![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In the article it says the outbreak began in April 2015. Vanuatu should be included since a case was reported in April 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/vanuatu-records-first-case-of-rare-zika-virus/6427666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Already too many sources? This seems the most authoritative one -- from the WHO: Dispelling rumours around Zika and microcephaly. fgnievinski ( talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a draft for a new beginning to this section -- another question is whether we should separate GBS from birth defects into two sections?
Public health officials strongly suspect that Zika infection during pregnancy can cause a number of grave outcomes, including microcephaly and loss of pregnancy. [1] [2]Following the initial Zika outbreak in Northeastern Brazil, physicians observed a very large surge of reports of infants born with microcephaly, with 20 times the number of expected cases. [3] [4]
Proving that Zika causes these effects is difficult and complex for several reasons. [5] [6] For example, the effects on an infant might not be seen until months after the mother’s initial infection, long after the time when Zika is easily detected in the body. [5] In addition, research is also needed to determine the mechanism by which Zika produces these effects. [7]
Since the initial outbreak, studies that use several different methods have found evidence of a link, leading public health officials to conclude that it appears increasingly likely the virus is linked to microcephaly and miscarriage. [8] [9]
I think we've had a spate (almost said 'rash') of new studies, I thought it would make sense to take notes here and then craft an update. . .
As of March 2016, researchers have found a growing body of evidence that Zika fever in pregnant women is associated with intrauterine growth restriction, including abnormal brain development in their fetuses, which may result in miscarriage [11] [12] or microcephaly. [13] [14] [15]
Chris vLS ( talk) 03:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2016 (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
It is primarily the Americas. Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/international/zika-arrived-americas-2013-study-2051043.html juanTamad ( talk) 03:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SheriffIsInTown: I removed the Bangladeshi case because it was from an old sample of blood, drawn in 2014 or 2015. Yes, it's important in that it establishes that Zika has been active in Bangladesh, but it is not part of the current outbreak, which is the subject of this article. Add the information to Zika virus or Zika virus outbreak timeline, but it doesn't belong here. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown, the outbreak in this article is now worldwide, and dates from April 2015. The editors here have been diligent about confirming numbers and dates for each country listed in the tables. I deliberately did not add Bangladesh because there is no definite date for the sample. No source I found gave any date other than 2014–2015. Until the date is confirmed as being April 2015 or later, or there is a fresh case, Bangladesh should not be listed. Again, I invite you to add that information to a more appropriate article.— Gorthian ( talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The blood sample was taken in 2014: [6] and [7]. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There have been conflicting theories about this. Now we have a source that doubts both of those theories. Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with this limitation in the lede. It's true if you look at suspected cases. But probably not if you look at number of nations affected. And probably not in terms of square miles. It seems to offer comfort to those outside of South America, but that's not really an appropriate read if you're in Central of Caribbean America. So from a 'due weight' perspective, it just doesn't seem to belong in the very first sentence. Besides, with all the tireless work Gorthian and Alcherin put into the stats, they should look at the table and the map if they want to know where it is!
Ok to delete? Chris vLS ( talk) 04:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In the various Zika articles, we have followed our sources by referring to the sexual transmission as unconfirmed. The CDC in the latest MMWR has assembled enough cases to say simply "Zika virus can be spread during sex by a man infected with Zika to his partners." [8] Time to address this . . . would appreciate input! Chris vLS ( talk) 02:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Vietnam reports first Zika infections, raises alarm juanTamad ( talk) 12:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This outbreak certainly meets the definition of an epidemic now ( http://www.cdc.gov/ophss/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html). How about changing the title to reflect that? juanTamad ( talk) 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be pandemic. It is already in Asia and Oceania as well. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 07:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely time to call this an epidemic. Although it certainly seems to fit the definition of a pandemic, sources seem reluctant to use that word. (See discussion above.) So I've been thinking about what the name of this article should be.
I propose the name be changed to 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic.
Any objections or other ideas? I'll probably move the article in a few days, depending on the discussion. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering why inline references #20 through 74 do not show in the article body, but only in the list at the end. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 01:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@ 98.204.236.60: There were two problems that I'm glad you addressed in your edits here and here. One was that in a previous update, I had made a typo, accidentally adding a extra "4" in front of the real number of 5,582, so that it read 45,582(!). The second was the number of suspected cases, which had been in a previous report from PAHO (9 June 2016); they got rid of that number later, and I meant to remove it from the table, but hadn't yet.
However, the CDC is not the only source for numbers in these tables. In the Americas, most of the numbers come from PAHO (the citation is next to the title of the table; right now it's #19). They do not always agree with the CDC about Puerto Rico; sometimes it seems that the CDC is playing catch-up with them. And both the CDC and PAHO report one Zika-related death in Puerto Rico. Some of the numbers come from the ECDC, for the European territories in the Americas. When a number is from a different source than PAHO, there's a citation next to it.
I appreciate your attention to detail. But in the future, would you bring your concerns to the talk page? We all make mistakes, and there may be other reasons for the way the data is presented. — Gorthian ( talk) 03:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the data for Zika case in Puerto Rico. However, the total number of cases cited on Wikipedia (7,296) is incorrect.
CDC reports the total number of cases as 5,548.
PAHO reports the total number of cases as 5,572.
Kind regards,
Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevshe ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that most if not all North and South American sources use the m-d-y format, ie. August 16, 2016. That includes Brazilian newspapers, such as Rio Times and Merco Press. The article should use that format. -- Light show ( talk) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
They "leave women with no recourse once they are pregnant"? Is Wikipedia really going to take a stand in favor of changing the laws? Let's come up with something more neutral for that!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.51 ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Officials report more Zika viruses confirmed in the U.S., and thousands more undetected. 2605:6001:E484:1000:1C77:AF4A:761B:D56A ( talk) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2015–16 Zika virus epidemic → 2015–16 Zika virus pandemic – Now that it has reached Singapore it is not confined to a single region anymore. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 07:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Is death is only specifically for those who died because of Zika fever? How about if the infected person died because of other illness that worsens his/her condition like in this case? Should this be include on the list? Molecule Extraction ( talk) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@
Molecule Extraction: I reverted your
removing Laos from the autochthonous-cases table because there was a report in March from WHO of at least one case there. The table reports cumulative totals from approximately April 2015 on, so unless the original source corrects a number, the numbers can only grow or stay the same. In this case, an exact number was not reported, so the fields were left blank. Right now, WHO classifies Laos as "Category 3: Countries with evidence of local mosquito-borne Zika infections in or before 2015, but without documentation of cases in 2016, or outbreak terminated
".
[1] Since they had reported cases in Laos in March 2016, I would assume that the small outbreak has terminated. I know your source says differently,
[2] but the WHO is a more reliable sources for our purposes here. I will do a more thorough search for any statements WHO has made about Laos to see if this can be clarified. —
Gorthian (
talk)
16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic has reported autochthonous transmission from blood samples collected from 2012 to 2015. Awaiting further confirmation of report date." [4] That would mean that there have been no cases reported in 2016, but possibly in 2015. Then I found a brief outline in PROmed Mail about it (under the heading "Asia") that makes it clearer why no case counts are given: they were analyzing old samples taken for dengue, and it sounds as if they statistically combined the results. All of which makes me think that you were probably right, and Laos should be removed from the table. Though the CDC just put out a travel advisory for Laos, among other countries, Zika is known to be endemic there. Presumably there is a higher rate of immunity because of that, which may make an outbreak less likely. I think I'll self-revert my edit; we can put Laos back if there are reports of cases there. Thanks for making me look more closely at this! — Gorthian ( talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
References
FYI: Seems the strains in Singapore are not from the Americas. They were strains existing since the spread from Africa in the 1960s. Zika cases in other parts of SE Asia occurred before 2015 (Thailand in 2012 for example), and probably microcephaly related births. Mostly unnoticed until the 2015/16 outbreak in the Americas. These reports are from September; I don't see where this has been added to the article. The same may be true for all the Asian occurrences of the disease, maybe even the Pacific. I don't know if the phylogenetic/strain studies have been done for Zika cases in Asia and other post-2015/16 outbreak occurrences yet, but should be researched. Seems to be mostly an assumption that these cases/small outbreaks came from the Americas outbreak, representing global spread from the Americas. JuanTamad ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/09/singapore-zika-virus-outbreak-not-imported-south-america/
I believe that it is more important to show the actual number of active cases of Zika rather than just displaying the total number of Zika cases that have been confirmed since the epidemic started.
Some of the data doesn't not make sense. For example, the table shows that Martinique has only 12 confirmed cases of Zika, but has 36,680 suspected cases of Zika. Puerto Rico has 34,070 confirmed cases of Zika, but no suspected cases. If a case of Zika is suspected it can't remain this way indefinitely.
What travelers need to know is what is my risk of contracting Zika? If during the past 12 months 34,070 cases of Zika have been confirmed on the island of Puerto Rico, how many active cases of Zika does the island actually have.
Zika infection is not permanent and once the infection is cleared the person can no longer spread the disease.
Therefore, people need to know not only the total number of Zika cases over a given period, but more importantly the current total number of active Zika infections.
Kevshe ( talk) 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/thai-health-min-number-of-zika-patients-approaching-400/155856/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In the article it says the outbreak began in April 2015. Vanuatu should be included since a case was reported in April 2015. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/vanuatu-records-first-case-of-rare-zika-virus/6427666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Already too many sources? This seems the most authoritative one -- from the WHO: Dispelling rumours around Zika and microcephaly. fgnievinski ( talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a draft for a new beginning to this section -- another question is whether we should separate GBS from birth defects into two sections?
Public health officials strongly suspect that Zika infection during pregnancy can cause a number of grave outcomes, including microcephaly and loss of pregnancy. [1] [2]Following the initial Zika outbreak in Northeastern Brazil, physicians observed a very large surge of reports of infants born with microcephaly, with 20 times the number of expected cases. [3] [4]
Proving that Zika causes these effects is difficult and complex for several reasons. [5] [6] For example, the effects on an infant might not be seen until months after the mother’s initial infection, long after the time when Zika is easily detected in the body. [5] In addition, research is also needed to determine the mechanism by which Zika produces these effects. [7]
Since the initial outbreak, studies that use several different methods have found evidence of a link, leading public health officials to conclude that it appears increasingly likely the virus is linked to microcephaly and miscarriage. [8] [9]
I think we've had a spate (almost said 'rash') of new studies, I thought it would make sense to take notes here and then craft an update. . .
As of March 2016, researchers have found a growing body of evidence that Zika fever in pregnant women is associated with intrauterine growth restriction, including abnormal brain development in their fetuses, which may result in miscarriage [11] [12] or microcephaly. [13] [14] [15]
Chris vLS ( talk) 03:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of March 2016 (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
It is primarily the Americas. Read more at: http://www.oneindia.com/international/zika-arrived-americas-2013-study-2051043.html juanTamad ( talk) 03:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SheriffIsInTown: I removed the Bangladeshi case because it was from an old sample of blood, drawn in 2014 or 2015. Yes, it's important in that it establishes that Zika has been active in Bangladesh, but it is not part of the current outbreak, which is the subject of this article. Add the information to Zika virus or Zika virus outbreak timeline, but it doesn't belong here. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown, the outbreak in this article is now worldwide, and dates from April 2015. The editors here have been diligent about confirming numbers and dates for each country listed in the tables. I deliberately did not add Bangladesh because there is no definite date for the sample. No source I found gave any date other than 2014–2015. Until the date is confirmed as being April 2015 or later, or there is a fresh case, Bangladesh should not be listed. Again, I invite you to add that information to a more appropriate article.— Gorthian ( talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The blood sample was taken in 2014: [6] and [7]. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There have been conflicting theories about this. Now we have a source that doubts both of those theories. Thoughts? Chris vLS ( talk) 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with this limitation in the lede. It's true if you look at suspected cases. But probably not if you look at number of nations affected. And probably not in terms of square miles. It seems to offer comfort to those outside of South America, but that's not really an appropriate read if you're in Central of Caribbean America. So from a 'due weight' perspective, it just doesn't seem to belong in the very first sentence. Besides, with all the tireless work Gorthian and Alcherin put into the stats, they should look at the table and the map if they want to know where it is!
Ok to delete? Chris vLS ( talk) 04:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In the various Zika articles, we have followed our sources by referring to the sexual transmission as unconfirmed. The CDC in the latest MMWR has assembled enough cases to say simply "Zika virus can be spread during sex by a man infected with Zika to his partners." [8] Time to address this . . . would appreciate input! Chris vLS ( talk) 02:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Vietnam reports first Zika infections, raises alarm juanTamad ( talk) 12:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This outbreak certainly meets the definition of an epidemic now ( http://www.cdc.gov/ophss/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html). How about changing the title to reflect that? juanTamad ( talk) 16:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be pandemic. It is already in Asia and Oceania as well. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 07:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely time to call this an epidemic. Although it certainly seems to fit the definition of a pandemic, sources seem reluctant to use that word. (See discussion above.) So I've been thinking about what the name of this article should be.
I propose the name be changed to 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic.
Any objections or other ideas? I'll probably move the article in a few days, depending on the discussion. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering why inline references #20 through 74 do not show in the article body, but only in the list at the end. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 01:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@ 98.204.236.60: There were two problems that I'm glad you addressed in your edits here and here. One was that in a previous update, I had made a typo, accidentally adding a extra "4" in front of the real number of 5,582, so that it read 45,582(!). The second was the number of suspected cases, which had been in a previous report from PAHO (9 June 2016); they got rid of that number later, and I meant to remove it from the table, but hadn't yet.
However, the CDC is not the only source for numbers in these tables. In the Americas, most of the numbers come from PAHO (the citation is next to the title of the table; right now it's #19). They do not always agree with the CDC about Puerto Rico; sometimes it seems that the CDC is playing catch-up with them. And both the CDC and PAHO report one Zika-related death in Puerto Rico. Some of the numbers come from the ECDC, for the European territories in the Americas. When a number is from a different source than PAHO, there's a citation next to it.
I appreciate your attention to detail. But in the future, would you bring your concerns to the talk page? We all make mistakes, and there may be other reasons for the way the data is presented. — Gorthian ( talk) 03:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the data for Zika case in Puerto Rico. However, the total number of cases cited on Wikipedia (7,296) is incorrect.
CDC reports the total number of cases as 5,548.
PAHO reports the total number of cases as 5,572.
Kind regards,
Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevshe ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that most if not all North and South American sources use the m-d-y format, ie. August 16, 2016. That includes Brazilian newspapers, such as Rio Times and Merco Press. The article should use that format. -- Light show ( talk) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
They "leave women with no recourse once they are pregnant"? Is Wikipedia really going to take a stand in favor of changing the laws? Let's come up with something more neutral for that!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.51 ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Officials report more Zika viruses confirmed in the U.S., and thousands more undetected. 2605:6001:E484:1000:1C77:AF4A:761B:D56A ( talk) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2015–16 Zika virus epidemic → 2015–16 Zika virus pandemic – Now that it has reached Singapore it is not confined to a single region anymore. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 07:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Is death is only specifically for those who died because of Zika fever? How about if the infected person died because of other illness that worsens his/her condition like in this case? Should this be include on the list? Molecule Extraction ( talk) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@
Molecule Extraction: I reverted your
removing Laos from the autochthonous-cases table because there was a report in March from WHO of at least one case there. The table reports cumulative totals from approximately April 2015 on, so unless the original source corrects a number, the numbers can only grow or stay the same. In this case, an exact number was not reported, so the fields were left blank. Right now, WHO classifies Laos as "Category 3: Countries with evidence of local mosquito-borne Zika infections in or before 2015, but without documentation of cases in 2016, or outbreak terminated
".
[1] Since they had reported cases in Laos in March 2016, I would assume that the small outbreak has terminated. I know your source says differently,
[2] but the WHO is a more reliable sources for our purposes here. I will do a more thorough search for any statements WHO has made about Laos to see if this can be clarified. —
Gorthian (
talk)
16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Lao People’s Democratic Republic has reported autochthonous transmission from blood samples collected from 2012 to 2015. Awaiting further confirmation of report date." [4] That would mean that there have been no cases reported in 2016, but possibly in 2015. Then I found a brief outline in PROmed Mail about it (under the heading "Asia") that makes it clearer why no case counts are given: they were analyzing old samples taken for dengue, and it sounds as if they statistically combined the results. All of which makes me think that you were probably right, and Laos should be removed from the table. Though the CDC just put out a travel advisory for Laos, among other countries, Zika is known to be endemic there. Presumably there is a higher rate of immunity because of that, which may make an outbreak less likely. I think I'll self-revert my edit; we can put Laos back if there are reports of cases there. Thanks for making me look more closely at this! — Gorthian ( talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
References
FYI: Seems the strains in Singapore are not from the Americas. They were strains existing since the spread from Africa in the 1960s. Zika cases in other parts of SE Asia occurred before 2015 (Thailand in 2012 for example), and probably microcephaly related births. Mostly unnoticed until the 2015/16 outbreak in the Americas. These reports are from September; I don't see where this has been added to the article. The same may be true for all the Asian occurrences of the disease, maybe even the Pacific. I don't know if the phylogenetic/strain studies have been done for Zika cases in Asia and other post-2015/16 outbreak occurrences yet, but should be researched. Seems to be mostly an assumption that these cases/small outbreaks came from the Americas outbreak, representing global spread from the Americas. JuanTamad ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/09/singapore-zika-virus-outbreak-not-imported-south-america/
I believe that it is more important to show the actual number of active cases of Zika rather than just displaying the total number of Zika cases that have been confirmed since the epidemic started.
Some of the data doesn't not make sense. For example, the table shows that Martinique has only 12 confirmed cases of Zika, but has 36,680 suspected cases of Zika. Puerto Rico has 34,070 confirmed cases of Zika, but no suspected cases. If a case of Zika is suspected it can't remain this way indefinitely.
What travelers need to know is what is my risk of contracting Zika? If during the past 12 months 34,070 cases of Zika have been confirmed on the island of Puerto Rico, how many active cases of Zika does the island actually have.
Zika infection is not permanent and once the infection is cleared the person can no longer spread the disease.
Therefore, people need to know not only the total number of Zika cases over a given period, but more importantly the current total number of active Zika infections.
Kevshe ( talk) 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.thaivisa.com/thailand/thai-health-min-number-of-zika-patients-approaching-400/155856/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)