![]() | This page 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. |
Suspected Cases, Probable Cases, and Unconfirmed Deaths are not verifiable information. They are based on hearsay, original research, and unpublished information (even though they might be mentioned in a popular press posting to a website). Only confirmed cases and confirmed deaths should be included in this table. Flipper9 ( talk) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the main article content table is corrupted and mixed with contents from this outbreak table. -
Xavier Fung (
talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Now it's back to normal. -
Xavier Fung (
talk)
19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No real agreement was reached on my earlier concerns about New Zealand's numbers and this is still causing problems. Someone else recently pointed out the MOH site (which I for some reason never looked at before) and I notice how they do it is confirmed, probable and suspected [1]. I've now also noticed our table does have probable albeit as a subset of the suspected. Given that probable and confirmed are both WHO terms with appropriate definitions, it would be good IMHO if we could fill out the table with both probable and confirmed numbers and make probable in to it's own heading. This may avoid further confusion Nil Einne ( talk) 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we include Pakistan in countries with suspected cases? From this article three Pakistan nationals became sick with swine flu in Mexico and were flown to Pakistan. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/30-Apr-2009/Swine-flu-lands-in-Pakistan-tomorrow
Hdstubbs ( talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found this [2] and this [3] provide a reference [4] that there is a "confirmed" case in Ireland. However, my search shows this news [5] saying that the case is "probable" and further testing would be done in UK and Ireland. I think this is a probable rather than a confirmed case provided that the latter reference has more explanation.- Xavier Fung ( talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Four suspected cases in Belize http://www.reporter.bz/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3508&Itemid=2 and here http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=13884&frmsrch=1
Hdstubbs ( talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Peru has no confirmed cases of the swine flu. The case alluded in the template is that of an Argentinian woman who landed on the country to be checked. She was traveling from Mexico to her country, Argentina, stopping briefly through Panama. When in Peru, she was diagnosed with the infection, and after being sure she was stable she was sent to her original destination. She is not currently in Peru, nor is she a Peruvian citizen or resident. The only reason for her staying in the country was that the captain of the plane decided to make an emergency landing to have her checked. Even though she was diagnosed in Peru, it isn't fair to say it's a Peruvian case, therefore I want to ask someone to please change that number in Peru's confirmed cases.
I apologize if I'm doing anything wrong here, this is the first time I contribute to a discussion page in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.153.62 ( talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the same reasoning to keep one death under the USA. The baby wasn't American, didn't live in America, but he dies in American soil; so, he died in the USA, and the USA registered one death. This woman is not Peruvian, doesn't live in Peru, but the case was confirmed in Peru; so, there is one confirmed case in Peru. The nationality of the person doesn't matter; the point is the spreading of the virus, and so far it did get to Peru. Pmbarros ( talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been confirmed that the argentinian woman does not have the swine flu. I'm sorry but this link is in spanish
http://www.peru.com/noticias/sgc/portada/2009/04/30/detalle32225.aspx
Paranoidhuman ( talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Two more suspects, however the article also mentions "other suspects", which may lead one to believe these accumulate to the 3 already mentioned in our table, and not replace it (as the user who edited this article intended). -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As of 04:42 30 April 2009, Guatemala had one suspected death (per this ref). Could we get a ref saying that this death was not swine flu, to back up the "0" that is currently in the table? If the current "suspected cases" ref says this, it should be inline after the "0" as well as after the suspected cases #. - M.Nelson ( talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Unless we have a reference that tells this death is not due to swine flu, we must add it to the article. And so far we don't have such a reference. Gnaaye ( talk) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The report is about the first case which is prooved to be negative. There are no suspected cases in Russia at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.223.81 ( talk) 07:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The table has this "Last Update: 06:00, whatever" stuff on it, which is useful. However, when the table is included at 2009 swine flu outbreak and 2009 swine flu outbreak by country, it lists the last update of that page, rather than the last update of the table. Can this be fixed? - M.Nelson ( talk) 06:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
With apologies, I deleted this newly added column. I don't see it as particularly useful or easy to define and it made the table considerably wider. Let's try to keep this table as compact as possible. Thank you -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently the table is huge.
I propose to collapse the countries which have no confirmed cases yet, something like this, but with better formatting for the collapsed section:
Country | Laboratory confirmed cases | Suspected‡ cases | Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | 271 | 2,595+ | 152 (20) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mexico | 172 [1] | 1,995 [1] | 152 (20) [2] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
US | 64 [3] | 255+ [note 1] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canada | 13 [4] | 19 [note 2] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Zealand | 11 [2] | 43 [2] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UK | 2 [5] | 40 [note 3] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spain | 2 [6] | 29 [note 4] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Israel | 2 [7] | 2 [8] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Costa Rica | 2 [9] | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‡ Not all cases have been confirmed as being due to this strain. Possible cases are cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) that have not been confirmed through testing to be due to this strain. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What does everyone think? Ikip ( talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand the motivation for collapsing the unconfirmed cases, but note that automatic readers (for the blind) are supposed to have problems with hidden/collapsed text. So it may be better to keep the table as is, for better accessibility. See MOS:SCROLL. Abecedare ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
the table is getting rather unweildy IMO now, over 2/3 of the countries listed have no confirmed cases, did anyone get a good means of doing this worked out? the one here looks OK to me (even w/ repeating headers) but would need to updated with current data Default.XBE ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is time to collapse. The goal of it is to show how the flu is spreading but we now have confirmed cases in almost every continent and there is new information that both Argentina and Ecuador have possible cases. IMO it is getting really unwieldy. If someone really wants to know the case list of every country they can click on the box. Hdstubbs ( talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Country | Cases | Deaths | |
---|---|---|---|
Laboratory confirmed |
Suspected ‡ (probable [30]) | Confirmed (suspected ‡) | |
Totals | 251 | 3,700+ | 9 (177) |
Mexico | 99 [31] | 2,498 [32] | 8 (176) [33] |
United States | 93 [34] [35] | 654+ [36] | 1 [34] |
New Zealand | 3 [37] | 111(13) [37] [38] | 0 |
Guatemala | 0 | 3 [39] | 0 (1) [40] |
El Salvador | 0 | 3 [41] | 0 |
Number of countries with confirmed or suspected cases = 40.
‡ Suspected cases have not been confirmed as being due to this strain of influenza by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out. | |||
Included an excerpt of the current table to show the issues with the current table.
There has been much discussion on the correct layout, number of columns and headers for the columns. I'll list the issues I think there are with the current layout:
It's not clear what would be best. I think the probable cases should be removed as it tries to do too much - we can't tell how many sources follow WHO classification and it looks like we are suggesting all the others are only "suspected" as per WHO when they could actually be probable but not reported as such.
Long term it is likely the layout will need to change completely as figures become clearer and I imagine we will take WHO figures then. Any suggestions? It would be good to get some major editors to decide on a common format and then keep it that way subject to further discussion. |→ Spaully₪ † 11:47, 30 April 2009 ( GMT)
I think a "hospitalized" column would be helpful so the impact/severity of the disease can be seen 65.3.255.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
If a suspected case is proven to be negative do we remove them from the table completely?-- Avala ( talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think so. Otherwise the table is a little misleading. Someone just glancing at it would think there are more relevant cases than there actually are. 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Any suspected case that is negative should be removed. However it's not wise to individualy remove cases by subtraction because you read one is negative this is OR and would easily lead to confusion an inaccurate information, wait for updated totals (if the article which says one is negative doesn't have them). If you mean a country with only one suspected case (and no confirmed or probable or deaths) then yes you remove the whole country (provided there aren't more) Nil Einne ( talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the title to "Current cases" to clarify that the figures are a snapshot, not a cumulative total over time. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about Croatia. There was one suspected case but proved negative.-- Avala ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There really is no need to change the title. I mean it is pretty clear that once a case is proven negative it is no longer a suspect case. It would be complete counter-intuitive to think "suspected cases" incldues all cases that once were suspect, but have since been proven either positive (and moved to confirmed) or negative. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We have 8 suspect cases in Chile tells the "Ministerio de Salud de Chile (MINSAL)" (Health Minister of Chile), the source of the information is in http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355563 and translated to english is here: http://74.125.91.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp%3Fidnoticia%3D355563&usg=ALkJrhglJaIeSr79lUmMO0-NB6kkxlWL6w -- Satanux ( talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More sorce http://tele13.beta.canal13.cl/noticias/nacional/2612.htm Blopa64 ( talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
We have now 24 suspected cases http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355701 Blopa64 ( talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As of May 1, there are 4 suspected cases still under examination in Chile. http://latercera.com/contenido/680_124057_9.shtml http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=356191
I'm afraid of screwing up the formatting on the table, but it would be great if someone could make the change. Thanks! Avocadrix ( talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, can anyone add another case to Fiji, it says 1 but now there are two. http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=30040982b23b41b0558dd72dbc9fb5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.121.39 ( talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we up the additional numbers for Mexico. Confirmed moved to 260. I tried to this several times and failed. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfYcVCw5PiKbk5yaX7JaF9NqhPygD97SVQV02 Hdstubbs ( talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone direct to where on wiki it tells me how to update references? I can update the url so that it goes to the right website but I can't change the reference at the bottom of the page. Is there some kind of trick to it? I keep trying to follow the examples on the page but then it just turns bright red. 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ministry of Health of the Dominican Republic has stated that NO cases of swine flu have been reported. The immigrant who was suspected having swine flu was tested, and the results were negative. Source: http://www3.diariolibre.com/noticias_det.php?id=197821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.105.35 ( talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should Ireland count as a country that's infected? The article referenced said that it was "probable confirmed" yet the table shows it as probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.81.142 ( talk) 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The official annoucement of laboratory-confirmed case will be made on May 2, 2009. The lab-confirmed number on the case table should be corrected. -- Intershark ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Searching for a source, but it has just been announced on Sky News. Jozal ( talk) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE5403U820090501 - First confirmed H1N1 case in Hong Kong. -- haha169 ( talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 new suspected cases in Russia http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=77521 77.52.223.81 ( talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Minorellen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8028974.stm (Although the 11th just happened so might take a few min. before it is on a website) -- Simonr9999 ( talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh and there are 642 suspected cases -- Simonr9999 ( talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Denmark has one confirmed A H1N1 case as per http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-22072069.html?rss... he got it in New York. Please update the template. CallmeMads ( talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
[ [8]] start from there. Could someone add it to the table. Thanks. Block77129 ( talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I already sourced it that Germany has 5 cases, but someone reverted it to 4 according to the WHO figures. But it's wrong, 5 cases are definitely confirmed in Germany [9] [10]. The WHO figures are not up to date. -- Grochim ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to update France data :
-- 90.17.78.207 ( talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (Yes I Anonymous)
Per this Reuters article dated May 2nd:
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-39377920090502?sp=true
"MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - In a glint of good news for a world rattled by the threat of a flu pandemic, new laboratory data showed fewer people have died in Mexico than first thought from a deadly new influenza strain.
Mexico cut its suspected death toll from the new H1N1 swine flu to up to 101 from as many as 176 as dozens of test samples came back negative. Few patients are checking into hospitals fearing infection with a flu that has spread as far as Asia."
No update yet on suspected.
GaussianCopula ( talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Mexican government has established a website dedicated to tracking the virus spread in Mexico.
Last update was May 2 at 9:15am Mexico local time.
If this info stays updated on a daily basis, I would suggest we use it to track the mexican data. Latest data is consistent with what we currently have. 443/16
http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/
GaussianCopula ( talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Revising Mexico figures per new government update:
473 confirmed, 19 deaths
Please update.
http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/
GaussianCopula ( talk) 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
New Zealand has had another confirmed case, bringing it from 3 to 4. Update to table would be nice.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/swine-flu/2376777/Fourth-swine-flu-case
XxTommehxx ( talk) 08:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Done Done by Hawthorn, within half an hour of this request. --
Avenue (
talk)
13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
They have confirmed 101 deaths down from the suspected 168. I updated the table but this link needs to be added. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=93306§ionid=351020705 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I just heard in the Mexican news that there are 22 (15 female and 7 male) confirmed deaths.Surely the figures will be updated on this web page as soon as possible: http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/-- 201.153.17.190 ( talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There are now 10 confirmed cases of H1N1 in France ( http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_A_h1n1_070509/index.html) and 5 probable cases (27 suspected cases) (same link).
For constant updated informations: http://www.invs.sante.fr/
If someone want to change the information in the table!
Thanks!
Philippines has 39 cases now.cite news|url= http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/08/09/h1n1-cases-rp-rise-39 -- The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Egypt's confirmed cases up to 3. Reuters A elalaily ( talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated the US death numbers based on citations found on [ [11]] Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table rather than clutter this article with all the citations found there. If this is not acceptable and I will do my best to rectify and include all the sources with which the sum is reached on that template. Der.Gray ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The chilean ministry of health reported on June 8 at 10 pm (local time) that there were only 2 confirmed deaths. There are some chinese articles about the third confirmed death, however it was only suspected, and later it was confirmed that it wasn't the swine flu the cause of death.
And where is a reference for that? The only related reference I can find is the Xinhua article, a source, which is usually credible and accurate. I restored the entry in the table, until a reference for the contrary will be presented. | FHessel ( talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure to the one given by the WHO. (The previously given figure (from the US source) included also probable cases, and is thus not really correct for this table.) I suggest that we stick to the WHO source (or other sources which really give the "Confirmed cases" number) for this figure from now on. (Note that most of the previous difference between our Total and WHO's Total for the confirmed cases resulted from the U.S. figure we used, so I assume that the US report the "correct" number to the WHO, even if they don't publish it themselves.) -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
To the case, when I wrote that the numbers were the same, I was just referring to the USA figures (ECDC compared to WHO). Pedromarx, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 ( talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have now used Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table as a source, as suggested by Daveonwiki. (I hope that the figures in that template are updated more often than the WHO data.)-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Today one can see, that the WHO numbers regarding the U.S. are confirmed+probable cases together, quite contrary to the statement in the header of their bulletin (WHO 2009-06-08: 13217 cases; Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table 02:16 UTC: probable 521, confirmed 12701, sum = 13217 cases) BTW, I would recommend to make that very clear in a footnote. Today I was wondering myself, why the WHO had a greater number than WP. It was only then, that I found out (by comparison with the US table), that the number here is confirmed cases only. I was assuming, that it is confirmed+probable, since the CDC had announced not to publish numbers on confirmed cases any more. | FHessel ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As we can see in the table now, the CDC reports more cases than the sum of each state ministries. The CDC figures also include Puerto Rico now. I think we can quote CDC numbers now, and if the states reported a higher number of cases after the release of CDC bulletin, we can use figure of the total reported cases for all states. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As I am unfamiliar with editing the main confirmed cases table, could someone please increase the totatl confirmed cases in Australia to 639.
Source: Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing. 222.154.97.72 ( talk) 07:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would it also be possible to make changes to the table on the main '2009 Swine Flu Outbreak' page, as no changes have currently been made on that table. 222.154.97.72 ( talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
== What happened to Nicaragua? ==
There was an entry two days ago (02.06.09 23:30 GMT) confirming one case in Nicaragua. What happened with that? I dont have the time to investigate that right now.
FHessel (
talk) 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
FHessel (
talk)
07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please could somebody update the number of confirmed New Zealand cases to 14.
Source: TVNZ News 222.154.96.9 ( talk) 07:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please could someone update the table to show that New Zealand now has 23 confirmed cases. NZ Ministry of Health 222.154.97.189 ( talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the references (especially Latin American ones) in the table use Google Translate to the original non-English article or news reports and claiming it as English (using language=English as the attribute value). It would be more favorable to quote it as of the language it presents, and mark with the correct language attribute. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been updated to 46 dated today but I am unable to access the page - [12] - "This page is not available in English."
Is this just me? |→ Spaully₪ † 20:11, 10 June 2009 ( GMT)
According to the WHO this is now a pandemic, not just an outbreak ( [13], no WHO source just yet) I suggest this template is moved to Template:2009 influenza pandemic table.
We need an admin to move it and there is no rush so it would be good to get a consensus before moving. The benefits of the name suggested are that it is unambiguous and avoids the debate over using "swine", "H1N1", etc. What do people think? |→ Spaully₪ † 15:50, 11 June 2009 ( GMT)
where can i edit the template now??? I have to update some new cases i've founded :( For example this: http://www.minuto59.com/en-venezuela/28-casos-de-gripe-a-confirmados-en-el-pais/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografisica ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Revert edits done by somebody expressing that the Philippines has 103 cases. His/her source even claimed that it was not included in the official list of DOH. See here. http://www.gmanews.tv/story/164799/DOH-Flu-pandemic-no-reason-to-panic-A(H1N1)-mild-compared-to-other-viruses.
Paragraph number five:
“ | On Friday, Nueva Ecija provincial health officer Dr. Benjamin Lopez reported that 11 students from Hilera Elementary School in Jaen town have tested positive for the virus. The figure is not included in the 92 cases previously reported by DOH on Thursday. | ” |
I will just add a parenthesis under that, since the additional 11 (RP has originally 92 cases by June 11) has confirmed by Provincial health office, but isn't the official one given by Department of Health thru news and press conferences.-- The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Please update the table and the information it contains, because since june 14th Great-Brittain has 1 confirmed death ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5535075/First-UK-swine-flu-death-confirmed-in-Scotland.html).
One person has now died in the UK from the virus, here:
[14]-- 86.25.54.17 ( talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The victim was an ex-pat living in Italy [ [15]].-- 86.25.54.17 ( talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should increase the limit of the number of cases in a country that defines wheather the country is listened in the first table or not. How about 200 or even 500 cases? -- FGö 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The Croatian case has been falsified later, see: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/16/content_11550306.htm | FHessel ( talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The totals on this template do not appear to be automatic sums of the individual numbers. Is this the case? Currently the total number of cases is 113 less than the sum of the numbers. This appears to be because the number for Thailand was increased by 113 but not the total. Hullexile ( talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
swine flu cases in israel go up to 152 [16] (in hebrew) ATIAS ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, the table separation seems weird. There are only three countries with over 500 cases and no deaths. I propose a simpler separation between countries with confirmed deaths and countries with no confirmed deaths. Currently, the only difference would be that Thailand, Japan and Spain would be hidden by default, which seems to be a fair trade-off for the simpler table. Pmbarros ( talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Done |→
Spaully
τ 16:39, 23 June 2009 (
GMT)
3rd reported death [18] - cyclosarin ( talk) 04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Done -
Xavier Fung (
talk)
04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
How shall we treat the first Australian death? According to recent news [19], the Australian health officials contradict the statement that the man from Western Australia has died of the flu. Allegedly he has had the flu, but "predominant factors leading to his death were his other health issues". Furthermore they say, that no autopsy has been performed. Shall we still count the case or not? FHessel ( talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
24 june - 3 more cases. All 5 cases, not 8-- Daniel sf ( talk) 09:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Some U.S. authorities have stopped testing all but seriously ill patients,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi]-ap-il-swineflu-illinois,0,3135647.story |title=A look at Illinois swine flu cases |date=2009-05-11 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=Chicago Tribune |accessdate=2009-05-13}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed. |- style="font-size:85%; text-align:left; line-height:1.2" |AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF NATIONS ARE EITHER LABORATORY TESTING FEWER CASES AND/OR REPORTING FEWER OF THEM, THIS NOTE SEEMS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY <sup>##</sup> The Victorian Department of Human Services have decided to only test for swine flu if serious,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.theage.com.au/ http://www.theage.com.au]/national/widespread-testing-of-swine-flu-dropped-as-cases-soar-20090603-bvm0.html |title=Widespread testing of swine flu dropped as cases soar |date=2009-06-04 |agency=The Age |publisher=The Age |accessdate=2009-06-04}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed On June 16, 2009, New York City health department estimated 500,000 in the city infected.<ref> {{cite web |url=[http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009 http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009]-06-16_city_reports_another_7_deaths_due_to_swine_flu_another_died_in_long_island.html |title=City reports another 7 deaths due to swine flu; raises total dead to 23 |publisher=New York Daily News |date=2009-06-16 |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On May 15, 2009, the CDC's Jan Jernigan estimated that there were "probably upwards of maybe 100,000" cases in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090515.htm |title=CDC Telebriefing on Investigation of Human Cases of H1N1 Flu May 15, 2009 |date=2009-05-15 |publisher=U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |accessdate=2009-05-21}}</ref> <div id="template-underestimate-note"><sup>†</sup> On May 29, 2009, Dr. Gregory Poland, director of Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, said that these numbers are probably a "gross underestimate," because many countries don't test and those that do miss many people with the virus.<ref>{{cite web |url=[http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752]/ |title=Vaccine research expert discusses the swine flu in Grand Forks |date=2009-05-29 |publisher=Grand Forks Herald |accessdate=2009-05-30}}</ref>
Cleaned up the "disclaimer" section at the bottom of the table. All of this was commented out so have removed it to here in case it is needed in the future. |→ Spaully τ 19:17, 26 June 2009 ( GMT)
NEW UPDATE REQUESTS:
There are still no cases in Croatia. Someone has been repeatedly listing Croatia, without a shred of evidence. ECDC does not report it. Please read the discussion page! Croatia should not be listed yet! Remove it!
Please update the table and the info, because since june 18 2009, there are 8 cases confirmed in Morocco: http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/box2/eight_cases_of_a_h1n/view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.202.37 ( talk) 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Egypt reports 40th A/H1N1 case
Xinhua
Cyprus confirms three A/H1N1 flu cases in British tourists Xinhua
77.182.156.27 ( talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tunisia reports first cases of H1N1 flu Reuters 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
spain +15 http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/5/20090622/tes-un-total-de-15-nuevos-casos-confirma-c5455be.html 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Peru - Swine Flu - 225 Cases 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Second UK death reported (unconfirmed) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8122910.stm -- GroundhogUK ( talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Colombia has now 101 comfirmed cases http://www.eltiempo.com/vidadehoy/salud/nuevagripa/confirman-8-nuevos-casos-de-gripa-a-h1n1-ya-son-101-los-afectados-en-colombia-_5573121-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeafcr ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others [ [20]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [ [21]] / [ [22]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [ [23]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A SCOTS BLOKE HASD JUST DEID IN PAISLEY!!!-- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Croatia is flu free [ [24]]!-- 86.25.4.169 ( talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, yes it has [ [25]]! -- 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
See this to- [ [26]]-- 86.25.1.16 ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [27]! -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [28]/ [29]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated.
-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [30]/ [31]/ [32]/ [33]-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
13 Taffys now have swine flue [34].-- 86.25.12.173 ( talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Scots bloke has now died of it [35]! -- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage. http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A Geordie is ill [ [36]] / [ [37]] and a Londoner dies [ [38]]. A help line and advice [ [39]] / [ [40]] / [ [41]] / [ [42]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A Aborigine guy is dead now [ [43]]! -- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The Inuit are riddled with it [ [44]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bhutan is still flu free [ [45]] and Tonga prepares for the worst [ [46]]-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) !
Croatia has now got it [ [47]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sudan has 3 cases now [ [48]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [ [49]] / [ [50]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palestine has 30 victims [ Bank Gaza Strip]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel has 577 victims [ [51]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Aruba has 3 cases [ [52]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [ Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [ [53]]. Martinique has 2 victims [ [54]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The source for the current count for this country includes 5 in Aruba, Aruba is also listed, with 13 cases. if NLA which includes Aruba is listed, is it right to have Aruba too? (the source for NLA (WHO)refers to NLA (with 20 cases) including Aruba (5 cases), the source for Aruba (ECDC) has NLA (with 16 cases) excluding Aruba (with 13 cases). PAHO [42] has the best info atm. Also, Martinique is not part of NLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.227.49 ( talk) 05:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [ [55]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia has 1 case [ and Hezegovina]. -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
PNG has 1 infected person [ New Guinea]. -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has 18 ill [ Rico]! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The US virgin Is has 1 case [ Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [ Virgin Islands]! [ Islands] The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [ Polynesia]!
Panama has 417 infected people [ [56]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
245 Guatemalans are ill [ [57]] and 2 are dead [ [58]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
California has 1985 [ [59]] victims and 21 dead [ [60]]! Iowa has 92 sick [ [61]] , but luckily no [ [62]] dead!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Syria has just announced the first confirmed case in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.219.101 ( talk) 12:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I love this page of yours (and many others). Congratulations! Once, you put one confirmed Croatian case, and removed it. No such flu case in Croatia yet, not confirmed. This time, it's been there for a day or two... No Croatian TV reported it, and it's not even mentioned in your ECDC reference (#2). Keep your information accurate. Congratulations again! Julian (julian@thenetthing.com) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.20 ( talk)
Croatia is flu free [ [63]]!-- 86.25.4.169 ( talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes it has [ [64]]! - -- 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) See this to- [ [65]]-- 86.25.1.16 ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Oh yes it has" is no argument, and the sources listed by you are highly unreliable. As of June 27, there are no cases in Croatia, and the reference on the page does not mention it. I can explain why your source is wrong, I can also tell you that an infected person passed through Croatia, or that one survivor of the flu came to Croatia from Chile, but it's all irrelevant. What's relevant is that somebody put Croatia on the list, twice, giving the false reference. Julian ( talk) 05:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) The CBC is usually a reliable source. 70.83.220.148 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, CBC is reliable, so is ECBC, but they never mentioned Croatia, and somebody referenced them as source even if they weren't. Hence, that was a case of deliberate misinformation. Julian ( talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Croatia has now got it [ [66]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [67]! - -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [68]/ [69]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated. -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Another case in NZ [ [70]]! - No Maoris have fallen ill or died so far- only Anglos and Polynesians appear to get it! - 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.8.152 ( talk) Chime?!-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
1 person may have it [71]! -- 86.25.15.120 ( talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the former Yugoslavia, only Kosovo and Croatia (?) have 0 cases so far-- 86.25.15.120 ( talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13 Taffys now have swine flue [72].-- 86.25.12.173 ( talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Scots bloke has now died of it [73]! - -- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Brummie is now dead of it [74]-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A girl is dead [75]-- 86.25.4.217 ( talk) 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For one thing 18,000 people haven't died of this flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.11.3 ( talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) -
World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others - [ [76]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [ [77]] / - [ [78]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [ [79]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Three die in New Zealand. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/04/2616871.htm Lachy123 ( talk) 07:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC). The fourth occurred today, if someone wants to add it. ross nixon 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
A Geordie is ill [ [80]] / [ [81]] and a Londoner dies - [ [82]]. A help line and advice - [ [83]] / [ [84]] / - [ [85]] / [ [86]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A Aborigine guy is dead now [ [87]]! - -- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The Inuit are riddled with it [ [88]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bhutan is still flu free [ [89]]-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Tonga prepares for the worst [ [90]]-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - !
Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [91]/ [92]/ [93]/ [94]-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Sudan has 3 cases now [ [95]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [ [96]] / [ [97]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palestine has 30 victims [ Bank Gaza Strip]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel has 577 victims [ [98]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Aruba has 3 cases [ [99]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [ Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [ [100]]. Martinique has 2 victims [ [101]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [ [102]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia has 1 case [ and Hezegovina]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
PNG has 1 infected person [ New Guinea]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has 18 ill [ Rico]! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The US virgin Is has 1 case [ Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [ Virgin Islands]! The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [ Polynesia]!
Panama has 417 infected people [ [103]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
245 Guatemalans are ill [ [104]] and 2 are dead [ [105]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
California has 1985 [ [106]] victims and 21 dead [ [107]]! Iowa has 92 sick [ [108]] , but luckily no [ [109]] dead!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage. http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
NZ and the tine atoll of Niue are screening people that fly between the 2 nations on the once weekly flight [ [110]]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is my awesome new source [ [111]]!!! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The were no cases [ [112]]!-- 86.25.6.93 ( talk) 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Please notice, that there is a discussion about deleting the table from the main page. | FHessel ( talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There are just over 2,000 confirmed cases acording to the BBC [113]!!!-- 86.25.12.86 ( talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
O.K. [114].-- 86.25.8.20 ( talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [115], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.
I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [116], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.
I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Experts guess there are 1000000 cases in te U.S. Then shouldn't we list 100000 suspected cases for the U.S? Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of countries are not reporting cases or are only testing severe patients. I'm pretty sure the U.S has more cases than the ones reported. I'm pretty sure that Australia's cases are more than the ones reported. With Canada,U.K and so on are also not testing all ill patients. In the future, more and more countries will test all patients. We must change are strategies in counting. So we could use estamates of the number of U.S cases. We could say it's a estimate by using brackets. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
More and more countries are using estamates. We can use brackets like we do for suspected deaths. Now Argentina is using estimates. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The ministry of Health confirmed the 100.000 cases its on every single newspaper and tv station —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.215.124 ( talk) 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000+ cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.210.16.61 ( talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Should show only LABORATORY CONFIRMED cases for Argentina. Not estimated cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.35.49 ( talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's right, but I think we can put it somewhere in the article, of course not in the table, but like a marginal data, soon to be confirmed, and that because the media coverage of the 100,000 swine Argetinians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.19.65 ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000 sick in a nation of 40 million? China only has 2,000 sick in a land of 1.1 billion!-- 86.25.14.16 ( talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Argentina has only had 26 dead and 1,500 sick [117]! - -- 86.25.6.241 ( talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) -
If someone thinks this is worthy of including: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1145616&pid=6781545&toi=6256 The link is in spanish and mentions that the virus might have suffered a mutation and that's the cause for the sharp rise in deaths in Argentina - (42 in 15 days). This is mentioned in the 4th paragraph: Pero hay un dato que tiene preocupados a los epidemiólogos respecto de la evolución de la gripe A: el virus habría sufrido variaciones o mutaciones en la Argentina y ésa sería la causa de un mayor número de cuadros médicos "entre moderados y graves", que provocaron muertes fulminantes de personas sanas e internaciones prolongadas. "But there's something that makes epidemiologists concerned about the evolution of the flu: the virus would suffered mutations or variations in Argentina, and that's the cause for a greater number of moderate or worse cases, that provoke fulminating deaths in healthy people and prolonged hospitalizations" - and sixth: Las posibles variaciones del virus que se estudian en el Instituto Malbrán comenzaron a notarse en las últimas dos semanas y es uno de los factores más temidos por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). La mutación explicaría que el número de fallecimientos supere al registrado en países vecinos también afectados, como Chile, donde murieron 14 pacientes. "Possible mutations of the virus that are being studied in the Malbrán Institute started being noticed in the last too weeks and is one of the most feared possibilities by the WHO. It would explain the number of deaths being greater than in neighbor contries such as Chile, where 14 people have died" It is just mentioned, there is no confirmation, but I think it's worth noting, and keeping an eye on for future developments. 190.17.193.5 ( talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) -
OK-- 86.25.11.150 ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many news coverage for the potential mutation of the virus, Denmark, then Japan, India and Hong Kong. It's quiet normal for virus to mutate and we hope for the best that it may not mutate to a more virulent form. But as long as this page is for discussion of various figures, it may be more suitable to raise this in the main article to see if it is trustworthy to mention. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Argentinian government just needs a cover up for the fact, that they have been grossly negligent with the pandemic, just not to put their elections at risk. So they woud use every justification, as far-fetched as it may be. | FHessel ( talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, there can be a country with dozens of cases reported a month ago. There may have been people who died of the disease (it's all hypothetical), but nobody is ill there at the moment. The illness could be history there (hopefully). Anyway, we do hope that this flu will be contained eventually (normal people should). It would be good to think how to report that, too (instead of going to report it in thousands of cases). There already are countries with no virulent people (listed as countries with cases). At the time we just report how the disease is spreading (like nobody survived it), but most of the reported cases are no longer ill. They are immune too. In some countries with number of cases listed, nobody died, and nobody has the disease any more. It would be nice to have the information about how many people are actually ill at the time, how this flu is spreading, and dying out. Let's try to be positive, and informative! Julian ( talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Trust ones like this one- [118]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.2.113 ( talk) 10:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
mh, its not yet official. 24.132.171.225 ( talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
People should move countries once they update the number of cases, as it is now the numbers are not sorted in the right way.-- Avala ( talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It is noticed that the changelog for the recent changes include offensive languages from our IP users. It is understandable that the condition in Argentina now is somehow chaotic, and there are conflicting reports which may not show the same figures as of the official bulletin released a few days ago. Please stay cool and do not get emotional when you think that the figures are not correct. Always discuss first and make a compromise before going with your change. If you know more in the Argentina matter, please provide as many sources as possible so that we can get the figures changed. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A US sailor has fallen ill and possibly even died [ [119]] on a aid trip from US Samoa to Tonga, Kiribati and the Marshal Islands! The Yank either got it of a sick native or did the Seppo really bring it to the territory and cause Samoa's out break? -- 86.25.12.184 ( talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
51 ill [120]. -- 86.25.11.252 ( talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10 ill [121]-- 86.25.4.192 ( talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we list the number of severe cases as well. That would be good. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't think the imformation is "sparse" Now Australia are reporting severe cases. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen specific reports on hospitalization figures for certain US states and was going to include then in specific sub-sections of the US article, but I had some sort of computer program, and do not think I ever actually did such. One would have to watch to see if the reports are of cumulative hospitalizations or just current. Also, another question to ask before incorporating this data, especially in any sort of chart, is this: is the data reflecting the number of cases that were so severe the person had to be sent to the hospital or does it also include people who went to the hospital due to over-anxiety about the disease or the fact that you are guaranteed treatment or some other factor and did not really need to do so. Also, if a country has its hospitals overwhelmed due to a high amount of flu cases, will this mean that the rules for hospitalization will change. No figure is perfectly comparable, but before we put it in a chart we need to make sure there is at least semblance of uniformity in what the figure is, and at least know what the figures we are reporting actually are. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Argentina will no longer update their reports (it is said they only do that at the beginning to know what they are treating). Latest estimations given by authorities put infections at around 10,000 only in the Capital Federal district, with 44 confirmed deaths and 55 waiting confirmation (it is not clear if that means 11 on top of the 44 confirmed or another 55 deaths, I am guessing it is the former). -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess the 83 we've got today is another example of what NOT to do ( WP:SYN Clarin states 72, but misses this, this and this), though I would trust the figure myself. 201.252.88.102 ( talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the table says confirmed cases, and we have a notice on the article that this is a current pandemic with rapid change, people will accept that in cases where deaths have gone above some level (10 or 50 are the two cut offs I would assume) the numbers may start lagging behind what has actually occured. Stick with clearly indicated numbers even if that means we ignore some suspected deaths or report a nation-wide figure that is a few days old because all regional figures have not been correlated. Further details can be put in the Argentina article, where all the complexed factors of why the reported figures may be lower than the actual figures can be discussed. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN does not necessarily forbid to add up numbers, only if it is not agreed between the authors that it is correct to do so. In this case I originally added a footnote to caution about the 72. I thought the case to be borderline, because it takes some deduction, to be able to add up the numbers regarding Buenos Aires province. Sombody else took the footnote, supplied some more additional cases and put all together in the table. I agree, that this number does not confirm with wikipedia policies.
Coming back to an adequate statement I would not necessarily reduce it to the 72. We have another case in the US, where the authorities have not given a summation for a long time, CDC is lagging behind up to a week (or even more) and the only way to provide sensible information is to add up ourselves. Mind you, exponential growth means, that lagging a few days may cause a 100% discrepancy between the numbers.
In the Argentinian case I propose, that it is ok to summarize case subtotals from different provinces, which we have got from different sources.
Boldly I change it that way. |
FHessel (
talk)
08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article? So far, it has only been reported in a patient in Denmark. It looks like tamiflu is still effective everywhere else, but this new resistant strain could propagate. Excerpt: «Roche Holding AG confirmed a patient with H1N1 influenza in Denmark showed resistance to the antiviral drug. David Reddy, company executive, said it was not unexpected given that common seasonal flu could do the same. [ [122]] I think it is well worth mentioning!It is a single isolated case that already mentioned in the "Timeline" article. If it is worth mentioning in the Timeline article, then maybe it should be mentioned here. Reoprts are also saying about the resistance of tamiflu in Argentina, but it seems that it also happening in Denmark, here is the article saying that the virus has gained some resistance to Tamiflu and elderly people are getting infected as much as young people too. Is in Spanish, sorry [123]. -- 86.25.11.150 ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It is now happening to a guy in Hong Kong.-- 86.25.12.184 ( talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [124] from Singapore MoH, it would no longer produce daily case numbers as WHO informed each country not to report, and claimed that it is no longer useful for management of the disease. Furthermore, it says WHO will stop compiling the case table.
In view of this I think we should start a discussion on how this table to be maintained. Would it be reduced to death cases only? Or we can mark those countries not reporting and add a note to tell readers? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In any case we should start to collect the data on hospitalisations / ICU asap. As it looks now, this could replace the case count in countries, where the pandemic has become endemic. Is there a way to create a column, which will temporarily not be displayed on the main page in order to collect these data until we have covered a majority of countries? FHessel ( talk) 09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think should unite China, Hong Kong and Macau. 189.51.33.219 ( talk) 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Guam and Peuto Rico to the USA and Gernsey, Jersey and Mann to the UK.-- 86.25.12.113 ( talk) 12:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
So what if they are reported as seperate countries by WHO? Hong Kong and Macau is part of China! Taiwan should be included too. These places are not even countries and we are only reporting countries! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally WHO has published the revised
guideline. I think it is a must read for anybody, who wants to develop ideas about the future of this table.
WHO is describing three phases of pandemic evolution and the related reporting necessities: 1) early detection, 2) assessment of early cases, 3) continous monitoring.
Countries being in the first and second phase ("as long as it is feasible for them") are required to report case counts on a weekly basis. Countries in the third phase should at least report on influenza activity. That means reporting the following qualitative aspects with given values (compare Annex 4):
Furthermore countries are expected to report on deaths (p. 6)
Countries with established influenza surveillance systems should report on a weekly basis data on ILI and/or SARI
What does this mean for us? I think, we should keep up the death count in any case, it will be reported by WHO also in the future. Secondly the confirmed cases will be reported for countries in the first or second phase. Therefore it makes sense to display these numbers also in the future (for these countries the number of confirmed cases still gives a good picture of the current status). Countries in the third phase (e.g UK or Argentina) will not report confirmed cases any more, so we should stop as well to display these misleading numbers. But we should extend the table by one or more columns, in order to display the qualitative aspects (which? all of them?).
Unfortunately hospitalizations will not be available standardly in the furture. So my recent ideas about a table with hospitalization numbers seem to be doomed.
FHessel (
talk)
00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
What's going on here? We shouldn't be mixing estimates with flu surveilance figures. The justification for this table not being original research (as discussed above) depends on it being a (slightly advanced) version of the ECDC numbers and not just a collection of arbitrary numbers using differing methodology. Barnaby dawson ( talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As evidenced by today's updated UK figures, this table IS growing increasingly irrelevant and misleading. One of the four 'Key Points' in today's UK HPA update states "HPA estimates that there were 55,000 new cases of swine flu last week (range 30,000 - 85,000)." Those aren't wild-eyed speculative numbers; those are the scientifically-accurate numbers as gathered from GPs throughout the UK. Simply posting that there were somewhere around 1,000 or so laboratory-confirmed cases presents a thoroughly misleading picture. As has been stated before, many nations are still performing laboratory tests on each possible case, and reporting those numbers. But an increasing number of nations are *not* testing every case, and are instead reporting nothing--such as the Philippines--or they're reporting only laboratory-tested cases--such as Japan--or they're only releasing estimates based on statistical modeling and/or direct reports from regional health authorities, as the UK has started doing. The bottom line is, by every scientific measurement, between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000 people have been infected with A/H1N1 to-date; this table's conjecture that there are only 127,000+ is grossly wrong. I suggest adding columns to show the full picture, or deleting the table in its entirety. Sqlman ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The table is indeed very misleading. But including some estimated numbers in it and not others is much more misleading. We need a source for a table of estimated numbers if we want to provide estimated numbers in a table format. Furthermore the table title is "Laboratory-confirmed human cases by country" so placing estimated numbers in it is inaccurate without a footnote. Barnaby dawson ( talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the desire to communicate estimations of infection numbers, which differ a lot from the numbers we have in the table.
This table is not the right place for these numbers for several reasons:
1. It states in its header: Confirmed cases. Estimations are not confirmed but estimated.
2. The table shows a cumulative number, wheras e.g. the 60,000 for the UK is last week's increase.
3. When we start to fill in estimates for some countries we will be comparing apples with oranges, because the other countries, which are still reporting cases, might in fact have a much higher number of infections, too.
What about creating a new table solely for estimates? It should contain one column for the number and one column for the date of the estimate. If you want, you can copy and modify a draft table, which I have on my
talk page. |
FHessel (
talk)
19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago now I submitted this table for deletion as original research. The collation of data from many different countries and their presentation in a table requires a methodology. The argument given in favour of keeping the table was essentially that the WHO was collating these figures (hence it was the WHO that produced the methodology) and that our collation was essentially just a step ahead of the WHO figures. Hence the argument was that because the WHO chose this methodology it didn't constitute original research. Now, however the WHO has abandoned this methodology stating that it is becoming increasingly misleading as the pandemic proceeds and that traditional flu surveilance techniques should be used instead. I accept the earlier argument that this *was* not original research (although I still think the manner of our presentation of the data was misleading and POV). However, the argument (that it was not OR) is no longer valid as the WHO is no longer using this methodology. Collation of these figures now violates WP:OR.
One might argue that simply putting this data into a table is not a methodology (and hence not OR). But this is not the case. Presenting numbers from several data collection methods in the same table represents the methodological assumption that these data collection methods are comparable. Furthermore updating the table over time represents the methodological assumption that the data collection methods are comparable at different points in time.
Both of these are major and dubious assumptions in view of regional and temporal differences not only in the data collection protocols but also in the ability to conform to those protocols. To decide on the validity of these assumptions is a significant piece of original research.
Of course a research organisation might take the view that an imperfect methodology is justified for some particular purpose (flu surveilance rather than estimation for example) or in the absence of a better methodology. That is not for us at Wikipedia to decide, however. The WHO is in a better position to decide that and they have decided not to continue with their earlier methodology.
One might also take the view that this table should be included for public information/health reasons even if it does violate WP:OR. However, inaccurate or misleading data are often worse than no data. Public health authorities should make this call not wikipedia.
So I argue that we must find other ways to present this data that do not violate WP:OR or cease presenting the data at all. Perhaps there is some alternative source of data which we could use. Or perhaps we should present the information in a textual format (where comparisons between data are not implicit).
One option would be to freeze the data as of the last WHO report (and to make the time of this report part of its header). Barnaby dawson ( talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be disappointing, because we've put a lot of work into it. It doesn't seem to be in the main H1N1 article (or anywhere else?) anymore. ike9898 ( talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"Someone on their high horse". Hmmm.....I wonder who that was. Let's see, who has been consistently on these pages repeatedly calling for the deletion of the table for some time now? Who's been on a weeks-long one-man crusade to rid the world of the evil posed by our Original Research that actually consists of nothing more than simple addition? Who's already made large unilateral changes to this page without consulting others, then used borderline offensive language while threatening to invoke various Wikipedia rules to prevent anyone from undoing those changes? Who could this be?! Well, my mind's drawing a blank... :-\ Sqlman ( talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the above list.
The inaccuracy is that we lead people to believe you can compare the different country totals. We even sort by numbers that have different meaning to make the comparison easier. If you agree that the table presents an inaccuracy(s), then how do we correct this? Options include:
My preference is the last option. What do you think? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a little edit war going on. I'm in favor of separate tables for deaths and confirmed cases. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus was reached in the discussion page of the main article on 18 July 2009 Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Pandemic_table_compromise among all contributors there, that the confirmed cases figures need to be removed, and the death figures retained. I have done so. Please don't revert my edits without reaching consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be retained. At the moment there is 100% consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be removed, so you need to reverse that consensus before reverting my edits please. 81.102.157.87 ( talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
IF YOU LIKE A ONLY DEATH TABLE THAN MAKE YOUR OWN TABLE AND DONT DELETE OUR WORK. Any consens about this table must be make here and not on the discussion board of others articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.190.111 ( talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just great, so many dedicated users spent months on updating something so some IP user would come and click delete. Just great.-- Avala ( talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Would have been better just a protection against anonymous users since the little edit war was happening with this type of user. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Summary of consensus
People have presented well-reasoned arguments for both keeping and omitting the "confirmed cases" section of the table. The case for keeping them seems to be that the information is useful to our readers and that it has been published, so it is verifiable and we should not make any independent judgment about its accuracy ("Accuracy of the data would not be our concern"). The argument for removing the data seems to be that it has been described as inaccurate and incomplete by reliable sources, so despite it being verifiable, we should not present data that might mislead our readers (we are being "precise but misleading").
The balance of the arguments favors keeping the data. The concerns raised about misleading readers would probably be less of an issue if we can firstly find a way of showing within the table that a particular country has stopped counting cases and secondly add a column of estimated cases. There is clear support for adding such estimates. This would give readers a better idea on if the number of confirmed cases number is anywhere near the true number of cases. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Some folks feel that, given WHO's decision to stop counting confirmed cases except in certain countries and/or circumstances, the flu pandemic table should not show anything but confirmed deaths. Others feel listing confirmed cases along with deaths--and perhaps even, eventually, estimated cases per 100,000--has been and will continue to be very helpful to many. Still others feel that the table has become unwieldy, confusing, inconsistent in reported methodologies, and difficult to maintain, and should therefore be done away with entirely. This has led to a recent spate of edit warring and disputed deletions of all or parts of the table. Two questions must be asked: should the 2009 flu pandemic table still exist? And, if so, should it include anything besides countries with deaths? (Thanks, Tim.) Sqlman ( talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep! The comfirmed cases bar is very important! I also agree with the "estimates" column. I would feel very sad if the cases bar is deleted! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WHO is not reporting updates on cases any more. So how do we handle this?
I propose, that we create new columns as follows:
For countries, which are still in containment strategy and which are providing case counts, we should keep up recording this case counts, maybe including the date of the last update.
For countries, which are in mitigation strategy, and which are not reporting case counts any more, we should provide a column for hospitalizations, maybe also another column for ICU cases.
What do we do with countries, which are providing neither case counts nor hospitalization counts?
In any case we should keep up the death counts, because these should remain meaningful for the (near?) future.
Is there a way to create columns, which will temporarily not be shown on the main page, so that we can collect the contents, until we have a sufficient coverage?
FHessel (
talk)
09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
IMHO of course Seanwong ( talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have created a draft table on my talk page. Perhaps you would like to have a look? As far as I am convinced, the difficulty is, that we will not have identical data for all countries any more. So we have to provide several options in terms of which are the data we display. And some countries will publish these data, other countries other data. But perhaps this is a chance? This could give a much more differentiated picture as to where the single country is on its epidemic path. And I do hope, that in the variety of data there will be many factors to make countries comparable. | FHessel ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What about estimated cases. that would help reflect the real situation. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea! i'd certainlly support this although the width is probably a bit too long. Also, i don't think hospitalized cases should be reported. As for some countries, all cases are hospitilized. For example, China. We could also include "current nomber of H1n1 cases" in the table. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What about having two tables. The first on as a simple table (the one we're using now) and the second as the more detailed table. The detailed table can be at the bottom of the page while the simple one can remain at the top. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
WHO had published recently a guidance document for the reporting of qualitative indicators. Now PAHO has published a first overview according to these standards. It is pretty sure, that others (e.g. ECDC, perhaps WHO itself) will follow. Therefore I included a new column in the table, named 'Indicators'.
The header and the footnotes still need to be adapted. Plus some more countries added, I just took the first couple of countries as example.
FHessel (
talk)
13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
<- @Thenthornthing: It was 12 days ago, that I put a 'literature recommendation' on Talk:2009 flu pandemic. Everybody had the chance to get acquainted to the contents, which will be reported by the most affected countries in the future. Then I just acted
boldly. Yes, most of the entries are empty at the moment, because I did not have the time to fill in more, but: the rest of them will be filled very soon, PAHO has published many more and ECDC also has published data for the European countries.
But I think the most important point is: now there is a supplement to those case numbers, which have been challenged most in the recent past. Now we can embrace the numbers in a bigger picture, so that they are not misleading anymore. And if countries do not report cases any longer it would be best to freeze the last reported number and add 'NLU' similiarly to the US.
These qualitative data will be the only data we will get regularly for all over the world. Estimations are nice, but they are made for this country or that country once in a while, nothing to compile a table from.
And, just to make the point: This new column is not replacing the case counts, because the case counts are still valid and important for all countries, which are in the early phase. Removing the column would clearly bias the POV towards the most affected countries and is thus violating NPOV. |
FHessel (
talk)
18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As the "casual reader" who checks this table once in a while to look at cases/deaths, I think the new column adds more clutter and confuses people. Heck, I don't understand what it's for. It'd be more helpful if you used words instead of symbols, since scrolling down to see what symbols mean is dang annoying. 85.96.36.221 ( talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this extremmely confusing! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
First I support the addition of this column if enough real estimate are available (which is debatable). However, it can't be unsourced like it is now. It looks like it was added by a single editor who probably made up most of the numbers. Numbers that aren't sourced soon we be eliminated. Thank you, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This page 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. |
Suspected Cases, Probable Cases, and Unconfirmed Deaths are not verifiable information. They are based on hearsay, original research, and unpublished information (even though they might be mentioned in a popular press posting to a website). Only confirmed cases and confirmed deaths should be included in this table. Flipper9 ( talk) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the main article content table is corrupted and mixed with contents from this outbreak table. -
Xavier Fung (
talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Now it's back to normal. -
Xavier Fung (
talk)
19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No real agreement was reached on my earlier concerns about New Zealand's numbers and this is still causing problems. Someone else recently pointed out the MOH site (which I for some reason never looked at before) and I notice how they do it is confirmed, probable and suspected [1]. I've now also noticed our table does have probable albeit as a subset of the suspected. Given that probable and confirmed are both WHO terms with appropriate definitions, it would be good IMHO if we could fill out the table with both probable and confirmed numbers and make probable in to it's own heading. This may avoid further confusion Nil Einne ( talk) 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we include Pakistan in countries with suspected cases? From this article three Pakistan nationals became sick with swine flu in Mexico and were flown to Pakistan. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/30-Apr-2009/Swine-flu-lands-in-Pakistan-tomorrow
Hdstubbs ( talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found this [2] and this [3] provide a reference [4] that there is a "confirmed" case in Ireland. However, my search shows this news [5] saying that the case is "probable" and further testing would be done in UK and Ireland. I think this is a probable rather than a confirmed case provided that the latter reference has more explanation.- Xavier Fung ( talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Four suspected cases in Belize http://www.reporter.bz/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3508&Itemid=2 and here http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=13884&frmsrch=1
Hdstubbs ( talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Peru has no confirmed cases of the swine flu. The case alluded in the template is that of an Argentinian woman who landed on the country to be checked. She was traveling from Mexico to her country, Argentina, stopping briefly through Panama. When in Peru, she was diagnosed with the infection, and after being sure she was stable she was sent to her original destination. She is not currently in Peru, nor is she a Peruvian citizen or resident. The only reason for her staying in the country was that the captain of the plane decided to make an emergency landing to have her checked. Even though she was diagnosed in Peru, it isn't fair to say it's a Peruvian case, therefore I want to ask someone to please change that number in Peru's confirmed cases.
I apologize if I'm doing anything wrong here, this is the first time I contribute to a discussion page in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.153.62 ( talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the same reasoning to keep one death under the USA. The baby wasn't American, didn't live in America, but he dies in American soil; so, he died in the USA, and the USA registered one death. This woman is not Peruvian, doesn't live in Peru, but the case was confirmed in Peru; so, there is one confirmed case in Peru. The nationality of the person doesn't matter; the point is the spreading of the virus, and so far it did get to Peru. Pmbarros ( talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been confirmed that the argentinian woman does not have the swine flu. I'm sorry but this link is in spanish
http://www.peru.com/noticias/sgc/portada/2009/04/30/detalle32225.aspx
Paranoidhuman ( talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Two more suspects, however the article also mentions "other suspects", which may lead one to believe these accumulate to the 3 already mentioned in our table, and not replace it (as the user who edited this article intended). -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As of 04:42 30 April 2009, Guatemala had one suspected death (per this ref). Could we get a ref saying that this death was not swine flu, to back up the "0" that is currently in the table? If the current "suspected cases" ref says this, it should be inline after the "0" as well as after the suspected cases #. - M.Nelson ( talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Unless we have a reference that tells this death is not due to swine flu, we must add it to the article. And so far we don't have such a reference. Gnaaye ( talk) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The report is about the first case which is prooved to be negative. There are no suspected cases in Russia at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.223.81 ( talk) 07:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The table has this "Last Update: 06:00, whatever" stuff on it, which is useful. However, when the table is included at 2009 swine flu outbreak and 2009 swine flu outbreak by country, it lists the last update of that page, rather than the last update of the table. Can this be fixed? - M.Nelson ( talk) 06:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
With apologies, I deleted this newly added column. I don't see it as particularly useful or easy to define and it made the table considerably wider. Let's try to keep this table as compact as possible. Thank you -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently the table is huge.
I propose to collapse the countries which have no confirmed cases yet, something like this, but with better formatting for the collapsed section:
Country | Laboratory confirmed cases | Suspected‡ cases | Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | 271 | 2,595+ | 152 (20) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mexico | 172 [1] | 1,995 [1] | 152 (20) [2] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
US | 64 [3] | 255+ [note 1] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canada | 13 [4] | 19 [note 2] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Zealand | 11 [2] | 43 [2] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UK | 2 [5] | 40 [note 3] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spain | 2 [6] | 29 [note 4] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Israel | 2 [7] | 2 [8] | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Costa Rica | 2 [9] | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‡ Not all cases have been confirmed as being due to this strain. Possible cases are cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) that have not been confirmed through testing to be due to this strain. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What does everyone think? Ikip ( talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand the motivation for collapsing the unconfirmed cases, but note that automatic readers (for the blind) are supposed to have problems with hidden/collapsed text. So it may be better to keep the table as is, for better accessibility. See MOS:SCROLL. Abecedare ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
the table is getting rather unweildy IMO now, over 2/3 of the countries listed have no confirmed cases, did anyone get a good means of doing this worked out? the one here looks OK to me (even w/ repeating headers) but would need to updated with current data Default.XBE ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is time to collapse. The goal of it is to show how the flu is spreading but we now have confirmed cases in almost every continent and there is new information that both Argentina and Ecuador have possible cases. IMO it is getting really unwieldy. If someone really wants to know the case list of every country they can click on the box. Hdstubbs ( talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Country | Cases | Deaths | |
---|---|---|---|
Laboratory confirmed |
Suspected ‡ (probable [30]) | Confirmed (suspected ‡) | |
Totals | 251 | 3,700+ | 9 (177) |
Mexico | 99 [31] | 2,498 [32] | 8 (176) [33] |
United States | 93 [34] [35] | 654+ [36] | 1 [34] |
New Zealand | 3 [37] | 111(13) [37] [38] | 0 |
Guatemala | 0 | 3 [39] | 0 (1) [40] |
El Salvador | 0 | 3 [41] | 0 |
Number of countries with confirmed or suspected cases = 40.
‡ Suspected cases have not been confirmed as being due to this strain of influenza by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out. | |||
Included an excerpt of the current table to show the issues with the current table.
There has been much discussion on the correct layout, number of columns and headers for the columns. I'll list the issues I think there are with the current layout:
It's not clear what would be best. I think the probable cases should be removed as it tries to do too much - we can't tell how many sources follow WHO classification and it looks like we are suggesting all the others are only "suspected" as per WHO when they could actually be probable but not reported as such.
Long term it is likely the layout will need to change completely as figures become clearer and I imagine we will take WHO figures then. Any suggestions? It would be good to get some major editors to decide on a common format and then keep it that way subject to further discussion. |→ Spaully₪ † 11:47, 30 April 2009 ( GMT)
I think a "hospitalized" column would be helpful so the impact/severity of the disease can be seen 65.3.255.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
If a suspected case is proven to be negative do we remove them from the table completely?-- Avala ( talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think so. Otherwise the table is a little misleading. Someone just glancing at it would think there are more relevant cases than there actually are. 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Any suspected case that is negative should be removed. However it's not wise to individualy remove cases by subtraction because you read one is negative this is OR and would easily lead to confusion an inaccurate information, wait for updated totals (if the article which says one is negative doesn't have them). If you mean a country with only one suspected case (and no confirmed or probable or deaths) then yes you remove the whole country (provided there aren't more) Nil Einne ( talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the title to "Current cases" to clarify that the figures are a snapshot, not a cumulative total over time. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about Croatia. There was one suspected case but proved negative.-- Avala ( talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There really is no need to change the title. I mean it is pretty clear that once a case is proven negative it is no longer a suspect case. It would be complete counter-intuitive to think "suspected cases" incldues all cases that once were suspect, but have since been proven either positive (and moved to confirmed) or negative. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We have 8 suspect cases in Chile tells the "Ministerio de Salud de Chile (MINSAL)" (Health Minister of Chile), the source of the information is in http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355563 and translated to english is here: http://74.125.91.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp%3Fidnoticia%3D355563&usg=ALkJrhglJaIeSr79lUmMO0-NB6kkxlWL6w -- Satanux ( talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More sorce http://tele13.beta.canal13.cl/noticias/nacional/2612.htm Blopa64 ( talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
We have now 24 suspected cases http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355701 Blopa64 ( talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As of May 1, there are 4 suspected cases still under examination in Chile. http://latercera.com/contenido/680_124057_9.shtml http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=356191
I'm afraid of screwing up the formatting on the table, but it would be great if someone could make the change. Thanks! Avocadrix ( talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, can anyone add another case to Fiji, it says 1 but now there are two. http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=30040982b23b41b0558dd72dbc9fb5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.121.39 ( talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we up the additional numbers for Mexico. Confirmed moved to 260. I tried to this several times and failed. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfYcVCw5PiKbk5yaX7JaF9NqhPygD97SVQV02 Hdstubbs ( talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone direct to where on wiki it tells me how to update references? I can update the url so that it goes to the right website but I can't change the reference at the bottom of the page. Is there some kind of trick to it? I keep trying to follow the examples on the page but then it just turns bright red. 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ministry of Health of the Dominican Republic has stated that NO cases of swine flu have been reported. The immigrant who was suspected having swine flu was tested, and the results were negative. Source: http://www3.diariolibre.com/noticias_det.php?id=197821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.105.35 ( talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Should Ireland count as a country that's infected? The article referenced said that it was "probable confirmed" yet the table shows it as probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.81.142 ( talk) 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The official annoucement of laboratory-confirmed case will be made on May 2, 2009. The lab-confirmed number on the case table should be corrected. -- Intershark ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Searching for a source, but it has just been announced on Sky News. Jozal ( talk) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE5403U820090501 - First confirmed H1N1 case in Hong Kong. -- haha169 ( talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 new suspected cases in Russia http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=77521 77.52.223.81 ( talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Minorellen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8028974.stm (Although the 11th just happened so might take a few min. before it is on a website) -- Simonr9999 ( talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh and there are 642 suspected cases -- Simonr9999 ( talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Denmark has one confirmed A H1N1 case as per http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-22072069.html?rss... he got it in New York. Please update the template. CallmeMads ( talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
[ [8]] start from there. Could someone add it to the table. Thanks. Block77129 ( talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I already sourced it that Germany has 5 cases, but someone reverted it to 4 according to the WHO figures. But it's wrong, 5 cases are definitely confirmed in Germany [9] [10]. The WHO figures are not up to date. -- Grochim ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to update France data :
-- 90.17.78.207 ( talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (Yes I Anonymous)
Per this Reuters article dated May 2nd:
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-39377920090502?sp=true
"MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - In a glint of good news for a world rattled by the threat of a flu pandemic, new laboratory data showed fewer people have died in Mexico than first thought from a deadly new influenza strain.
Mexico cut its suspected death toll from the new H1N1 swine flu to up to 101 from as many as 176 as dozens of test samples came back negative. Few patients are checking into hospitals fearing infection with a flu that has spread as far as Asia."
No update yet on suspected.
GaussianCopula ( talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the Mexican government has established a website dedicated to tracking the virus spread in Mexico.
Last update was May 2 at 9:15am Mexico local time.
If this info stays updated on a daily basis, I would suggest we use it to track the mexican data. Latest data is consistent with what we currently have. 443/16
http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/
GaussianCopula ( talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Revising Mexico figures per new government update:
473 confirmed, 19 deaths
Please update.
http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/
GaussianCopula ( talk) 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
New Zealand has had another confirmed case, bringing it from 3 to 4. Update to table would be nice.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/swine-flu/2376777/Fourth-swine-flu-case
XxTommehxx ( talk) 08:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Done Done by Hawthorn, within half an hour of this request. --
Avenue (
talk)
13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
They have confirmed 101 deaths down from the suspected 168. I updated the table but this link needs to be added. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=93306§ionid=351020705 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I just heard in the Mexican news that there are 22 (15 female and 7 male) confirmed deaths.Surely the figures will be updated on this web page as soon as possible: http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/-- 201.153.17.190 ( talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There are now 10 confirmed cases of H1N1 in France ( http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_A_h1n1_070509/index.html) and 5 probable cases (27 suspected cases) (same link).
For constant updated informations: http://www.invs.sante.fr/
If someone want to change the information in the table!
Thanks!
Philippines has 39 cases now.cite news|url= http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/08/09/h1n1-cases-rp-rise-39 -- The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Egypt's confirmed cases up to 3. Reuters A elalaily ( talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated the US death numbers based on citations found on [ [11]] Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table rather than clutter this article with all the citations found there. If this is not acceptable and I will do my best to rectify and include all the sources with which the sum is reached on that template. Der.Gray ( talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The chilean ministry of health reported on June 8 at 10 pm (local time) that there were only 2 confirmed deaths. There are some chinese articles about the third confirmed death, however it was only suspected, and later it was confirmed that it wasn't the swine flu the cause of death.
And where is a reference for that? The only related reference I can find is the Xinhua article, a source, which is usually credible and accurate. I restored the entry in the table, until a reference for the contrary will be presented. | FHessel ( talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure to the one given by the WHO. (The previously given figure (from the US source) included also probable cases, and is thus not really correct for this table.) I suggest that we stick to the WHO source (or other sources which really give the "Confirmed cases" number) for this figure from now on. (Note that most of the previous difference between our Total and WHO's Total for the confirmed cases resulted from the U.S. figure we used, so I assume that the US report the "correct" number to the WHO, even if they don't publish it themselves.) -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
To the case, when I wrote that the numbers were the same, I was just referring to the USA figures (ECDC compared to WHO). Pedromarx, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 ( talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have now used Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table as a source, as suggested by Daveonwiki. (I hope that the figures in that template are updated more often than the WHO data.)-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Today one can see, that the WHO numbers regarding the U.S. are confirmed+probable cases together, quite contrary to the statement in the header of their bulletin (WHO 2009-06-08: 13217 cases; Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table 02:16 UTC: probable 521, confirmed 12701, sum = 13217 cases) BTW, I would recommend to make that very clear in a footnote. Today I was wondering myself, why the WHO had a greater number than WP. It was only then, that I found out (by comparison with the US table), that the number here is confirmed cases only. I was assuming, that it is confirmed+probable, since the CDC had announced not to publish numbers on confirmed cases any more. | FHessel ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As we can see in the table now, the CDC reports more cases than the sum of each state ministries. The CDC figures also include Puerto Rico now. I think we can quote CDC numbers now, and if the states reported a higher number of cases after the release of CDC bulletin, we can use figure of the total reported cases for all states. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As I am unfamiliar with editing the main confirmed cases table, could someone please increase the totatl confirmed cases in Australia to 639.
Source: Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing. 222.154.97.72 ( talk) 07:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would it also be possible to make changes to the table on the main '2009 Swine Flu Outbreak' page, as no changes have currently been made on that table. 222.154.97.72 ( talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
== What happened to Nicaragua? ==
There was an entry two days ago (02.06.09 23:30 GMT) confirming one case in Nicaragua. What happened with that? I dont have the time to investigate that right now.
FHessel (
talk) 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
FHessel (
talk)
07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please could somebody update the number of confirmed New Zealand cases to 14.
Source: TVNZ News 222.154.96.9 ( talk) 07:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please could someone update the table to show that New Zealand now has 23 confirmed cases. NZ Ministry of Health 222.154.97.189 ( talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the references (especially Latin American ones) in the table use Google Translate to the original non-English article or news reports and claiming it as English (using language=English as the attribute value). It would be more favorable to quote it as of the language it presents, and mark with the correct language attribute. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This has been updated to 46 dated today but I am unable to access the page - [12] - "This page is not available in English."
Is this just me? |→ Spaully₪ † 20:11, 10 June 2009 ( GMT)
According to the WHO this is now a pandemic, not just an outbreak ( [13], no WHO source just yet) I suggest this template is moved to Template:2009 influenza pandemic table.
We need an admin to move it and there is no rush so it would be good to get a consensus before moving. The benefits of the name suggested are that it is unambiguous and avoids the debate over using "swine", "H1N1", etc. What do people think? |→ Spaully₪ † 15:50, 11 June 2009 ( GMT)
where can i edit the template now??? I have to update some new cases i've founded :( For example this: http://www.minuto59.com/en-venezuela/28-casos-de-gripe-a-confirmados-en-el-pais/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografisica ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Revert edits done by somebody expressing that the Philippines has 103 cases. His/her source even claimed that it was not included in the official list of DOH. See here. http://www.gmanews.tv/story/164799/DOH-Flu-pandemic-no-reason-to-panic-A(H1N1)-mild-compared-to-other-viruses.
Paragraph number five:
“ | On Friday, Nueva Ecija provincial health officer Dr. Benjamin Lopez reported that 11 students from Hilera Elementary School in Jaen town have tested positive for the virus. The figure is not included in the 92 cases previously reported by DOH on Thursday. | ” |
I will just add a parenthesis under that, since the additional 11 (RP has originally 92 cases by June 11) has confirmed by Provincial health office, but isn't the official one given by Department of Health thru news and press conferences.-- The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Please update the table and the information it contains, because since june 14th Great-Brittain has 1 confirmed death ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5535075/First-UK-swine-flu-death-confirmed-in-Scotland.html).
One person has now died in the UK from the virus, here:
[14]-- 86.25.54.17 ( talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The victim was an ex-pat living in Italy [ [15]].-- 86.25.54.17 ( talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should increase the limit of the number of cases in a country that defines wheather the country is listened in the first table or not. How about 200 or even 500 cases? -- FGö 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The Croatian case has been falsified later, see: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/16/content_11550306.htm | FHessel ( talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The totals on this template do not appear to be automatic sums of the individual numbers. Is this the case? Currently the total number of cases is 113 less than the sum of the numbers. This appears to be because the number for Thailand was increased by 113 but not the total. Hullexile ( talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
swine flu cases in israel go up to 152 [16] (in hebrew) ATIAS ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, the table separation seems weird. There are only three countries with over 500 cases and no deaths. I propose a simpler separation between countries with confirmed deaths and countries with no confirmed deaths. Currently, the only difference would be that Thailand, Japan and Spain would be hidden by default, which seems to be a fair trade-off for the simpler table. Pmbarros ( talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Done |→
Spaully
τ 16:39, 23 June 2009 (
GMT)
3rd reported death [18] - cyclosarin ( talk) 04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Done -
Xavier Fung (
talk)
04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
How shall we treat the first Australian death? According to recent news [19], the Australian health officials contradict the statement that the man from Western Australia has died of the flu. Allegedly he has had the flu, but "predominant factors leading to his death were his other health issues". Furthermore they say, that no autopsy has been performed. Shall we still count the case or not? FHessel ( talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
24 june - 3 more cases. All 5 cases, not 8-- Daniel sf ( talk) 09:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Some U.S. authorities have stopped testing all but seriously ill patients,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi]-ap-il-swineflu-illinois,0,3135647.story |title=A look at Illinois swine flu cases |date=2009-05-11 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=Chicago Tribune |accessdate=2009-05-13}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed. |- style="font-size:85%; text-align:left; line-height:1.2" |AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF NATIONS ARE EITHER LABORATORY TESTING FEWER CASES AND/OR REPORTING FEWER OF THEM, THIS NOTE SEEMS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY <sup>##</sup> The Victorian Department of Human Services have decided to only test for swine flu if serious,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.theage.com.au/ http://www.theage.com.au]/national/widespread-testing-of-swine-flu-dropped-as-cases-soar-20090603-bvm0.html |title=Widespread testing of swine flu dropped as cases soar |date=2009-06-04 |agency=The Age |publisher=The Age |accessdate=2009-06-04}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed On June 16, 2009, New York City health department estimated 500,000 in the city infected.<ref> {{cite web |url=[http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009 http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009]-06-16_city_reports_another_7_deaths_due_to_swine_flu_another_died_in_long_island.html |title=City reports another 7 deaths due to swine flu; raises total dead to 23 |publisher=New York Daily News |date=2009-06-16 |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On May 15, 2009, the CDC's Jan Jernigan estimated that there were "probably upwards of maybe 100,000" cases in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090515.htm |title=CDC Telebriefing on Investigation of Human Cases of H1N1 Flu May 15, 2009 |date=2009-05-15 |publisher=U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |accessdate=2009-05-21}}</ref> <div id="template-underestimate-note"><sup>†</sup> On May 29, 2009, Dr. Gregory Poland, director of Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, said that these numbers are probably a "gross underestimate," because many countries don't test and those that do miss many people with the virus.<ref>{{cite web |url=[http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752]/ |title=Vaccine research expert discusses the swine flu in Grand Forks |date=2009-05-29 |publisher=Grand Forks Herald |accessdate=2009-05-30}}</ref>
Cleaned up the "disclaimer" section at the bottom of the table. All of this was commented out so have removed it to here in case it is needed in the future. |→ Spaully τ 19:17, 26 June 2009 ( GMT)
NEW UPDATE REQUESTS:
There are still no cases in Croatia. Someone has been repeatedly listing Croatia, without a shred of evidence. ECDC does not report it. Please read the discussion page! Croatia should not be listed yet! Remove it!
Please update the table and the info, because since june 18 2009, there are 8 cases confirmed in Morocco: http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/box2/eight_cases_of_a_h1n/view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.202.37 ( talk) 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Egypt reports 40th A/H1N1 case
Xinhua
Cyprus confirms three A/H1N1 flu cases in British tourists Xinhua
77.182.156.27 ( talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Tunisia reports first cases of H1N1 flu Reuters 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
spain +15 http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/5/20090622/tes-un-total-de-15-nuevos-casos-confirma-c5455be.html 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Peru - Swine Flu - 225 Cases 77.182.156.27 ( talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Second UK death reported (unconfirmed) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8122910.stm -- GroundhogUK ( talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Colombia has now 101 comfirmed cases http://www.eltiempo.com/vidadehoy/salud/nuevagripa/confirman-8-nuevos-casos-de-gripa-a-h1n1-ya-son-101-los-afectados-en-colombia-_5573121-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeafcr ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others [ [20]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [ [21]] / [ [22]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [ [23]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A SCOTS BLOKE HASD JUST DEID IN PAISLEY!!!-- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Croatia is flu free [ [24]]!-- 86.25.4.169 ( talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, yes it has [ [25]]! -- 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
See this to- [ [26]]-- 86.25.1.16 ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [27]! -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [28]/ [29]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated.
-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [30]/ [31]/ [32]/ [33]-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
13 Taffys now have swine flue [34].-- 86.25.12.173 ( talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Scots bloke has now died of it [35]! -- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage. http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A Geordie is ill [ [36]] / [ [37]] and a Londoner dies [ [38]]. A help line and advice [ [39]] / [ [40]] / [ [41]] / [ [42]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A Aborigine guy is dead now [ [43]]! -- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The Inuit are riddled with it [ [44]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bhutan is still flu free [ [45]] and Tonga prepares for the worst [ [46]]-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) !
Croatia has now got it [ [47]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sudan has 3 cases now [ [48]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [ [49]] / [ [50]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palestine has 30 victims [ Bank Gaza Strip]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel has 577 victims [ [51]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Aruba has 3 cases [ [52]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [ Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [ [53]]. Martinique has 2 victims [ [54]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The source for the current count for this country includes 5 in Aruba, Aruba is also listed, with 13 cases. if NLA which includes Aruba is listed, is it right to have Aruba too? (the source for NLA (WHO)refers to NLA (with 20 cases) including Aruba (5 cases), the source for Aruba (ECDC) has NLA (with 16 cases) excluding Aruba (with 13 cases). PAHO [42] has the best info atm. Also, Martinique is not part of NLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.227.49 ( talk) 05:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [ [55]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia has 1 case [ and Hezegovina]. -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
PNG has 1 infected person [ New Guinea]. -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has 18 ill [ Rico]! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The US virgin Is has 1 case [ Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [ Virgin Islands]! [ Islands] The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [ Polynesia]!
Panama has 417 infected people [ [56]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
245 Guatemalans are ill [ [57]] and 2 are dead [ [58]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
California has 1985 [ [59]] victims and 21 dead [ [60]]! Iowa has 92 sick [ [61]] , but luckily no [ [62]] dead!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Syria has just announced the first confirmed case in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.219.101 ( talk) 12:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I love this page of yours (and many others). Congratulations! Once, you put one confirmed Croatian case, and removed it. No such flu case in Croatia yet, not confirmed. This time, it's been there for a day or two... No Croatian TV reported it, and it's not even mentioned in your ECDC reference (#2). Keep your information accurate. Congratulations again! Julian (julian@thenetthing.com) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.20 ( talk)
Croatia is flu free [ [63]]!-- 86.25.4.169 ( talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes it has [ [64]]! - -- 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) See this to- [ [65]]-- 86.25.1.16 ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Oh yes it has" is no argument, and the sources listed by you are highly unreliable. As of June 27, there are no cases in Croatia, and the reference on the page does not mention it. I can explain why your source is wrong, I can also tell you that an infected person passed through Croatia, or that one survivor of the flu came to Croatia from Chile, but it's all irrelevant. What's relevant is that somebody put Croatia on the list, twice, giving the false reference. Julian ( talk) 05:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) The CBC is usually a reliable source. 70.83.220.148 ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, CBC is reliable, so is ECBC, but they never mentioned Croatia, and somebody referenced them as source even if they weren't. Hence, that was a case of deliberate misinformation. Julian ( talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Croatia has now got it [ [66]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [67]! - -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [68]/ [69]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated. -- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Another case in NZ [ [70]]! - No Maoris have fallen ill or died so far- only Anglos and Polynesians appear to get it! - 86.25.0.22 ( talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.8.152 ( talk) Chime?!-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
1 person may have it [71]! -- 86.25.15.120 ( talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In the former Yugoslavia, only Kosovo and Croatia (?) have 0 cases so far-- 86.25.15.120 ( talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13 Taffys now have swine flue [72].-- 86.25.12.173 ( talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Scots bloke has now died of it [73]! - -- 86.25.12.235 ( talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
A Brummie is now dead of it [74]-- 86.25.8.152 ( talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A girl is dead [75]-- 86.25.4.217 ( talk) 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
For one thing 18,000 people haven't died of this flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.11.3 ( talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) -
World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others - [ [76]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [ [77]] / - [ [78]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [ [79]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Three die in New Zealand. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/04/2616871.htm Lachy123 ( talk) 07:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC). The fourth occurred today, if someone wants to add it. ross nixon 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
A Geordie is ill [ [80]] / [ [81]] and a Londoner dies - [ [82]]. A help line and advice - [ [83]] / [ [84]] / - [ [85]] / [ [86]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A Aborigine guy is dead now [ [87]]! - -- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The Inuit are riddled with it [ [88]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bhutan is still flu free [ [89]]-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Tonga prepares for the worst [ [90]]-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - !
Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [91]/ [92]/ [93]/ [94]-- 86.25.5.79 ( talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Sudan has 3 cases now [ [95]]!-- 86.25.10.98 ( talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [ [96]] / [ [97]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Palestine has 30 victims [ Bank Gaza Strip]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel has 577 victims [ [98]]!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Aruba has 3 cases [ [99]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [ Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [ [100]]. Martinique has 2 victims [ [101]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [ [102]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia has 1 case [ and Hezegovina]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
PNG has 1 infected person [ New Guinea]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Puerto Rico has 18 ill [ Rico]! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The US virgin Is has 1 case [ Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [ Virgin Islands]! The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [ Polynesia]!
Panama has 417 infected people [ [103]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
245 Guatemalans are ill [ [104]] and 2 are dead [ [105]].-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
California has 1985 [ [106]] victims and 21 dead [ [107]]! Iowa has 92 sick [ [108]] , but luckily no [ [109]] dead!-- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage. http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
NZ and the tine atoll of Niue are screening people that fly between the 2 nations on the once weekly flight [ [110]]. - -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is my awesome new source [ [111]]!!! -- 86.25.6.92 ( talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The were no cases [ [112]]!-- 86.25.6.93 ( talk) 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Please notice, that there is a discussion about deleting the table from the main page. | FHessel ( talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There are just over 2,000 confirmed cases acording to the BBC [113]!!!-- 86.25.12.86 ( talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
O.K. [114].-- 86.25.8.20 ( talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [115], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.
I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [116], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.
I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Experts guess there are 1000000 cases in te U.S. Then shouldn't we list 100000 suspected cases for the U.S? Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of countries are not reporting cases or are only testing severe patients. I'm pretty sure the U.S has more cases than the ones reported. I'm pretty sure that Australia's cases are more than the ones reported. With Canada,U.K and so on are also not testing all ill patients. In the future, more and more countries will test all patients. We must change are strategies in counting. So we could use estamates of the number of U.S cases. We could say it's a estimate by using brackets. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
More and more countries are using estamates. We can use brackets like we do for suspected deaths. Now Argentina is using estimates. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The ministry of Health confirmed the 100.000 cases its on every single newspaper and tv station —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.215.124 ( talk) 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000+ cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.210.16.61 ( talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Should show only LABORATORY CONFIRMED cases for Argentina. Not estimated cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.35.49 ( talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's right, but I think we can put it somewhere in the article, of course not in the table, but like a marginal data, soon to be confirmed, and that because the media coverage of the 100,000 swine Argetinians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.19.65 ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000 sick in a nation of 40 million? China only has 2,000 sick in a land of 1.1 billion!-- 86.25.14.16 ( talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Argentina has only had 26 dead and 1,500 sick [117]! - -- 86.25.6.241 ( talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) -
If someone thinks this is worthy of including: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1145616&pid=6781545&toi=6256 The link is in spanish and mentions that the virus might have suffered a mutation and that's the cause for the sharp rise in deaths in Argentina - (42 in 15 days). This is mentioned in the 4th paragraph: Pero hay un dato que tiene preocupados a los epidemiólogos respecto de la evolución de la gripe A: el virus habría sufrido variaciones o mutaciones en la Argentina y ésa sería la causa de un mayor número de cuadros médicos "entre moderados y graves", que provocaron muertes fulminantes de personas sanas e internaciones prolongadas. "But there's something that makes epidemiologists concerned about the evolution of the flu: the virus would suffered mutations or variations in Argentina, and that's the cause for a greater number of moderate or worse cases, that provoke fulminating deaths in healthy people and prolonged hospitalizations" - and sixth: Las posibles variaciones del virus que se estudian en el Instituto Malbrán comenzaron a notarse en las últimas dos semanas y es uno de los factores más temidos por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). La mutación explicaría que el número de fallecimientos supere al registrado en países vecinos también afectados, como Chile, donde murieron 14 pacientes. "Possible mutations of the virus that are being studied in the Malbrán Institute started being noticed in the last too weeks and is one of the most feared possibilities by the WHO. It would explain the number of deaths being greater than in neighbor contries such as Chile, where 14 people have died" It is just mentioned, there is no confirmation, but I think it's worth noting, and keeping an eye on for future developments. 190.17.193.5 ( talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) -
OK-- 86.25.11.150 ( talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There are many news coverage for the potential mutation of the virus, Denmark, then Japan, India and Hong Kong. It's quiet normal for virus to mutate and we hope for the best that it may not mutate to a more virulent form. But as long as this page is for discussion of various figures, it may be more suitable to raise this in the main article to see if it is trustworthy to mention. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Argentinian government just needs a cover up for the fact, that they have been grossly negligent with the pandemic, just not to put their elections at risk. So they woud use every justification, as far-fetched as it may be. | FHessel ( talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, there can be a country with dozens of cases reported a month ago. There may have been people who died of the disease (it's all hypothetical), but nobody is ill there at the moment. The illness could be history there (hopefully). Anyway, we do hope that this flu will be contained eventually (normal people should). It would be good to think how to report that, too (instead of going to report it in thousands of cases). There already are countries with no virulent people (listed as countries with cases). At the time we just report how the disease is spreading (like nobody survived it), but most of the reported cases are no longer ill. They are immune too. In some countries with number of cases listed, nobody died, and nobody has the disease any more. It would be nice to have the information about how many people are actually ill at the time, how this flu is spreading, and dying out. Let's try to be positive, and informative! Julian ( talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Trust ones like this one- [118]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.2.113 ( talk) 10:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
mh, its not yet official. 24.132.171.225 ( talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
People should move countries once they update the number of cases, as it is now the numbers are not sorted in the right way.-- Avala ( talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It is noticed that the changelog for the recent changes include offensive languages from our IP users. It is understandable that the condition in Argentina now is somehow chaotic, and there are conflicting reports which may not show the same figures as of the official bulletin released a few days ago. Please stay cool and do not get emotional when you think that the figures are not correct. Always discuss first and make a compromise before going with your change. If you know more in the Argentina matter, please provide as many sources as possible so that we can get the figures changed. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
A US sailor has fallen ill and possibly even died [ [119]] on a aid trip from US Samoa to Tonga, Kiribati and the Marshal Islands! The Yank either got it of a sick native or did the Seppo really bring it to the territory and cause Samoa's out break? -- 86.25.12.184 ( talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
51 ill [120]. -- 86.25.11.252 ( talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
10 ill [121]-- 86.25.4.192 ( talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we list the number of severe cases as well. That would be good. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't think the imformation is "sparse" Now Australia are reporting severe cases. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen specific reports on hospitalization figures for certain US states and was going to include then in specific sub-sections of the US article, but I had some sort of computer program, and do not think I ever actually did such. One would have to watch to see if the reports are of cumulative hospitalizations or just current. Also, another question to ask before incorporating this data, especially in any sort of chart, is this: is the data reflecting the number of cases that were so severe the person had to be sent to the hospital or does it also include people who went to the hospital due to over-anxiety about the disease or the fact that you are guaranteed treatment or some other factor and did not really need to do so. Also, if a country has its hospitals overwhelmed due to a high amount of flu cases, will this mean that the rules for hospitalization will change. No figure is perfectly comparable, but before we put it in a chart we need to make sure there is at least semblance of uniformity in what the figure is, and at least know what the figures we are reporting actually are. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Argentina will no longer update their reports (it is said they only do that at the beginning to know what they are treating). Latest estimations given by authorities put infections at around 10,000 only in the Capital Federal district, with 44 confirmed deaths and 55 waiting confirmation (it is not clear if that means 11 on top of the 44 confirmed or another 55 deaths, I am guessing it is the former). -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess the 83 we've got today is another example of what NOT to do ( WP:SYN Clarin states 72, but misses this, this and this), though I would trust the figure myself. 201.252.88.102 ( talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the table says confirmed cases, and we have a notice on the article that this is a current pandemic with rapid change, people will accept that in cases where deaths have gone above some level (10 or 50 are the two cut offs I would assume) the numbers may start lagging behind what has actually occured. Stick with clearly indicated numbers even if that means we ignore some suspected deaths or report a nation-wide figure that is a few days old because all regional figures have not been correlated. Further details can be put in the Argentina article, where all the complexed factors of why the reported figures may be lower than the actual figures can be discussed. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN does not necessarily forbid to add up numbers, only if it is not agreed between the authors that it is correct to do so. In this case I originally added a footnote to caution about the 72. I thought the case to be borderline, because it takes some deduction, to be able to add up the numbers regarding Buenos Aires province. Sombody else took the footnote, supplied some more additional cases and put all together in the table. I agree, that this number does not confirm with wikipedia policies.
Coming back to an adequate statement I would not necessarily reduce it to the 72. We have another case in the US, where the authorities have not given a summation for a long time, CDC is lagging behind up to a week (or even more) and the only way to provide sensible information is to add up ourselves. Mind you, exponential growth means, that lagging a few days may cause a 100% discrepancy between the numbers.
In the Argentinian case I propose, that it is ok to summarize case subtotals from different provinces, which we have got from different sources.
Boldly I change it that way. |
FHessel (
talk)
08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article? So far, it has only been reported in a patient in Denmark. It looks like tamiflu is still effective everywhere else, but this new resistant strain could propagate. Excerpt: «Roche Holding AG confirmed a patient with H1N1 influenza in Denmark showed resistance to the antiviral drug. David Reddy, company executive, said it was not unexpected given that common seasonal flu could do the same. [ [122]] I think it is well worth mentioning!It is a single isolated case that already mentioned in the "Timeline" article. If it is worth mentioning in the Timeline article, then maybe it should be mentioned here. Reoprts are also saying about the resistance of tamiflu in Argentina, but it seems that it also happening in Denmark, here is the article saying that the virus has gained some resistance to Tamiflu and elderly people are getting infected as much as young people too. Is in Spanish, sorry [123]. -- 86.25.11.150 ( talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It is now happening to a guy in Hong Kong.-- 86.25.12.184 ( talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the latest press release [124] from Singapore MoH, it would no longer produce daily case numbers as WHO informed each country not to report, and claimed that it is no longer useful for management of the disease. Furthermore, it says WHO will stop compiling the case table.
In view of this I think we should start a discussion on how this table to be maintained. Would it be reduced to death cases only? Or we can mark those countries not reporting and add a note to tell readers? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In any case we should start to collect the data on hospitalisations / ICU asap. As it looks now, this could replace the case count in countries, where the pandemic has become endemic. Is there a way to create a column, which will temporarily not be displayed on the main page in order to collect these data until we have covered a majority of countries? FHessel ( talk) 09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think should unite China, Hong Kong and Macau. 189.51.33.219 ( talk) 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Guam and Peuto Rico to the USA and Gernsey, Jersey and Mann to the UK.-- 86.25.12.113 ( talk) 12:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
So what if they are reported as seperate countries by WHO? Hong Kong and Macau is part of China! Taiwan should be included too. These places are not even countries and we are only reporting countries! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally WHO has published the revised
guideline. I think it is a must read for anybody, who wants to develop ideas about the future of this table.
WHO is describing three phases of pandemic evolution and the related reporting necessities: 1) early detection, 2) assessment of early cases, 3) continous monitoring.
Countries being in the first and second phase ("as long as it is feasible for them") are required to report case counts on a weekly basis. Countries in the third phase should at least report on influenza activity. That means reporting the following qualitative aspects with given values (compare Annex 4):
Furthermore countries are expected to report on deaths (p. 6)
Countries with established influenza surveillance systems should report on a weekly basis data on ILI and/or SARI
What does this mean for us? I think, we should keep up the death count in any case, it will be reported by WHO also in the future. Secondly the confirmed cases will be reported for countries in the first or second phase. Therefore it makes sense to display these numbers also in the future (for these countries the number of confirmed cases still gives a good picture of the current status). Countries in the third phase (e.g UK or Argentina) will not report confirmed cases any more, so we should stop as well to display these misleading numbers. But we should extend the table by one or more columns, in order to display the qualitative aspects (which? all of them?).
Unfortunately hospitalizations will not be available standardly in the furture. So my recent ideas about a table with hospitalization numbers seem to be doomed.
FHessel (
talk)
00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
What's going on here? We shouldn't be mixing estimates with flu surveilance figures. The justification for this table not being original research (as discussed above) depends on it being a (slightly advanced) version of the ECDC numbers and not just a collection of arbitrary numbers using differing methodology. Barnaby dawson ( talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As evidenced by today's updated UK figures, this table IS growing increasingly irrelevant and misleading. One of the four 'Key Points' in today's UK HPA update states "HPA estimates that there were 55,000 new cases of swine flu last week (range 30,000 - 85,000)." Those aren't wild-eyed speculative numbers; those are the scientifically-accurate numbers as gathered from GPs throughout the UK. Simply posting that there were somewhere around 1,000 or so laboratory-confirmed cases presents a thoroughly misleading picture. As has been stated before, many nations are still performing laboratory tests on each possible case, and reporting those numbers. But an increasing number of nations are *not* testing every case, and are instead reporting nothing--such as the Philippines--or they're reporting only laboratory-tested cases--such as Japan--or they're only releasing estimates based on statistical modeling and/or direct reports from regional health authorities, as the UK has started doing. The bottom line is, by every scientific measurement, between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000 people have been infected with A/H1N1 to-date; this table's conjecture that there are only 127,000+ is grossly wrong. I suggest adding columns to show the full picture, or deleting the table in its entirety. Sqlman ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The table is indeed very misleading. But including some estimated numbers in it and not others is much more misleading. We need a source for a table of estimated numbers if we want to provide estimated numbers in a table format. Furthermore the table title is "Laboratory-confirmed human cases by country" so placing estimated numbers in it is inaccurate without a footnote. Barnaby dawson ( talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the desire to communicate estimations of infection numbers, which differ a lot from the numbers we have in the table.
This table is not the right place for these numbers for several reasons:
1. It states in its header: Confirmed cases. Estimations are not confirmed but estimated.
2. The table shows a cumulative number, wheras e.g. the 60,000 for the UK is last week's increase.
3. When we start to fill in estimates for some countries we will be comparing apples with oranges, because the other countries, which are still reporting cases, might in fact have a much higher number of infections, too.
What about creating a new table solely for estimates? It should contain one column for the number and one column for the date of the estimate. If you want, you can copy and modify a draft table, which I have on my
talk page. |
FHessel (
talk)
19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago now I submitted this table for deletion as original research. The collation of data from many different countries and their presentation in a table requires a methodology. The argument given in favour of keeping the table was essentially that the WHO was collating these figures (hence it was the WHO that produced the methodology) and that our collation was essentially just a step ahead of the WHO figures. Hence the argument was that because the WHO chose this methodology it didn't constitute original research. Now, however the WHO has abandoned this methodology stating that it is becoming increasingly misleading as the pandemic proceeds and that traditional flu surveilance techniques should be used instead. I accept the earlier argument that this *was* not original research (although I still think the manner of our presentation of the data was misleading and POV). However, the argument (that it was not OR) is no longer valid as the WHO is no longer using this methodology. Collation of these figures now violates WP:OR.
One might argue that simply putting this data into a table is not a methodology (and hence not OR). But this is not the case. Presenting numbers from several data collection methods in the same table represents the methodological assumption that these data collection methods are comparable. Furthermore updating the table over time represents the methodological assumption that the data collection methods are comparable at different points in time.
Both of these are major and dubious assumptions in view of regional and temporal differences not only in the data collection protocols but also in the ability to conform to those protocols. To decide on the validity of these assumptions is a significant piece of original research.
Of course a research organisation might take the view that an imperfect methodology is justified for some particular purpose (flu surveilance rather than estimation for example) or in the absence of a better methodology. That is not for us at Wikipedia to decide, however. The WHO is in a better position to decide that and they have decided not to continue with their earlier methodology.
One might also take the view that this table should be included for public information/health reasons even if it does violate WP:OR. However, inaccurate or misleading data are often worse than no data. Public health authorities should make this call not wikipedia.
So I argue that we must find other ways to present this data that do not violate WP:OR or cease presenting the data at all. Perhaps there is some alternative source of data which we could use. Or perhaps we should present the information in a textual format (where comparisons between data are not implicit).
One option would be to freeze the data as of the last WHO report (and to make the time of this report part of its header). Barnaby dawson ( talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be disappointing, because we've put a lot of work into it. It doesn't seem to be in the main H1N1 article (or anywhere else?) anymore. ike9898 ( talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"Someone on their high horse". Hmmm.....I wonder who that was. Let's see, who has been consistently on these pages repeatedly calling for the deletion of the table for some time now? Who's been on a weeks-long one-man crusade to rid the world of the evil posed by our Original Research that actually consists of nothing more than simple addition? Who's already made large unilateral changes to this page without consulting others, then used borderline offensive language while threatening to invoke various Wikipedia rules to prevent anyone from undoing those changes? Who could this be?! Well, my mind's drawing a blank... :-\ Sqlman ( talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the above list.
The inaccuracy is that we lead people to believe you can compare the different country totals. We even sort by numbers that have different meaning to make the comparison easier. If you agree that the table presents an inaccuracy(s), then how do we correct this? Options include:
My preference is the last option. What do you think? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a little edit war going on. I'm in favor of separate tables for deaths and confirmed cases. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus was reached in the discussion page of the main article on 18 July 2009 Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Pandemic_table_compromise among all contributors there, that the confirmed cases figures need to be removed, and the death figures retained. I have done so. Please don't revert my edits without reaching consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be retained. At the moment there is 100% consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be removed, so you need to reverse that consensus before reverting my edits please. 81.102.157.87 ( talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
IF YOU LIKE A ONLY DEATH TABLE THAN MAKE YOUR OWN TABLE AND DONT DELETE OUR WORK. Any consens about this table must be make here and not on the discussion board of others articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.190.111 ( talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is just great, so many dedicated users spent months on updating something so some IP user would come and click delete. Just great.-- Avala ( talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Would have been better just a protection against anonymous users since the little edit war was happening with this type of user. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Summary of consensus
People have presented well-reasoned arguments for both keeping and omitting the "confirmed cases" section of the table. The case for keeping them seems to be that the information is useful to our readers and that it has been published, so it is verifiable and we should not make any independent judgment about its accuracy ("Accuracy of the data would not be our concern"). The argument for removing the data seems to be that it has been described as inaccurate and incomplete by reliable sources, so despite it being verifiable, we should not present data that might mislead our readers (we are being "precise but misleading").
The balance of the arguments favors keeping the data. The concerns raised about misleading readers would probably be less of an issue if we can firstly find a way of showing within the table that a particular country has stopped counting cases and secondly add a column of estimated cases. There is clear support for adding such estimates. This would give readers a better idea on if the number of confirmed cases number is anywhere near the true number of cases. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Some folks feel that, given WHO's decision to stop counting confirmed cases except in certain countries and/or circumstances, the flu pandemic table should not show anything but confirmed deaths. Others feel listing confirmed cases along with deaths--and perhaps even, eventually, estimated cases per 100,000--has been and will continue to be very helpful to many. Still others feel that the table has become unwieldy, confusing, inconsistent in reported methodologies, and difficult to maintain, and should therefore be done away with entirely. This has led to a recent spate of edit warring and disputed deletions of all or parts of the table. Two questions must be asked: should the 2009 flu pandemic table still exist? And, if so, should it include anything besides countries with deaths? (Thanks, Tim.) Sqlman ( talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep! The comfirmed cases bar is very important! I also agree with the "estimates" column. I would feel very sad if the cases bar is deleted! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WHO is not reporting updates on cases any more. So how do we handle this?
I propose, that we create new columns as follows:
For countries, which are still in containment strategy and which are providing case counts, we should keep up recording this case counts, maybe including the date of the last update.
For countries, which are in mitigation strategy, and which are not reporting case counts any more, we should provide a column for hospitalizations, maybe also another column for ICU cases.
What do we do with countries, which are providing neither case counts nor hospitalization counts?
In any case we should keep up the death counts, because these should remain meaningful for the (near?) future.
Is there a way to create columns, which will temporarily not be shown on the main page, so that we can collect the contents, until we have a sufficient coverage?
FHessel (
talk)
09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
IMHO of course Seanwong ( talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have created a draft table on my talk page. Perhaps you would like to have a look? As far as I am convinced, the difficulty is, that we will not have identical data for all countries any more. So we have to provide several options in terms of which are the data we display. And some countries will publish these data, other countries other data. But perhaps this is a chance? This could give a much more differentiated picture as to where the single country is on its epidemic path. And I do hope, that in the variety of data there will be many factors to make countries comparable. | FHessel ( talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What about estimated cases. that would help reflect the real situation. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea! i'd certainlly support this although the width is probably a bit too long. Also, i don't think hospitalized cases should be reported. As for some countries, all cases are hospitilized. For example, China. We could also include "current nomber of H1n1 cases" in the table. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What about having two tables. The first on as a simple table (the one we're using now) and the second as the more detailed table. The detailed table can be at the bottom of the page while the simple one can remain at the top. Sampsonkwan ( talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
WHO had published recently a guidance document for the reporting of qualitative indicators. Now PAHO has published a first overview according to these standards. It is pretty sure, that others (e.g. ECDC, perhaps WHO itself) will follow. Therefore I included a new column in the table, named 'Indicators'.
The header and the footnotes still need to be adapted. Plus some more countries added, I just took the first couple of countries as example.
FHessel (
talk)
13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
<- @Thenthornthing: It was 12 days ago, that I put a 'literature recommendation' on Talk:2009 flu pandemic. Everybody had the chance to get acquainted to the contents, which will be reported by the most affected countries in the future. Then I just acted
boldly. Yes, most of the entries are empty at the moment, because I did not have the time to fill in more, but: the rest of them will be filled very soon, PAHO has published many more and ECDC also has published data for the European countries.
But I think the most important point is: now there is a supplement to those case numbers, which have been challenged most in the recent past. Now we can embrace the numbers in a bigger picture, so that they are not misleading anymore. And if countries do not report cases any longer it would be best to freeze the last reported number and add 'NLU' similiarly to the US.
These qualitative data will be the only data we will get regularly for all over the world. Estimations are nice, but they are made for this country or that country once in a while, nothing to compile a table from.
And, just to make the point: This new column is not replacing the case counts, because the case counts are still valid and important for all countries, which are in the early phase. Removing the column would clearly bias the POV towards the most affected countries and is thus violating NPOV. |
FHessel (
talk)
18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As the "casual reader" who checks this table once in a while to look at cases/deaths, I think the new column adds more clutter and confuses people. Heck, I don't understand what it's for. It'd be more helpful if you used words instead of symbols, since scrolling down to see what symbols mean is dang annoying. 85.96.36.221 ( talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this extremmely confusing! Sampsonkwan ( talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
First I support the addition of this column if enough real estimate are available (which is debatable). However, it can't be unsourced like it is now. It looks like it was added by a single editor who probably made up most of the numbers. Numbers that aren't sourced soon we be eliminated. Thank you, ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).