectively cover a person's mouth and nose so that if a person is around someone who is infected
Could this be changed to uninfected,
I do not have references of it, but the use of masks has three purposes. The first one is when healthy persons carry them, so they do not breathe the tiny drops of saliva floating in the air, that might contain the virus. The second reason to wear them is because some people have the virus and don't know it yet; the mask stops the saliva drops that might come out from a carrier person (even if he/she fells still healthy). The third reason, and probably the most important, is that common population feels less scared when they think, that they can do something against the virus. It makes then fell safe; this way they do not make lots of silly thinks like self medication.-- Fixvon ( talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The BBC news reported a day or two ago that some doctors believe face masks need to be changed every so many hours to still be effective and that there is nowhere near enough. I cannot remember the exact amounts but i wonder if someone who knows better than me could put this in as it seems to be quite an important fact Willski72 ( talk) 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"United States" and "United Kingdom" are breaking over two lines in the table for me, but the counts aren't, causing the counts to not properly line up with the countries they refer to. -- π! 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to say US & UK. They're pretty common abbreviations, and they link to the articles.
hmwith
τ
00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed
The same thing is happening with New Zealand now, but I'm not sure if there is any come abbreviation that would work.-- 69.148.8.183 ( talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Table discussions should be held at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. (There's a very small "d" link at the bottom of the transcluded table.) -- Zigger «º» 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
PAHO's Influenza cases by a new sub-type: Regional Update (28 April 2009 13:00 WDC) (Epidemiological Alerts Vol. 6, No. 14) describes the early Mexican illnesses as SARI (severe? acute respiratory infection), but also mentions "SARI/ ILI" in the surveillance section. SARI is currently absent from the 2009 flu articles. Does anyone have more information on this? -- Zigger «º» 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Mexican flu" be mentioned as an alternate name? According to Israel, it should be called that, therefore it is an alternate name that is used. [11] [12] [13] 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
unproductive discussion about whether editors think the name "Mexican flu" is racist |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Terrible! Giving the flu a national name. How racist is that for an idea, whoever suggests it! Wallie ( talk) 06:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|
American deaths are expected. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_he_me/med_swine_flu ---- Sky Attacker ( talk) 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Last night Mizbot removed four threads, but the deleted threads do not appear to have been added to the archive pages above. 172.129.75.13 ( talk) 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen more than five iterations to the formatting of the table that shows the number of cases. Would it be possible to decide on a column format and simply stick with it? Some of the changes are less than meaningful, like moving the totals from the bottom of the table to the top. Plus we've had data in three to four (and maybe more!) columns. -- 76.241.85.38 ( talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Edgar Hernandez, 5yo boy, contracted from Smithfield Farms ( Smithfield Foods) pigfarm in Veracruz, Mexico (state), according to CNN, Sanjay Gupta. (aired 9am EDT 29 April 2009 CE) 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 13:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I already mentioned it in the discussion of the time line: That boy (in other sources said to be 4 years old, probably at the time of the illness) fell ill on 2nd April (check http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fg-mexico-flu28-2009apr28,0,1701782.story). Therefore, the two confirmed cases in California at the end of March must be presenting the "patient zero" (so far). The other cases in La Gloria were "normal flu" (as it already says in the article). Please point this out.-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September 2008 in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, says Laurie Garrett, Council on Foreign Relations of USA.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
""Flying pig flu" has been suggested as a more accurate description of the virus' genetic makeup."
Are you serious?? Is this vandalism?? Dvmedis ( talk) 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have heard several people calling it Flying Pig Flu. They seemed to find the humor in it comforting. Perhaps this would lessed panic and allow cooler heads to prevail. Calling it swine flu is what made the Egyptians start slaughtering all of their swine. Their job would be a little harder if they were looking for those pesky Flying Pigs... 96.253.121.137 ( talk) 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.
Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]
The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]
I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will propose the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
For disasters (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention), the recommended format is "<year> <place> <event>". Examples: 2006 New York City plane crash, 1700 Cascadia earthquake. This is only a "soft" recommendation, if no other more appropriate name is available. Counter-examples include Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, Pan Am Flight 103, Minoan eruption, Krakatoa (no separate article about its best known eruption), Cyclone 05B (1999) and Kyrill (storm).
Does "1 (1)" indicate one death total or two? This is unclear. -- π! 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Better is to put a table where all figures appear separately (no number appears included in another one) t clear things up. The most important figures are the confirmed cases and deaths, from my point of view. That should be the ones that should appear very clearly, without causing confusion. -- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that it shouldn't. To make it even clearer an * below the table could give the explanation that the figures are not accumulated. Just as an idea. Maybe the head of the table can be renamed to clear things up. For suggesting something, my English isn't that good. Any idea?-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 15:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you view this as pendantic but the "demic" root refers only to people. The disease cannot be endemic in pigs. In livestock the term zootic should be used, as in enzootic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.241.102 ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "endemic" is used in the technical literature in precisely the way it is used here, and is applied to plants and animals, as well as viruses. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think national efforts to prevent the spread of disease (travel restrictions, pork import bans, etc) should be merged into the prevention/treatment section because they are similar to the content that is already there. The cases by country section could be shifted to be a short summary of where and when cases were reported after the initial outbreak to give better chronological coverage. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the first I've seen for a N99/N100 respirator recommendation. Most other sources I've read and seen indicate that an N95 is sufficient. While N95 is NOISH rated for 95% efficiency, that is under specific flow circumstances (85L/m I think, which is supposed to be breathing under heavy work loads), with a specific "external concentration", for all sized particles; the efficiency of an N95 respirator is often much higher than 95%. NeoteriX ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any really good reason why "Hong Kong" should be listed rather than "China" in the country column of the table of data? Hong Kong is not a country, it's just a specially-administered part of China. 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the maps gone now? The external maps used to be linked underneath the orange/red/dark red map. But now there is only one link in the 'external links' section. The other map link has been removed. Unfortunately, it was the other map that is far superior in its depiction as well as being up to date. - However I do not recall the url for that map any longer, it was the second google map that used pins with numbers of deaths indicated per region. -- Lexxus2010 ( talk) 03:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the Google Maps is maintained by a guy called Henry Niman who is well known to have done exaggerated and false claims in previous epidemics. Just google it. The fact that has been cited in the last days by thousands of web pages and blogs does not mean that the map is 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 ( talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello I am from Iceland and wiki said that there are 2 people in Iceland infected but it has just been diagnosed as negative. http://visir.is/article/20090429/FRETTIR01/727631714/-1 here is a link about it but of course you cant understand it :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.95.113 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nintendo 07 ( talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Every source I've seen so far including several in other languages, calls it swine flu. It's common to the point of regular translation. aremisasling ( talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth including a section on the virus's name somewhere in the article. I've seen a number of news stories about proposals to change it.
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The LA Times is reporting (via Reuters) that Israel is now going to call this the "Mexico Flu".
[3] I'm thinking that this what we should be calling it from now on. All previous flu outbreaks have been referred to from where the outbreak began (think Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, etc.) It's only a matter of time (I think) before the major media outlets call it this, and it also falls more in line with how these flu outbreaks have been handled in the past.
Pharmaediting11 (
talk)
23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed "North American influenza" from the lead sentence. The reference for this name was an animal agriculture lobby group encouraging a change in name from "swine flu" due to possible harm to their interests. I have not read the name "North American influenza" used in any media outlets. We should only add a name here if it is commonly used - lobby group encouragement is not a good enough reason (it is not our job to promote the interests of lobby groups). There are good arguments as to why naming influenza outbreaks after countries or regions is as harmful as naming it after an animal. Adding a name to the lead sentence due to lobby group encouragement would mean that we should add "sea kittens" to the lead sentence of fish. If the situation changes and media outlets do begin to use a new name, we should add it to the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: current mentions of "North American influenza" in media outlets is in relation to the naming of the flu (see http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1343364376), so we should only use it in this context. It would be a good idea to mention it in a section called "Name of the outbreak", but not yet in the lead sentence. -- Oldak Quill 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the english wikipedia the last one which changes the lemma? It's not a swine flu, because it has genes from swine, bird and human influenza. It isn't even proven if the virus can infect swines. -- Micha L. Rieser ( talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
-- 88.147.75.244 ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ECDC is calling it: "the Novel Influenza A/H1N1 Strain." This isn't really just Swine Flu, I think we all know that now. But this seems a bit more accurate, plus, in 1337 it would read: "Heinie." (Just some brevity, let it go.) BFritzen ( talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should I move the page to "2009 H1N1 outbreak"? According to NBC Nightly News, the government is starting to call it the "H1N1". [4] -- Goldblattster ( talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last section of the article, there is a description of the naming of the flu.
Some authorities object to calling the flu outbreak "swine flu". U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed concerns that this would lead to the misconception that pork is unsafe for consumption.[136] Israeli deputy health minister Yakov Litzman proposed the name "Mexican flu" because Muslims and Jews consider pork to be unclean,[137] but the Israeli government retracted this proposal after Mexican complaints.[138] The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed the name "North American influenza",[139] while the European Commission uses "novel flu virus".[138] Medical terminology refers to the virus as "Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human".[138]
The WHO objected to renaming the disease, as "swine influenza" had been used since the beginning of the outbreak.[140] The Mexican government also objected to renaming the disease to "Mexican influenza".[138] The name "swine influenza" is consistent with scientific naming convention. According to The New York Times, "based on its genetic structure, the new virus is without question a type of swine influenza, derived originally from a strain that lived in pigs". [141]
I did not participate in any way to write the above text. Based on this text, which I assume is accurate, and not a joke, there are objections to swine flu, Mexican flu. North American flu would have the same objections as Mexican flu. Swine influenza would have the same objections as swine flu. Inflenza A (H1N1 virus), human would be a correct name but I suspect there will be objections. Nobody uses the Wikipedia term 2009 swine flu outbreak. Since Wikipedia cannot have original research, I will change the title to Swine flu outbreak (2009) and others can discuss whether another title should be used. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
POSSIBLE TITLES
What is the criteria being used to determine "confirmed deaths" ? Confirmed by what criteria, and confirmed by what organization(s)? Furthermore if the organization in charge of "confirming" deaths has a hierarchy within it that enables a single person or sub group within the organization to control the release of data then that is not an acceptable criteria in itself. Confirmed deaths should require more than one source. Ideally 3-4 sources. Am I wrong? 99.254.216.48 ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's a reliable source that's fine. RaseaC ( talk) 16:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that we all take a deep breath and pause. The scientific community, the media and govenrment agencies are hashing out what to call this flu even as it develops. It is a moving target we are not going to hit. We have no idea what the common name will eventually be and it is not our job to decide that name, only report it. The current name "swine flu" is not egregiously wrong, is a commonly recognised name for the disease and commonly searched for on Google (6,550,000 results vs 813,000 for H1N1). Most wikipedia articles use the year at the start of the article name. And this is at least an outbreak, if not worse. So, I would like to move that we temporarily lock the name at it's current status ("2009 swine flu outbreak")and then discuss it again in 1 week. That should hopefully give enough time for a common name to coalesce in the public consciousness. We are spending a lot of time and energy arguing over what the article should be called rather than improving the actual article. Nosimplehiway ( talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
On the Prior influenza season, just after source 59 it reads "The improvement was attributed ,in part" not "The improvement was attributed, in part", might want to fix that.-- Launchballer ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The first evidence of swine flu transmission was reported in September in the US state of Texas, involving a young boy who worked with pigs, said Laurie Garrett at the Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19245/global_health_crisis.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Frecent http://eyugoslavia.com/general/28/obama-swine-flu-outbreak-cause-for-concern-not-alarm-227029/ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=mundo&article=029n1mun http://www.elsemanario.com.mx/news/news_display.php?story_id=19308 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgg170 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The four articles do mention that particular kind of virus, for the human-to-human transmission at least for the two children in California and for the one in Texas in mid-March; that is still earlier than 2nd April for Edgar Hernández Hernández (the linked article I put here says so: "He contracted the disease on April 2"). At least, Edgar is not "patient zero", for sure.-- 201.153.40.28 ( talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?ref=health . Don't know if we should do anything about it. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed instances in which this article has grossly exaggerated information from its sources to indicate that the phenomenon known as a cytokine storm may be causing some of the deaths in Mexico. So far, the CDC and WHO have released no information indicating that a cytokine storm may be taking place in A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) patients or patients with related viruses, so there is absolutely no basis for this theory. All sourcing on it was based on speculation from the media or from sources with no experience on this virus. While cytokine storms are theoretically possible, there is no evidence that they do occur in this virus strain, so they are not factual symptoms. OcciMoron ( talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"The symptoms of swine flu in people are expected to be similar to the symptoms of regular human seasonal influenza and include fever, lethargy, lack of appetite and coughing. Some people with swine flu also have reported runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea." from [20] As well as-- " Clinical Findings
Patients with uncomplicated disease due to confirmed swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection have experienced fever, headache, upper respiratory tract symptoms (cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea), myalgia, fatigue, vomiting, or diarrhea. Complications
There is insufficient information to date about clinical complications of this variant of swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. Among persons infected with previous variants of swine influenza virus, clinical syndromes have ranged from mild respiratory illness, to lower respiratory tract illness, dehydration, or pneumonia. Deaths caused by previous variants of swine influenza have occasionally occurred. Although data on the spectrum of illness is not yet available for this new variant of swine-origin influenza A(H1N1), clinicians should expect complications to be similar to seasonal influenza: exacerbation of underlying chronic medical conditions, upper respiratory tract disease (sinusitis, otitis media, croup) lower respiratory tract disease (pneumonia, bronchiolitis, status asthmaticus), cardiac (myocarditis, pericarditis), musculoskeletal (myositis, rhabdomyolysis), neurologic (acute and post-infectious encephalopathy, encephalitis, febrile seizures, status epilepticus), toxic shock syndrome, and secondary bacterial pneumonia with or without sepsis." from [21]
As you can see, the CDC expects symptoms to be no different from normal seasonal influenza, and hence, no cytokine storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OcciMoron ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2 Confirmed cases of swine flu in South Africa. The infected individuals were given medication and sent home. Should this be allowed in the face of a pandemic on the horizon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdjeva ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source that this was confirmed? Hdstubbs ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to sound alarmist, but, oh no! With the large number of AIDS victims there.... A confirmation please. BFritzen ( talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the infections in the United States occurred in the continental US.
In the interest of accurately conveying information visually, should we include Alaska as being marked black? It is so geographically separated that in the sense of tracking a flu pandemic, I think it should stand on its own. I know that when I first saw the map, I thought that it meant there WAS a case specifically in Alaska. I pulled up the CDC data and see that there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyHuston ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
same for Hawaii. I appreciate this is by "country", but with very large countries this can be rather misleading. Lovingly painting every Arctic island of Canada for "confirmed cases" seems a bit beside the point. Perhaps it would be better to work with circles with sizes proportional to the number of cases. Such an approach would convey an actual idea of the impact of the swine flu, as opposed to the incidential point of "areas of affected countries". -- dab (𒁳) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
We can go for rigid rules or common sense. Breaking the US by states tends to be US centric and may be better for the US article. However, Alaska is so big and separated that it could be colored separately. What would we do if East and West Pakistan still existed as one country? So far apart that coloring them separately might make sense. User F203 ( talk) 15:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The current article is hugely impressive, not the least due to it's apparently having evolved so far in only 4 days. From looking at the change history, it's pretty clear that contributors are making serious efforts to improve the document. So I view my suggestion as minor, but think it could be helpful: The thrust of the article, now, is primarily historical and technical, with the opening immediately jumping into things like origins.
I suggest having the opening paragraph serve to give a casual, non-technical reader some insight about this in lay terms, to respond to lay concerns.
For example, the article does not make clear that the disease is infectious rather than contagious. Also, the fact that the global display of symptoms (and individual course of the disease) is apparently globally on a par with typical flus, probably would be enormously helpful.
I'm specifically not offering candidate text because I simply don't know enough to be confident in anything I'd write.
In any event, folks, many thanks to those contributing to the article.
/d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecrocker ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. The opening is looking better, thanks. On further reflection, I suggest modifying it a bit more, along the lines of --
"The 2009 swine flu outbreak is an epidemic that began in April 2009 with a new strain of influenza virus. It is also called Mexican flu,[52] swine-origin influenza,[53] North American influenza,[54] and 2009 H1N1 flu.[52] Within days of being identified, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries. The WHO and CDC are concerned that this outbreak may become a pandemic; however, as of 29 April, WHO is not advising restriction of regular travel or closing any borders"[14] U.S. and European cases are, so far, primarily mild while the Mexican cases have led to multiple deaths. Whereas most influenza strains affect the elderly and young children worst, this strain has primarily caused deaths in people between the ages of 25 and 50.
It takes text almost exclusively from elsewhere in the article, and focuses primarily on the facts and fears a non-technical reader is going to want to see information about.
Davecrocker ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)