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.

I've removed all of the {{ flag}} icons from the template. While they may be pretty, they really add nothing but clutter in such a tight space. -- auburnpilot  talk 15:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, again. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) - making things 'pretty' is not a reason to add flag icons. -- auburnpilot  talk 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they are of no practical use. Please discuss here before anyone adds them again. And do be careful if you do - the edit conflict dialogue is to stop deleting information. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:31, 27 April 2009 ( GMT)

Removed once more. Talk here first if you think they should be added. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:23, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

Hey, this is not very important issue, but I just love these genius people reverting everything, including my editation - I propose adding flagicons to each country - it looks better than just grey boxes with text, and with flags, it is much easier to find the country you're looking for. Thanks -- Novis-M ( talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted the first time by AuburnPilot above for the reasons he describes. Once that happened you added them again twice when the usual course of action would be to discuss it here to get consensus.

I agree it looks better with flags, but as AuburnPilot says they should not be added for that reason alone, I don't think it makes it significantly easier to read the table and it does take up space at the top of the main article.

Maybe try again, on talk, once this has died down a bit. The table probably wont be at the top of the article forever and then space wont be so important. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:50, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

I added them only once! I didn't see any problems with that, but obviously some people can always think of some. So my reason is - why NOT? As I said, it is much easier to find country with a flag, it is way better than just chaotic grey "jungle" with boring black text. -- Novis-M ( talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the table takes up a large amount of space in narrower (but still common) window sizes. Adding extra stuff just for the heck of it increases the problem. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE, add the flags because it makes the table more attractive to see... I don't find any problem in that as the flags should be quite small as well as the text, or otherwise make 2 columns if the space is what your fighting for... The purpose here is to make an agreement with everybody so everyone may have what they what. -- AMM1995 ( talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the æsthetics of the table is a relatively minor (but not irrelevant) point. Personally I prefer them for reasons of Web accessibility — I find it much easier to parse the table with flags there. I do understand, though, that consensus is prolly against us flag-loving types here. Is it worth a poll? — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the new layout, though it might looks more appealing, it doesn't have the rows lined up, and also it prevents blind people to understand the data, thus I must ask you to not revert back to that version. _{→ Aza Toth} 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I would suggest you to restart from the earlier layout, and work from there, the best course of action is for now revert back to the previous version, and work on an version in a sandbox. _{→ Aza Toth} 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

seconded, it also makes it more difficult to follow one row across to get all the information Default.XBE ( talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The rows in the navbox style DO NOT LINE UP. This is a misapplication of the navbox template. Wine Guy Talk 01:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which version is used, just please make sure it only has one "death" column. The extra column seems to create confusion and definitely wastes space. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with both ideas in that only one Death Column is needed, and the layout must be reverted back to the old version. Rpr124 ( talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i reverted it, i think i incorporated the most recent data but i may have missed something, i also dont know how to put the image on the bottom so its just gone :/ Default.XBE ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You beat me to it. The navbox style should not be used unless the rows can be made to line up. Wine Guy Talk 02:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited the code so that it looks more like the navbox table, while still using the wikitable formatting. Feel free to clean up my wikicode. Abecedare ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we reconcile the numbers of confirmed cases on this page with this statement from the WHO? The WHO claims that there are only 79 confirmed cases worldwide, about 1/3 of what this template claims. Are we listening to a reactionary media more than we should be? Oren0 ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO is only counting confirmed cases that have been reported to them by national agencies. So when the Canadian health agency double checks a sample for Mexico who then report it to WHO - it all takes a while. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this table's formating is terrible, it actually looks nicer than the current table. It was reverted for formatting and alignment issues. Hopefully we can make the current table look more like this one.

New (reverted version)

Old/current version

Cases by country Last update: 20 February 2023 at 7:7 ( UTC) Country Cases Deaths Laboratory confirmed Other possible‡ Attributed (confirmed)‡ Totals 271 2,595+ 152 (20) Mexico 172 [1] 1,995 [1] 152 (20) [4] US 64 [32] 255+ [8] 0 Canada 13 [33] 19 [8] 0 New Zealand 11 [4] 43 [4] 0 UK 2 [5] 40 [8] 0 Spain 2 [6] 29 [8] 0 Israel 2 [7] 2 [34] 0 Costa Rica 2 [35] 0 0 Australia 0 91 [36] 0 Brazil 0 20 [37] 0 France 0 20 [14] 0 Chile 0 13 [38] 0 Colombia 0 12 [16] 0 Argentina 0 10 [17] 0 Switzerland 0 9 [18] 0 Norway 0 8+ [19] 0 Poland 0 5 [39] 0 Hong Kong 0 4 [21] 0 Guatemala 0 3 [40] 0 Honduras 0 3 [23] 0 Venezuela 0 3 [41] 0 Germany 0 2 [42] 0 Iceland 0 2 [43] 0 Austria 0 1 [27] 0 Italy 0 1 [28] 0 South Korea 0 1 [44] 0 Dominican Republic 0 1 [45] 0 Uruguay 0 1 [31] 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. v t e

Ikip ( talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is better the left version. -- 87.0.62.180 ( talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The left-hand table presents serious Web accessibility issues and contravenes the manual of style, so I would strongly oppose such a change; see Wikipedia:Accessibility#Tables — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 16:32, 30 April 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:

Cases by country

Country	Laboratory confirmed cases	Suspected‡ cases	Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡
Totals	271	2,595+	152 (20)
Mexico	172 [1]	1,995 [1]	152 (20) [4]
US	64 [46]	255+ [note 1]	0
Canada	13 [47]	19 [note 2]	0
New Zealand	11 [4]	43 [4]	0
UK	2 [5]	40 [note 3]	0
Spain	2 [6]	29 [note 4]	0
Israel	2 [7]	2 [48]	0
Costa Rica	2 [49]	0	0
Countries without confirmed cases Country Laboratory confirmed cases Suspected‡ cases Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡ Australia 0 91 [50] 0 Brazil 0 20 [13] 0 France 0 20 [14] 0 Chile 0 13 [51] 0 Colombia 0 12 [16] 0 Argentina 0 12 [17] 0 Switzerland 0 9 [18] 0 Norway 0 8+ [19] 0 Poland 0 5 [52] 0 Hong Kong 0 4 [21] 0 Guatemala 0 3 [53] 0 Honduras 0 3 [23] 0 Venezuela 0 3 [54] 0 Germany 0 2 [55] 0 Iceland 0 2 [56] 0 Austria 0 1 [27] 0 Italy 0 1 [28] 0 South Korea 0 1 [57] 0 Dominican Rep. 0 1 [58] 0 Uruguay 0 1 [31] 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.
v t e

What does everyone think? Ikip ( talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Not Yet: It is showing the aparent spread of the cases and their intensity. Dinkytown 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i vote yes, but can you make both sections use the navbox style? (BTW thanks for getting the rows to line up right) Default.XBE ( talk) 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree. The spread can be seen with confirmed cases or by expanding.   Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support this change, per Daniel. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Though it is possible to make it so the headers don't repeat? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:53, 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)

a valid point, but if the table starts to become an accessibility issue for people NOT using autoscrollers and screenreaders i think we should collapse part of it, i dont think its at that point yet, but getting close, especially with all the reports of 1 or 2 unconfirmed cases Default.XBE ( talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are doing this, can you please make both of them have the same style (ie no gridlines)? 130.216.222.197 ( talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked on WP:Village Pump Technical for help on how to make this a better table. Ikip ( talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

re VPT: I've cleaned up the code a bit. there might be a better way to do it, but let me think about it. -- Ludwigs2 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(also from vpt) Wouldn't it be easier to use {{ infobox}}? I can play around a bit. chan dler ··· 06:29, 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)

I collapsed the table and then other editors uncollapsed it. Ikip ( talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO claims there are only seven deaths worldwide, not 20 or 152. Who do we believe? [3] [4] 130.216.222.197 ( talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

it could very well be an issue of whats taken into considering when a death is recorded, IIRC mexican officials confirmed that 20 (or whatever the number may be) people have died and had been infected with the current H1N1 strain, its possible WHO is stating only 7 have confirmed in which H1N1 was the actual cause of death (as opposed to having been infected but dying from other causes) whichever number is used i think a note or something should be used to indicate the conflicting report Default.XBE ( talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican officials are now using a more reliable test. So says the BBC. Dinkytown 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm updating the "confirmed" numbers in the table. We should use the most reliable source for these, which at present I think is the WHO. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just because they haven't been reported to WHO properly (yet) doesn't mean they aren't confirmed. I am going to change back and add a note instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB ( talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree also. This keeps coming up on the talk pages. It was decided before to used referenced figures from the media, NOT the WHO's figures as they are unrealisticly out-of-date and the confirmed cases gives a bias towards countries with better access to testing laboratories e.g. 64 confirmed cases in US vs 26 in Mexico.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you both missed the point I was trying to make. If you have a more up to date source for laboratory confirmed cases than the WHO, that's fine with me. But if we have a heading saying "laboratory confirmed", the numbers should reflect that definition. Yes, this does lead to a biased picture of the disease's spread, but so do other factors, and conflating probable cases with confirmed ones does not solve the problem. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

if we are defining "laboratory confirmed" as "confirmed by WHO" we should put a note on the table to indicate that Default.XBE ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defining it that way, and I don't see anyone else doing so. Here is a link to the CDC's definition. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

wow, that CDC definition seems silly (im not arguing it though) but for a "probable" case of swine flu, its someone who has the flu, that has been confirm NOT to be swine flu, ah well, theyre the experts :) Default.XBE ( talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding it correctly. There's an explanation of the tests here under "Recommended Tests". -- Avenue ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, the current version of the table combines the seven deaths reported by WHO several hours ago with more recent reports of a US death confirmed by the CDC. That's fine with me, as they are all laboratory confirmed. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to reverse the order of confirmed and unconfirmed deaths, that is, putting unconfirmed in parenthesis and confirmed outside of parenthesis. The placement of the bigger numbers first comes off as kind of sensationalist. Just a thought. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the confirmed deaths are a subset of attributed deaths. This seems the best way found so far to get that information across. Not ideal perhaps. |→ Spaully^₪ † 23:26, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

I don't see that as a logical reason to oppose such a clarification. Reversed, it works like a fraction or ratio: x confirmed out of y attributed. And like you say, confirmed are a subset of attributed- the attributed works as a denominator. Furthermore, it strikes me that placing the attributed deaths first may be questionable from a WP:NPOV standpoint. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is some ambiguity/confusion about what attributed means. The 100(10) format seems to best get across the idea: 100 deaths of which 10 are confirmed. Whereas 10(100) would probably imply 10 confirmed plus 100 others. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then how about cases like the US where there's one attributed and one confirmed? Or other cases of small numbers... 1 (1) could easily be read to mean 2 deaths. The 1 without parenthesis suggests the death isn't confirmed. A standalone (1) is frankly somewhat confusing, though I guess might be the best solution given the current format. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this has already happened. I'm pretty satisfied with how it looks now. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not a good idea to have a separate column for probable case as they are still suspected, so could we simply put brackets, or even merge their numbers with the suspected cases if necessary? The width of the template now disrupts the text flow of those major articles. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the new column is trying to do too much. It's not our place to apply the CDC rules to cases, that is too much OR. I suggest keeping confirmed and suspected as we don't have the information to split the numbers like that. |→ Spaully^₪ † 12:22, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

There are no proofs yet, that the word "probable" from various sources has the same definition by CDC. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the other 3000+ cases? We don't have the information to classify the cases into 3 categories so we shouldn't try. Perhaps later on when the WHO has more detailed figures, but for now I think it is misleading and a step too far in terms of original research.

Finally identified the edit: this by User:Nutriveg

I really think this should be changed back with the probables merged into suspected as before. |→ Spaully^₪ † 12:31, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

I agree the probable cases should be merged back into the suspected column; there's not enough information available to make this split consistently. The drawback is that there are many media reports that conflate the probable cases with confirmed ones, so we need to be vigilant about what goes into the table. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late - the figures are moved and it's become difficult to handle. Have tried to merge back but had frequent edit conflicts. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree not to have a separate column for probable cases. It looks too complicated and confusing. Roy2005 ( talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree, remove it, im no good with the navbox otherwise id do it myself Default.XBE ( talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just push through any edit conflicts and sort them out afterwards. A big change like this is always going to be difficult. |→ Spaully^₪ † 13:59, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

im not sure which columns the "probable" numbers should be merged to, it looks like they were pulled from confirmed, but based on lower numbers of confirmed cases from the CDC and WHO, theres some discussion of it a bit up the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#WHO_claims_only_seven_deaths_in_total Default.XBE ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "probable" cases is provided by an official authority on the matter, the CDC, and seem to be followed by reputable media and other country agencies. All of them had suffered preliminary tests. The suspects cases are too broad and poorly scientific based.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the CDC definition of "probable" is basically saying they have the flu, but not the swine flu, how thats a probable case of swine flu is beyond me, lol Default.XBE ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the definition of probable by the CDC is that the person was tested for other influenza strains, which results are readly avaiable, but those tests resulted negative.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the site says probable is someone "who is positive for influenza A, but negative for H1" since the current outbreak is a strain of H1N1 im reading that to say they are negative for the current strain (H1), am i missing something? Default.XBE ( talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are. There's an explanation of the tests here under "Recommended Tests". -- Avenue ( talk) 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "probable" by various sources do not necessary have the same definition as of CDC. I doubt if the news agencies have looked into what CDC defines, and labs other than CDC follows the rule (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So I would generally treat the news articles as literally "probable" but not technically "probable". In that case I would suggest a merge to avoid ambiguities and maintenance, and to make the table slim not to disrupt the text in the main articles. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources seem to be aware of what they're talking about, specially when citing health authorities.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply guess the meaning of probable does not make sense, and literally "probable" and "suspected" also confers an uncertain meaning. I don't think making these cases complex would be beneficial to our fellow editors as well as readers of the articles.

To make a compromise, it's possible to have probable numbers but for those confirmed by CDC and not from the media. The numbers are put in brackets to slim down the table width. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with dropping the "probable" column from the main chart, but leaving it in the US chart where it has a specific meaning. However, I would point out that it does have *some* purpose in the main chart - for example the 11 "probable" cases in NZ will likely never be officially verified since they are directly connected to the 3 confirmed cases & the authorities feel there is not point testing the connected individuals since they almost certainly have the same strain. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In those sourced numbers it has a meaning, check the sources for France, South Korea, US, ... -- Nutriveg ( talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are in the minority here Nutriveg. I agree with ThaddeusB, Xavier, Roy, and Default. The consensus is to remove the column as we may be reading too much into sources and thereby doing some original research. Easier said than done though, will take a look. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:49, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

So this is the draft for the replacement, and still work in progress to merge the numbers. [5] - Xavier Fung ( talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "probable" vs. "suspected" is pretty much clear. A "suspected" case is basically an ILI (influenza-like illness). Those cases will be tested. When the test shows influenza A, but not common influenza strains, it will be declared "probable", otherwise the case will be cleared. Further tests on the "probable" cases try to identify if the current virus A/H1N1 is present, which results in a "confirmed" case. From all media reports I checked so far, this differentiation is followed. On the other hand, if we use the reduced table, we have to discard many cases for Mexico: everywhere it is cited that only 26 cases are confirmed - not 170+. Hilmarwoy 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.95.148 ( talk)

But we have no clue on which criteria the media has followed, so we cannot simply assume that all the reports follow the CDC guideline unless it is explicitly mentioned. If CDC changes the definition later, all the numbers have to be sorted out again. If other countries invent their own detection standards, then much confusion would occur and we may require to list out all the possible definitions, which I don't think a template page can serve like this. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We just have to make sure the numbers match the column headings. If a source doesn't match the headings, we can't use it (unless we change the headings, but that would mean every row would have to change). And yes, the numbers for Mexico arewere wrong.-- Avenue ( talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is less important which criteria the media follow. Normally they get their information from the central health institute of the particular country and those are linked to international organisations and WHO in particular. The case definition is not an invention of the CDC in the USA. It is a WHO guidance for the surveillance of S-OIV (swine origin influenza virus) from April 27 2009 [6]. And thus it should be implemented globally. However, those split between probable and suspected infections has a clear benefit on the endless discussions on France, South Korea et.al. Just consider it. Hilmarwoy 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, based on recent edits I think distinguishing probable cases would be helpful after all. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What recent edits are you referring to? I mean what kind of edits, I've not noticed any problems.

I still am not sure this is a good idea - what sources do we base the "probable" assertion on? Currently the sources do not support the probable cases, though I can't read Korean. Another problem with the current format is that in one column the bracketed number is suspected and the other probable. This looks misleading. We definitely need sources for the new French and South Korean probable cases, and some discussion on whether to have them at all. |→ Spaully^₪ † 09:49, 30 April 2009 ( GMT)

I think he/she is referring to the problem with some countries like NZ where the distinction between probable and confirmed is not always clear. She my comment #Confirmed, probable and suspected?. I do think probable is necessary and a good idea since in some cases probable like in NZ are never going to be upgraded to confirmed. Also it is an official WHO definition which health authorities are expected to report hence must be collecting statistics on. Even if we can avoid misguided edits, the edits happen for a reason, because the information is confusing to readers. For us to pretend that probable doesn't exist is frankly doing our readers a disservice and going to cause more confusion when they hear about probable but there's nothing here. Indeed I would go as far as to argue it makes more sense for us to abandon suspected which doesn't have any consistent definition and is not something that is reported to the WHO (ILI which is probably what most sources mean by suspected is reported, but who knows if sources mean ILI when they say suspected?). Sourcing may be a problem but it's also one for suspected and as demonstrated by the sometimes confusion between confirmed and probable, it is for confirmed as well. Hopefully the WHO will start publishing probable case numbers (but from my memory of the SARS may be not.) BTW probable cases are I believe common in situations like this, I recall a similar thing with SARS so it's not something that's unique to here either. And if the unthinkable? happens and we get a real pandemic we're going likely to have a hell of a lot of probable cases that will never be confirmed. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: SARS I checked the article and now remember that was a somewhat different situation since there we didn't even have confirmed (as the virus was not identified) for a long time so most of the statistics were probable or suspected and indeed the table lists only probable. Still I think it demonstrates that probable is meaningful category commonly used in potential pandemics of this sort Nil Einne ( talk) 11:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two types of deaths - those which are confirmed as being from the virus and those which are only suspected as being form the virus, but not yet confirmed. The question is what should these two types be called?

I have twice changed it to "confirmed\unconfirmed" to avoid any possible ambiguity. The problem with other words (such as "attributed" or "suspected") is that it is not 100% clear whether this means the total # or just the ones that aren't confirmed. (As evidenced by editors making good faith changes in both directions).

However, it has been changed away from "unconfirmed" by others multiple times so I am asking for other opinions as to the best terminology here. Thanks. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem people raised with confirmed/unconfirmed is that it unconfirmed suggests the people might not have died, which is incorrect. Hence calling them attributed deaths. I thought the 152 (7) method was clear as it indicates the confirmed to be a subset of attributed. However this was swapped around ( to 7 (152) ) as some suggested it was sensationalist. Having two columns also is a problem due to space and it still not being clear how to name them.

I still support using 152 (7) - attributed (confirmed) - though it would be good to get a consensus to stick to. |→ Spaully^₪ † 21:14, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

We have the same problem with confirmed/suspected in the cases section. These are not meant to overlap, but people have made good faith edits there that assume confirmed cases are a subset of suspected cases. If we have to choose, I'd prefer clarity on this point (e.g. by using confirmed/unconfirmed) over clarity about whether the deaths are really deaths (which we can address in a footnote). This also has the advantage of not using a term from the CDC classification (suspected) to mean something else (suspected plus probable cases, in their lingo). But I'd be glad to hear if anyone has any other suggestions. -- Avenue ( talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the header of the suspected cases to "other suspected", so hopefully that will clear things up a bit more. "Lab confirmed"/"Other suspeccted" -> "Confirmed (Suspected)". -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That does help, a lot. Thank you! -- Avenue ( talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have set up automatic archiving to archive any threads with no comments for 48 hours in order to (hopefully) cut down on the clutter. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The main article talk page is set as 12h. Considering most of the conversations are 'Add this Case' we can probally go as low as that with no serious imapcts to article improvement conversation -- PigFlu Oink ( talk) 16:32, 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 [7]. 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)

Looks like the guidelines were just published yesterday. I suspect then that we should have good information soon enough maybe even from the WHO themselves Nil Einne ( talk) 10:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a warning comment to the NZ entry. The problem seems to have arisen because NZ's Ministry of Health has not generally distinguished clearly between probable and confirmed cases in its reporting (their latest update is an exception), and so most media reports have conflated the two categories. -- Avenue ( talk) 10:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, hidden comments are usually quite effective in stopping this sort of well meaning but misguided editing, I'm surprised I didn't think of it Nil Einne ( talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see there is already discussion at the top which I missed so I'm closing that to avoid splitting the discussion in two Nil Einne ( talk) 11:05, 30 April 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)

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)

Okay I'm guessing you meant the later, as Russia no longer has any cases. I've removed it, you're welcome to do the same with any other country that comes up Nil Einne ( talk) 10:52, 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 see that's been reverted on the grounds it doesn't apply to confirmed cases. Sorry - I guess I'm not as familiar with that as with the suspected column, which I believe is a snapshot. I think we need to spell out all these definitions somewhere, because it's not at all obvious. Maybe start another thread though. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:41, 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)

Cases by country
Last update: 20 February 2023 at 7:7 ( UTC)

Country	Cases		Deaths
	Laboratory confirmed	Suspected ‡ (probable [59])	Confirmed (suspected ‡)
Totals	251	3,700+	9 (177)
Mexico	99 [60]	2,498 [61]	8 (176) [62]
United States	93 [63] [64]	654+ [65]	1 [63]
New Zealand	3 [66]	111(13) [66] [67]	0
Guatemala	0	3 [68]	0 (1) [69]
El Salvador	0	3 [70]	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.
v t e

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:

1. In the not-confirmed case column we have - Suspected (probable) - whereas in the death column it is - Confirmed (suspected).

   This strikes me as inconsistent and potentially misleading, we should probably try to be consistent whichever way we choose.

2. The headers of the columns are not immediately clear, the distinction between suspected and probable cases is difficult - the WHO definition is fine, but we don't know how many of our sources are abiding by this classification.
3. The current death column format - confirmed (suspected) - is probably good as it avoids sensationalism; however there is a minor issue in that suspected could suggest that the deaths had not occurred.

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)

There's also the issue about whether the figures in each column are cumulative or a snapshot. Most of the sources I've seen for suspected cases give just a snapshot/current figure (and the exceptions give both a snapshot and a cumulative figure). I think that's also true for probable cases. But deaths are obviously cumulative, and I gather so are the figures for confirmed cases. Should we add a footnote to explain this to the reader? -- Avenue ( talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mt initial reading of the "suspected (probable)" format was that the probable figure was a part of the suspected number, which was added if it was available. Under that meaning, "111 (13)" would mean there were 13 probable cases, and 98 that were suspected nut not probable. But people are not using the notation that way. Instead, it means there were 13 probable cases, and 111 that were suspected nut not probable, i.e. 124 suspected or probable cases. So this notation seems ambiguous to me. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is that we are probably going to get probable deaths soon enough. What do we do then? Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the old format with just confirmed/suspect was superior. It is just too difficult to determine what is truly a "probable" case and what is only being called one by the media. In the long term - i.e. after the outbreak is over/mostly over, the table can just use the official WHO stats, but for now they just aren't upadted often enough to be used as the only source. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, and when discussed above consensus was not to have a separate column. I think the same applies for the brackets currently. Any thoughts from other editors? |→ Spaully^₪ † 14:45, 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).

Not really, some people in New Zealand are hospitalized just to keep them isolated. They are not in a serious condition and get nothing more than Tamiflu. (heard it on tv, no link sorry) F ( talk) 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand reports the number of hospitalised cases in New Zealand as zero. Those who are merely in isolation in a hospital because they can't be sent home (e.g. passengers in transit) are obviously not defined as hospitalised in the official statistics in New Zealand. Hawthorn ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

the unique formatting of this page is confusing. It is difficult to find and follow a particular discussion. I went ahead and created:

Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table/Region specific discussions

A subpage of this one, for Region specific discussions. Ikip ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's excellent. – xeno ^talk 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as things posted there are watched and incoporated into the table, I'm happy. Good Job -- PigFlu Oink ( talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

this editor added tags to the main article, along with this one. The discussion is found here: Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Sensationalism Please comment there so everything is in one place. Ikip ( talk) 17:52, 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)

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)

I agree. Something to be put in the text. No need for another column.

Also, Nutriveg, please use edit summaries for such edits. |→ Spaully^₪ † 12:59, 1 May 2009 ( GMT)

When there are transmission between residents it's more likely it's spreading and not just between some which traveled abroad.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is spread in an individual country is of little significance long term. Any country with enough cases will have them, and only now and in the next few days is that significant at all. This is something to be discussed in the text, and in country sections, rather than essential info to track the outbreak. |→ Spaully^₪ † 13:03, 1 May 2009 ( GMT)

I think it's more important than that, but in any case, the table is not the best place to present this. It takes up too much space, for too little information. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of why changing the name away from swine flu is not a good idea. Take my source from Hong Kong. It only says influenza A H1N1 confirmed. There are other types of H1N1, but I guess it refers to swine flu? [8] F ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WHO has changed the disease name, so every country would follow.- Xavier Fung ( talk) 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Previous flu pandemics have all been named for their country of origin. It should be Mexican Influenza to match this convention. The new name is worse than the old. Hawthorn ( talk) 14:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that this is not a matter to be discussed here in Wikipedia.- Xavier Fung ( talk) 15:00, 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)

WHO claims there are only seven deaths worldwide, not 20 or 152. Who do we believe? [9] [10] 130.216.222.197 ( talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

it could very well be an issue of whats taken into considering when a death is recorded, IIRC mexican officials confirmed that 20 (or whatever the number may be) people have died and had been infected with the current H1N1 strain, its possible WHO is stating only 7 have confirmed in which H1N1 was the actual cause of death (as opposed to having been infected but dying from other causes) whichever number is used i think a note or something should be used to indicate the conflicting report Default.XBE ( talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican officials are now using a more reliable test. So says the BBC. Dinkytown 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm updating the "confirmed" numbers in the table. We should use the most reliable source for these, which at present I think is the WHO. -- Avenue ( talk) 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Just because they haven't been reported to WHO properly (yet) doesn't mean they aren't confirmed. I am going to change back and add a note instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB ( talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree also. This keeps coming up on the talk pages. It was decided before to used referenced figures from the media, NOT the WHO's figures as they are unrealisticly out-of-date and the confirmed cases gives a bias towards countries with better access to testing laboratories e.g. 64 confirmed cases in US vs 26 in Mexico.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you both missed the point I was trying to make. If you have a more up to date source for laboratory confirmed cases than the WHO, that's fine with me. But if we have a heading saying "laboratory confirmed", the numbers should reflect that definition. Yes, this does lead to a biased picture of the disease's spread, but so do other factors, and conflating probable cases with confirmed ones does not solve the problem. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

if we are defining "laboratory confirmed" as "confirmed by WHO" we should put a note on the table to indicate that Default.XBE ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defining it that way, and I don't see anyone else doing so. Here is a link to the CDC's definition. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

wow, that CDC definition seems silly (im not arguing it though) but for a "probable" case of swine flu, its someone who has the flu, that has been confirm NOT to be swine flu, ah well, theyre the experts :) Default.XBE ( talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding it correctly. There's an explanation of the tests here under "Recommended Tests". -- Avenue ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, the current version of the table combines the seven deaths reported by WHO several hours ago with more recent reports of a US death confirmed by the CDC. That's fine with me, as they are all laboratory confirmed. -- Avenue ( talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the new layout, though it might looks more appealing, it doesn't have the rows lined up, and also it prevents blind people to understand the data, thus I must ask you to not revert back to that version. _{→ Aza Toth} 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I would suggest you to restart from the earlier layout, and work from there, the best course of action is for now revert back to the previous version, and work on an version in a sandbox. _{→ Aza Toth} 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

seconded, it also makes it more difficult to follow one row across to get all the information Default.XBE ( talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The rows in the navbox style DO NOT LINE UP. This is a misapplication of the navbox template. Wine Guy Talk 01:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which version is used, just please make sure it only has one "death" column. The extra column seems to create confusion and definitely wastes space. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with both ideas in that only one Death Column is needed, and the layout must be reverted back to the old version. Rpr124 ( talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i reverted it, i think i incorporated the most recent data but i may have missed something, i also dont know how to put the image on the bottom so its just gone :/ Default.XBE ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You beat me to it. The navbox style should not be used unless the rows can be made to line up. Wine Guy Talk 02:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited the code so that it looks more like the navbox table, while still using the wikitable formatting. Feel free to clean up my wikicode. Abecedare ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two types of deaths - those which are confirmed as being from the virus and those which are only suspected as being form the virus, but not yet confirmed. The question is what should these two types be called?

I have twice changed it to "confirmed\unconfirmed" to avoid any possible ambiguity. The problem with other words (such as "attributed" or "suspected") is that it is not 100% clear whether this means the total # or just the ones that aren't confirmed. (As evidenced by editors making good faith changes in both directions).

However, it has been changed away from "unconfirmed" by others multiple times so I am asking for other opinions as to the best terminology here. Thanks. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem people raised with confirmed/unconfirmed is that it unconfirmed suggests the people might not have died, which is incorrect. Hence calling them attributed deaths. I thought the 152 (7) method was clear as it indicates the confirmed to be a subset of attributed. However this was swapped around ( to 7 (152) ) as some suggested it was sensationalist. Having two columns also is a problem due to space and it still not being clear how to name them.

I still support using 152 (7) - attributed (confirmed) - though it would be good to get a consensus to stick to. |→ Spaully^₪ † 21:14, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

We have the same problem with confirmed/suspected in the cases section. These are not meant to overlap, but people have made good faith edits there that assume confirmed cases are a subset of suspected cases. If we have to choose, I'd prefer clarity on this point (e.g. by using confirmed/unconfirmed) over clarity about whether the deaths are really deaths (which we can address in a footnote). This also has the advantage of not using a term from the CDC classification (suspected) to mean something else (suspected plus probable cases, in their lingo). But I'd be glad to hear if anyone has any other suggestions. -- Avenue ( talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the header of the suspected cases to "other suspected", so hopefully that will clear things up a bit more. "Lab confirmed"/"Other suspeccted" -> "Confirmed (Suspected)". -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That does help, a lot. Thank you! -- Avenue ( talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to reverse the order of confirmed and unconfirmed deaths, that is, putting unconfirmed in parenthesis and confirmed outside of parenthesis. The placement of the bigger numbers first comes off as kind of sensationalist. Just a thought. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the confirmed deaths are a subset of attributed deaths. This seems the best way found so far to get that information across. Not ideal perhaps. |→ Spaully^₪ † 23:26, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

I don't see that as a logical reason to oppose such a clarification. Reversed, it works like a fraction or ratio: x confirmed out of y attributed. And like you say, confirmed are a subset of attributed- the attributed works as a denominator. Furthermore, it strikes me that placing the attributed deaths first may be questionable from a WP:NPOV standpoint. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is some ambiguity/confusion about what attributed means. The 100(10) format seems to best get across the idea: 100 deaths of which 10 are confirmed. Whereas 10(100) would probably imply 10 confirmed plus 100 others. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then how about cases like the US where there's one attributed and one confirmed? Or other cases of small numbers... 1 (1) could easily be read to mean 2 deaths. The 1 without parenthesis suggests the death isn't confirmed. A standalone (1) is frankly somewhat confusing, though I guess might be the best solution given the current format. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like this has already happened. I'm pretty satisfied with how it looks now. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we reconcile the numbers of confirmed cases on this page with this statement from the WHO? The WHO claims that there are only 79 confirmed cases worldwide, about 1/3 of what this template claims. Are we listening to a reactionary media more than we should be? Oren0 ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The WHO is only counting confirmed cases that have been reported to them by national agencies. So when the Canadian health agency double checks a sample for Mexico who then report it to WHO - it all takes a while. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not a good idea to have a separate column for probable case as they are still suspected, so could we simply put brackets, or even merge their numbers with the suspected cases if necessary? The width of the template now disrupts the text flow of those major articles. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the new column is trying to do too much. It's not our place to apply the CDC rules to cases, that is too much OR. I suggest keeping confirmed and suspected as we don't have the information to split the numbers like that. |→ Spaully^₪ † 12:22, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

There are no proofs yet, that the word "probable" from various sources has the same definition by CDC. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the other 3000+ cases? We don't have the information to classify the cases into 3 categories so we shouldn't try. Perhaps later on when the WHO has more detailed figures, but for now I think it is misleading and a step too far in terms of original research.

Finally identified the edit: this by User:Nutriveg

I really think this should be changed back with the probables merged into suspected as before. |→ Spaully^₪ † 12:31, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

I agree the probable cases should be merged back into the suspected column; there's not enough information available to make this split consistently. The drawback is that there are many media reports that conflate the probable cases with confirmed ones, so we need to be vigilant about what goes into the table. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late - the figures are moved and it's become difficult to handle. Have tried to merge back but had frequent edit conflicts. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree not to have a separate column for probable cases. It looks too complicated and confusing. Roy2005 ( talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree, remove it, im no good with the navbox otherwise id do it myself Default.XBE ( talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just push through any edit conflicts and sort them out afterwards. A big change like this is always going to be difficult. |→ Spaully^₪ † 13:59, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

im not sure which columns the "probable" numbers should be merged to, it looks like they were pulled from confirmed, but based on lower numbers of confirmed cases from the CDC and WHO, theres some discussion of it a bit up the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#WHO_claims_only_seven_deaths_in_total Default.XBE ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "probable" cases is provided by an official authority on the matter, the CDC, and seem to be followed by reputable media and other country agencies. All of them had suffered preliminary tests. The suspects cases are too broad and poorly scientific based.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the CDC definition of "probable" is basically saying they have the flu, but not the swine flu, how thats a probable case of swine flu is beyond me, lol Default.XBE ( talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the definition of probable by the CDC is that the person was tested for other influenza strains, which results are readly avaiable, but those tests resulted negative.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the site says probable is someone "who is positive for influenza A, but negative for H1" since the current outbreak is a strain of H1N1 im reading that to say they are negative for the current strain (H1), am i missing something? Default.XBE ( talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are. There's an explanation of the tests here under "Recommended Tests". -- Avenue ( talk) 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "probable" by various sources do not necessary have the same definition as of CDC. I doubt if the news agencies have looked into what CDC defines, and labs other than CDC follows the rule (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So I would generally treat the news articles as literally "probable" but not technically "probable". In that case I would suggest a merge to avoid ambiguities and maintenance, and to make the table slim not to disrupt the text in the main articles. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources seem to be aware of what they're talking about, specially when citing health authorities.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply guess the meaning of probable does not make sense, and literally "probable" and "suspected" also confers an uncertain meaning. I don't think making these cases complex would be beneficial to our fellow editors as well as readers of the articles.

To make a compromise, it's possible to have probable numbers but for those confirmed by CDC and not from the media. The numbers are put in brackets to slim down the table width. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with dropping the "probable" column from the main chart, but leaving it in the US chart where it has a specific meaning. However, I would point out that it does have *some* purpose in the main chart - for example the 11 "probable" cases in NZ will likely never be officially verified since they are directly connected to the 3 confirmed cases & the authorities feel there is not point testing the connected individuals since they almost certainly have the same strain. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In those sourced numbers it has a meaning, check the sources for France, South Korea, US, ... -- Nutriveg ( talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are in the minority here Nutriveg. I agree with ThaddeusB, Xavier, Roy, and Default. The consensus is to remove the column as we may be reading too much into sources and thereby doing some original research. Easier said than done though, will take a look. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:49, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

So this is the draft for the replacement, and still work in progress to merge the numbers. [11] - Xavier Fung ( talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "probable" vs. "suspected" is pretty much clear. A "suspected" case is basically an ILI (influenza-like illness). Those cases will be tested. When the test shows influenza A, but not common influenza strains, it will be declared "probable", otherwise the case will be cleared. Further tests on the "probable" cases try to identify if the current virus A/H1N1 is present, which results in a "confirmed" case. From all media reports I checked so far, this differentiation is followed. On the other hand, if we use the reduced table, we have to discard many cases for Mexico: everywhere it is cited that only 26 cases are confirmed - not 170+. Hilmarwoy 17:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.95.148 ( talk)

But we have no clue on which criteria the media has followed, so we cannot simply assume that all the reports follow the CDC guideline unless it is explicitly mentioned. If CDC changes the definition later, all the numbers have to be sorted out again. If other countries invent their own detection standards, then much confusion would occur and we may require to list out all the possible definitions, which I don't think a template page can serve like this. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We just have to make sure the numbers match the column headings. If a source doesn't match the headings, we can't use it (unless we change the headings, but that would mean every row would have to change). And yes, the numbers for Mexico arewere wrong.-- Avenue ( talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is less important which criteria the media follow. Normally they get their information from the central health institute of the particular country and those are linked to international organisations and WHO in particular. The case definition is not an invention of the CDC in the USA. It is a WHO guidance for the surveillance of S-OIV (swine origin influenza virus) from April 27 2009 [12]. And thus it should be implemented globally. However, those split between probable and suspected infections has a clear benefit on the endless discussions on France, South Korea et.al. Just consider it. Hilmarwoy 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, based on recent edits I think distinguishing probable cases would be helpful after all. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What recent edits are you referring to? I mean what kind of edits, I've not noticed any problems.

I still am not sure this is a good idea - what sources do we base the "probable" assertion on? Currently the sources do not support the probable cases, though I can't read Korean. Another problem with the current format is that in one column the bracketed number is suspected and the other probable. This looks misleading. We definitely need sources for the new French and South Korean probable cases, and some discussion on whether to have them at all. |→ Spaully^₪ † 09:49, 30 April 2009 ( GMT)

I think he/she is referring to the problem with some countries like NZ where the distinction between probable and confirmed is not always clear. She my comment #Confirmed, probable and suspected?. I do think probable is necessary and a good idea since in some cases probable like in NZ are never going to be upgraded to confirmed. Also it is an official WHO definition which health authorities are expected to report hence must be collecting statistics on. Even if we can avoid misguided edits, the edits happen for a reason, because the information is confusing to readers. For us to pretend that probable doesn't exist is frankly doing our readers a disservice and going to cause more confusion when they hear about probable but there's nothing here. Indeed I would go as far as to argue it makes more sense for us to abandon suspected which doesn't have any consistent definition and is not something that is reported to the WHO (ILI which is probably what most sources mean by suspected is reported, but who knows if sources mean ILI when they say suspected?). Sourcing may be a problem but it's also one for suspected and as demonstrated by the sometimes confusion between confirmed and probable, it is for confirmed as well. Hopefully the WHO will start publishing probable case numbers (but from my memory of the SARS may be not.) BTW probable cases are I believe common in situations like this, I recall a similar thing with SARS so it's not something that's unique to here either. And if the unthinkable? happens and we get a real pandemic we're going likely to have a hell of a lot of probable cases that will never be confirmed. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: SARS I checked the article and now remember that was a somewhat different situation since there we didn't even have confirmed (as the virus was not identified) for a long time so most of the statistics were probable or suspected and indeed the table lists only probable. Still I think it demonstrates that probable is meaningful category commonly used in potential pandemics of this sort Nil Einne ( talk) 11:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this table's formating is terrible, it actually looks nicer than the current table. It was reverted for formatting and alignment issues. Hopefully we can make the current table look more like this one.

New (reverted version)

Old/current version

Cases by country Last update: 20 February 2023 at 7:7 ( UTC) Country Cases Deaths Laboratory confirmed Other possible‡ Attributed (confirmed)‡ Totals 271 2,595+ 152 (20) Mexico 172 [1] 1,995 [1] 152 (20) [4] US 64 [83] 255+ [8] 0 Canada 13 [84] 19 [8] 0 New Zealand 11 [4] 43 [4] 0 UK 2 [5] 40 [8] 0 Spain 2 [6] 29 [8] 0 Israel 2 [7] 2 [85] 0 Costa Rica 2 [86] 0 0 Australia 0 91 [87] 0 Brazil 0 20 [88] 0 France 0 20 [14] 0 Chile 0 13 [89] 0 Colombia 0 12 [16] 0 Argentina 0 10 [17] 0 Switzerland 0 9 [18] 0 Norway 0 8+ [19] 0 Poland 0 5 [90] 0 Hong Kong 0 4 [21] 0 Guatemala 0 3 [91] 0 Honduras 0 3 [23] 0 Venezuela 0 3 [92] 0 Germany 0 2 [93] 0 Iceland 0 2 [94] 0 Austria 0 1 [27] 0 Italy 0 1 [28] 0 South Korea 0 1 [95] 0 Dominican Republic 0 1 [96] 0 Uruguay 0 1 [31] 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. v t e

Ikip ( talk) 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is better the left version. -- 87.0.62.180 ( talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The left-hand table presents serious Web accessibility issues and contravenes the manual of style, so I would strongly oppose such a change; see Wikipedia:Accessibility#Tables — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have set up automatic archiving to archive any threads with no comments for 48 hours in order to (hopefully) cut down on the clutter. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The main article talk page is set as 12h. Considering most of the conversations are 'Add this Case' we can probally go as low as that with no serious imapcts to article improvement conversation -- PigFlu Oink ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

the unique formatting of this page is confusing. It is difficult to find and follow a particular discussion. I went ahead and created:

Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table/Region specific discussions

A subpage of this one, for Region specific discussions. Ikip ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's excellent. – xeno ^talk 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as things posted there are watched and incoporated into the table, I'm happy. Good Job -- PigFlu Oink ( talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

3 laboratory confirmed cases in France, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89pid%C3%A9mie_de_grippe_porcine_H1N1_de_2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMM1995 ( talk • contribs)

The French page only has a source for the unconfirmed cases, not for the lab ones. Still looking for corroboration though. |→ Spaully^₪ † 16:18, 27 April 2009 ( GMT)

32 Suspected cases in France http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/04/29/01011-20090429FILWWW00475-grippe-porcine-france-32-cas-suspects.php Dccdz ( talk) 14:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Later revised to 25 after 7 negative test results. [15] Wine Guy Talk 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

5 probable 41 Suspected cases http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/sciences/sante/0,,4399729,00-5-cas-probables-en-france-reunion-a-matignon-ce-soir-.html Dccdz ( talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

19 (not 17) non-confirmed cases in Spain: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/27/espana/1240825949.html Reescribidor ( talk) 11:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/27/espana/1240820718.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reescribidor ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Second confirmed case in Spain: http://www.publico.es/espana/222002/sanidad/confirma/segundo/caso/gripe/porcina/espana (in spanish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.61.158 ( talk) 09:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain numbers

There is a mistaked data in the template: now, in Spain, are 25 possible/no-confirmed, not 35: [16]. Amadís ( talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2 Cases confirmed in Spain, 26 possible cases: http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/espana/noticias/1200758/04/09/Espana-vigila-a-26-poisbles-infectados-por-la-gripe-porcina.html 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.15.120 ( talk)

2nd confirmed case in Spain

In Valencia, Spain, a 2nd case has been confirmed by the Health Ministry. http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/28/espana/1240911361.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.86.68 ( talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Upwards of 50 - FALSE

EDIT: 111 cases (pause video at the very start)

Source: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Nightline/tabid/368/articleID/101436/cat/41/Default.aspx#video

I don't think we can use video sources - I've looked for a text version without any luck. Smartse ( talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Video sources are definitely allowed. rootology ( C)( T) 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not, they are just as reliable as text versions - if not moreso as they are broadcasted nationally. Therkster ( talk) 14:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says "video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet" It could be included but a text version is a lot easier for people to check and verify. Smartse ( talk) 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the 111 reference in the video. The text version [17] doesn't mention it either. Some of the cases discussed are only quarantined too which might not count as cases. Smartse ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

At the very start of the video - first couple of seconds - you can see a map of New Zealand and unconfirmed cases in each City/town. 51 in Auckland, 20 in Nelson, 2 in Waikato etc.... Pause to see in detail Therkster ( talk) 15:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I see it's in the video posted beneath this thread not the one at the top of this. I'll put it in. Smartse ( talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - couldn't get the table to work, can someone else add it - the grid lines keep on disappearing. It should have 111 for NZ using the reference: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Nightline/tabid/368/articleID/101436/cat/41/Default.aspx#video Smartse ( talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

nieuw zealand

why is it 11 confirmed? the reference is 3 out of 11, not 11 GTNz ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Because 11 are judged to "have swine flu" as being part of the group who was confirmed. See [18] Jestr ( talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

But that is an assumption. Admittedly by a reliable source (the Ministry of Health), but describing it as "confirmed" seems too strong, especially when organisations like WHO are not. [19] -- Avenue ( talk) 05:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have set back to 3 confirmed. 11 or more others have influenza, but the strain is not confirmed yet. ^{ross nixon} 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

6 deaths in the USA

Unconfirmed case in Scotland

Source: http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Nightline/tabid/368/articleID/101436/cat/41/Default.aspx#video

Therkster ( talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the table it says 18 laboratory confirmed cases, when its really 22. Chack it in the Frech version if you dare... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMM1995 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only one possibly attributed death in the US, not two. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518196,00.html Nintendo 07 ( talk) 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed. Nintendo 07 ( talk) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC television is reporting that the toddler who died was infected in Mexico and specifically brought to the US for treatment. If this is confirmed, the "1" US death should be removed as it is properly part of the Mexican outbreak. Ecphora ( talk) 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No the death occured in the U.S. That is the only thing that the table tracks, not source of infection - which was Mexico for a lot of the early cases in many countries. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Laboratory confirmed cases in Mexico are about 22, check it in the french version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMM1995 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

still 3 suspects in Prague (men returned from Mexico).

http://aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/zivot-v-cesku/clanek.phtml?id=635843

http://spravy.pravda.sk/priblizuje-sa-prasacia-chripka-v-prahe-preveruju-dva-pripady-p56-/sk_svet.asp?c=A090427_182820_sk_svet_p23

---

http://www.ct24.cz/domaci/53084-zadny-z-vysetrenych-nema-priznaky-praseci-chripky/ - also predictions (final results not yet known)

 —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Acidbird (
talk • 
contribs) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 

0 cases for now - those 3 not confirmed - http://www.ct24.cz/domaci/53084-testy-na-praseci-chripku-jsou-u-vsech-tri-cestovatelu-negativni/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidbird ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic revisited

Just thought I would bring it to the attention of fellow editors that the Czech Republic in the table has 0 everything. Is there a reason why its there? Last I heard there were 3 cases so if someone is willing to update it? Lachy123 ( talk) 09:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

0 cases for now

Please update the numbers on Germany. The 3 cases mentioned in the initial source are confirmed negative influenza A - so it's not swine flu. Source: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,621426,00.html. (Headline says All-clear for suspicious swine flu cases). -- hilmarwoy 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deutschland

In Bielefeld wurden die ersten Verdachtsfälle von Schweinegrippe in Deutschland gemeldet. Bei zwei Personen, die mit grippeähnlichen Symptomen ins Krankenhaus kamen, gaben die Mediziner bereits Entwarnung. Verwirrung herrschte über einen weiteren angeblichen Verdachtsfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMM1995 ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Google says: " In Bielefeld, the first suspected cases of swine flu in Germany reported. When two people with flu-like symptoms were hospitalized, said the doctors already complacency. Confusion reigned over another alleged case of suspicion." Do you have a ref for this? – xeno ^talk 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Die Testergebnisse waren negativ. The results were negative. -- Grochim ( talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New possible case(s) in Germany (04-28-2009)

One is still unclear, the other one came out negative after a "Schnelltest" (rapid test). Thorough testing still needs to be done however. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/47/466627/text/ — 85.179.140.94 ( talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First verified case in Germany

First verified case of swine flu near Regensburg "Bayern bestätigt ersten Fall von Schweinegrippe in Deutschland" http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/09/04/29/ticker/t/rzo563149.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.20.65 ( talk) 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two women traveling from Mexico to Portugal on 27th April 2009 have flu-like symptoms. Reference: http://ultimahora.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1377186&idCanal=62

Portuguese Health System reaction

The above article also mentions that these two women have not been tested for the strain, and have been told, during a visit to the hospital, to stay home for 10 days.

"Ainda de acordo com o mesmo jornal, as portuguesas estiveram de férias em Puebla, a 190 quilómetros da Cidade do México e, no voo de regresso, fizeram escala nos Estados Unidos. Quando chegaram a Portugal, perante alguns sintomas de gripe e diarreia, telefonaram para a Linha Saúde 24 que as reencaminhou para o hospital, onde terão ido duas vezes mas sem serem submetidas a exames médicos específicos. Foi-lhe apenas dito para aguardarem dez dias em casa."

Sahbapasta ( talk) 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugal's doesn't have any Swine Flu for now

Tests conducted on the two sickly individuals have now confirmed they suffer from regular flu, as opposed to Swine Flu. Please correct the table, as I cannot (no account). Link (In Portuguese): http://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=1214806 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.189.3 ( talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

suspect cases in israel go up to three. ATIAS ( talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide the source? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel has 2 confirmed cases. Why was that taken off? source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/27/us/20090427-flu-update-graphic.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.255.31 ( talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of 2 confirmed cases in Israel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/swineflu/map.html

JPost says 6 cases. 192.118.11.112 ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, update the map. In this moment there are not suspects of swine flu in Peru, and the suspect peruvian woman came from Cancun, Mexico was not swine flu.

Read Reuters article from 1 hour ago (Spanish): [20] -- EdwinJs ( talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not influenza. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=280496&cid=1

Test is negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorellen ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The first case of Swine Flu in Costa Rica has been confirmed on a 21 year old girl that visited Mexico (source in spanish): http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/abril/28/pais1948013.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabro113 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to a healthcare official there are 9 suspects in the cantons of Aargau, Berne, Geneve, Zurich, Basel-City and Vaud. 8 are considered to be mild while one patient has pneumonia probably caused by bacterial infection.

Swiss television reports: [21]

I ask for apporopriate changes of the template, the map and the article about national responses. -- Constantine of Kostenets ( talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally just zeroed out the cases, but decided based on prior removals to pull Ireland out of the table. Here's the cite. Irish swine flu results all clear aremisasling ( talk) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it was a good choice. FYI, 96fm is not a reliable source, however RTÉ is, and they also say it. [22] Keithf2008 ( talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed. [23] Should we wait for the test results before adding these to the table? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tricky. The Mexico ones are up there, unattributed. I think--for NPOV if nothing else--they should be in. Another link. [24] rootology ( C)( T) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, the difference I think is that the Mexican ones were "attributed" by the government, whereas these are only "speculated" by the media? Pontificalibus ( talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican ones weren't all directly attributed by the government, is the problem. It's been a clean mix of both. rootology ( C)( T) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove unconfirmed deaths altogether? I agree that it seems a bit sensationalist. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That was discussed on the main article. Basically, many deaths will never be confirmed, especially when the numbers rise, so attributed deaths will end up being added to the official death toll and are valuble information.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

California declares state of emergency in the wake of this. rootology ( C)( T) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the "2009 Swine Flu Outbreak in US" article, there are 70 proven cases and 200+ possible cases in US whereas the table in this article shows 68 and 300+ respectively. Which number is correct I cannot tell, but the other table should be updated.

The same thing also goes for Spain (2 proven, 40 possible in the main article, 3 proven, 32 possible in this article).

Sincerely, 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.100.240 ( talk)

It depends often on the sources, not all sources have the same numbers. That's why we doing this here. -- Grochim ( talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia is missing from the table, I don't know why, just check it.-- AMM1995 ( talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

russia's 1 suspected case was tested and came back negative http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=280496&cid=1 Default.XBE ( talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article... [25]

"The Health Ministry reported today... the two people coming from Mexico, who are hospitalized at the Hospital Emilio Ribas, Sao Paulo, do not fit the "definition of suspected cases of swine influenza." According to the ministry, the patients did not show signs and symptoms compatible with disease, such as fever over 39 degrees Celsius accompanied by cough and headache, muscle and joints. "So far, no evidence of movement of swine influenza virus in humans in Brazil," says the note.

... seems to supercede the article [26] cited for Brazil, which was put back in after I removed it earlier. There are other references on the talk page of the main article. I'm going to remove Brazil unless a better source can be found. Wine Guy Talk 02:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

1 confrimed case. Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1022790.html "In Brazil, a 40-year-old man was hospitalized with swine flu Tuesday in the northern coastal city of Salvador, the Brazilian government news agency reported. The man had just returned from Miami."

New 3 possible cases, all in Belo Horizonte city. Two are a couple who returned from Mexico and the third is a man who returned from the United States.
References (all in portuguese): G1 Portal: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1099897-5598,00.html
G1 Portal: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100227-5598,00-BELO+HORIZONTE+REGISTRA+MAIS+UM+SUSPEITO+DE+GRIPE+SUINA.html (third suspect case)
Folha Online: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556873.shtml
Folha Online: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556955.shtml (third suspect case)

We should add Brazil to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosrom ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil Cases Not in the Table

3 possible cases, all in Belo Horizonte city. Yesterday, was 2 cases in São Paulo but they wasn't swine flu. In this 3 new cases, two people are a couple who returned from Mexico and the third is a man who returned from the United States.
References (all in portuguese):
G1 Portal: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1099897-5598,00.html
G1 Portal: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100227-5598,00-BELO+HORIZONTE+REGISTRA+MAIS+UM+SUSPEITO+DE+GRIPE+SUINA.html (third suspect case)
Folha Online: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556873.shtml
Folha Online: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u556955.shtml (third suspect case)

Please add Brazil to the table of suspect cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosrom ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a doubt...

How do I do to add Brazil in the cases by country? There are already 11 suspect cases in Brazil, however, here speaks that to publish is blockaded...

11 suspect cases in Brazil

How do I do to add Brazil in the cases by country? There are already 11 suspect cases in Brazil, however, here speaks that to publish is blockaded... Rodfanaia ( talk) 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Veronica ( talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100490-5598,00.html -- Rodfanaia ( talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Veronica ( talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

+1 Source: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u557093.shtml -- Rodfanaia ( talk) 01:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: 11 will be 16 suspects of the Swine flu.

SAO PAULO - Twelve persons are interned in hospitals of the country and are monitored because of having arrived of travels to the outside with symptoms of swine flu, according to the Brazilian authorities. Schemes of emergence are being mounted in the states to designate hospitals of reference and to maintain the patients with suspect of swine flu isolated.

In Salvador, a 40-year-old, derived man of the United States, submitted in the hospital Otávio Mangabeira with fever, cough and pain of throat.

Too many cases are being accompanied in Minas Gerais (three), Rio de Janeiro (two), Amazon (two), Rio Grande do Norte (two), Sao Paulo (one) and Pará (one). One of the suspect cases of the Rio de Janeiro belongs of a woman interned in isolation in the hospital Top D'Or.

Sources: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1100827-5598,00-BAHIA+E+O+SETIMO+ESTADO+A+REGISTRAR+SUSPEITA+DE+GRIPE+SUINA.html

-- UPDATED --

[ UPDATED: Three persons of the same family were directed this Tuesday to a hospital in the Rio after Tom Jobim disembarked in the airport with symptoms like vomiting and diarrhea. Due to the fear of an advancement of the swine flu, the three were directed to the hospital Evandro Chagas, of the Fiocruz. ]

In the total they are 16 suspect persons of swine flu in Brazil.

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u557354.shtml

Ministry of Health monitors 20 suspect cases of Swine flu in Brazil

The Ministry of Health informed in this Tuesday (28) that there are 20 cases of persons with suspect of contamination for the Swine flu in Brazil. The cases were registered in eight states of the country.

The Paraná is the state with more suspect cases (4), followed of Minas Gerais, Amazon and Santa Catarina (3), Bahia, Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Norte (2 each) and Pará (1). According to the ministry, all the cases are being monitored.

-- Rodfanaia ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1101455-5598,00-MINISTERIO+DA+SAUDE+MONITORA+CASOS+SUSPEITOS+DE+GRIPE+SUINA+NO+BRASIL.html

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/28/gripe-suina-no-brasil-governos-anvisa-monitoram-casos-suspeitos-da-doenca-755477619.asp

Can anybody increase the number of suspect cases in Brazil in the Cases by country?

-- Rodfanaia ( talk) 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done thank you. – xeno ^talk 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil has only 2 suspected cases

By Health Minister: [27] other 36 people are been "monitored" but this is different from suspicious status, differentiated by Minister. -- 201.78.51.25 ( talk) 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone with better Portuguese skills than myself will need to look at this. What I get from the above source is that there are 38 cases (36 possible + 2 probable), or maybe just 2 possible. If there is an editor out there with reasonable fluency in both Portuguese and English, please have a look at this. Wine Guy Talk 22:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "suspeito" means suspected, these two patients have all symptoms and are the only really suspected and closely observed. The other 34 are people with common flu that came from the U.S. and Mexico (or had contact with who came) and not have all the symptoms, and are only being monitored but no suspicion of swine flu. I ask for update Brazil numbers to avoid alarmism, the Minister was clear yesterday in the declaration of official numbers. -- 201.78.35.253 ( talk) 10:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica has infected people too (1 woman) [28] [29]. ~~ ×α£ đ~~ ^es 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ive noticed this got changed from 152 to 126 and back a few time recently, are we assuming 152 refers to the total deaths both confirmed and attributed (126+26) or is 152 attributed only (meaning total is 152+26) this should be cleared up so it doesnt keep getting changed and reverted Default.XBE ( talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be 152 (26 of which are confirmed) -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The title is rather ambiguous as is. Should either be "total attributed" or "other attributed" to distinguish what is meant. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I see we have split the table for confirmed/attributed deaths now. Not sure about this as I think it makes it harder to keep track of things, as totals are the most reported number. Pontificalibus ( talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second column being the total as long as it is titled "total attributed" rather than just attributed. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change since someone just changed it back to 152. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus way to deal with New Zealand (and similar cases)? As it stands now (and has for a while), 3 have been explicility confirmed via laboratory test. One more is undergoing further testing. However as several cases are strongly related (occured among a group of students all of who had visited Mexico together and came down with similar symptoms due to some type of influenza A) this is considered sufficient to confirm that all 11 have swine flu according to health sources (and mentioned in every source I've read). Only these four samples were sent for testing and it's unclear if any of the other 7 are going to be tested (one source seemed to imply it but it was a non NZ source and may have been mistaken) but it seems from the sources that if they will, it's not going to happen any time soon (which makes sense there's no point testing something you are 99.9% certain of when you have a lot of other cases to test). If it hasn't already, this is likely to happens in other cases/countries too I expect. So the question is how should we handle this in the article? At the moment, it simply says 11 with no explaination. Earlier it said 3 again with no explaination. Before that it said 3 (11) with the explaination that it was 11 predicted, 3 confirmed. All these have been with the same sources/information and I notice above there is a comment from someone confused by the sources so I expect there could easily be more chopping and changing if we don't agree what's the best way to handle it. Personally I feel the 11 should be in there somewhere so either the current system or the earliest system. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for both to be in the table, under an appropriate heading. (An explanation of the difference would be a good addition to 2009_swine_flu_outbreak_by_country too.) But I think 3 is the appropriate "confirmed" number for now, as long as reliable sources like the WHO stick with it. [30] -- Avenue ( talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the New York Times reliable enough to call it 14 confirmed? "New Zealand officials said on Wednesday that 14 cases had been confirmed there." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?_r=1&hp 65.3.255.31 ( talk) 13:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now the AP is saying NZ have 14 cases confirmed. I'm confused on this one, why are the 11 not confirmed? It seems we have reliable sources saying 14 so shouldn't we now go with that? |→ Spaully^₪ † 17:51, 29 April 2009 ( GMT)

Those 14 cases are "confirmed" in the sense that the NZ Ministry of Health believes they are all likely to be infected with this strain (or believed they were). See [31] for one report that makes this clear. Four of them (originally three) have been confirmed by laboratory tests, which matches the description at the top of our first column, so that seems the appropriate number to report there. One of the 14 "confirmed" cases is now no longer "confirmed", because they came from Samoa, not the US as originally thought - see [32]. Perhaps this confirms ;-) that "confirmed" is not the best term for these cases. -- Avenue ( talk) 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also see this WHO update. It mentions 3 laboratory confirmed cases in NZ, which, although a bit out of date, shows that the WHO is using the tighter definition of confirmed. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this figure has been repeatedly switched. The problem is: does attributed deaths = total deaths (confirmed + suspected, hence 26 + 126) or only suspected deaths (126)? Better to have a consensus.

And if it means only suspected deaths, do we need a column for "total" deaths (to avoid confusion)? Roy2005 ( talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the term "total attributed" seems to do the trick. Thanks. Roy2005 ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It still might be somewhat misleading, as people may tend to add the figures to get what they think a total death count. What was the rationale to switch from 152(26)? |→ Spaully^₪ † 21:56, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

As yet the sources for this suggest the deaths are not attributed to the flu but other diseases. They are investigating any links to the flu. I think it is incorrect and too soon to add them to the table, especially given this is a big issue. As such I have removed it twice. I will not do so again as it verges on warring, but please discuss it here. |→ Spaully^₪ † 22:11, 28 April 2009 ( GMT)

You are right. In fact, the latest report from the coroner's office says that, " further testing indicated neither of two flu-related deaths being investigated in Los Angeles County appeared to be linked to the swine flu." I have added this to the 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United_States#California and I think we should be vigilant in keeping such outdated and alarming information out of the article/table, unless its backed by even more recent and authoritative sources. I doubt that any sane admin will block such gatekeeping due to 3RR, but I'll ask at ANI. Abecedare ( talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted here. Abecedare ( talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add Russia to the list, for one confirmed infection and no unconfirmed or deaths. 68.40.189.45 ( talk) 23:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source, i.e., link to a newspaper or online article ? Abecedare ( talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked for any news on this, but there is no any avidence of new suspected cases in Russia(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorellen ( talk • contribs)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5235900/Swine-flu-New-Zealand-confirms-11-cases.html 130.217.188.28 ( talk) 00:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does New Zealand have two columns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.107.206 ( talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

14 cases confirmed in New Zealnd http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?_r=1&hp "New Zealand officials said on Wednesday that 14 cases had been confirmed there." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.255.31 ( talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have another source to back the 14 confirmed cases up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/26/swine-flu-outbreak-timeline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.189.101 ( talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there are conflicting reports, the source cited for the current number (4) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/swine-flu/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502821&objectid=10569245 says 4 have been confirmed with swine flu and another 10 are expected to return positive results, lets leave it at 4 until we know those results...of ocurse with the other numbers in that source it would bring the suspected up to 220 for NZ Default.XBE ( talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All these reports are using "confirmed" in a much looser sense than we are. See Template_talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table#New_Zealand below for details. -- Avenue ( talk) 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please put the total number at the top, instead of at the bottom?

Everyone is interested in the total number, but the current format makes people scroll down to the bottom of the graph.

I will play with this, but I don't know if I can fix this. Ikip ( talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed this myself. Ikip ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina has 12 cases like Colombia, but the A is before the C. Can anyone put Argentina above Colombia?... I don't know how to do this -- Maru-Spanish ( talk) 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please see that this gets into the table? http://www.panama-guide.com/article.php/20090428100904563 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.155.34 ( talk) 03:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The original Spanish is probably fine though - I'll go ahead and add it. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two hours ago a Copa Airlines flight from Mexico to Buenos Aires made an emergency land in Lima, because an argentinian woman that was on board presented the symtomps. She is currently in observation, while the rest of the passengers continued to Buenos Aires. [33] [34] 201.230.3.23 ( talk) 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

how about colouring Argentina and Peru? 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While there has been no known cases of human swine flu in Singapore, 17 cases have been referred for further medical assessment. 16 have been referred to the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) and one case was seen at Singapore General Hospital (SGH).

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/425580/1/.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgreporter ( talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also tells that there are 4 negatives, so the total number would be 13? Any other news can confirm? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for previous comments...

Reply to Xavier Fung:

There are 17 cases in total (until 28 April 2009)

one case was seen at SGH. Three cases referred to the CDC (including the two referred yesterday) have all tested negative

17 - 1 - 3 = 13 Suspected Cases...(until 28 April 2009)

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/pressreleases.aspx

Thanks. Table updated. - Xavier Fung ( talk) 10:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Today one of the four "maybe-infections" was confirmed as an H1N1 infection: derStandard.at, german. The other three are negatives.

So the current row for Austria should look like: "1 0 0" Daniel at 84 ( talk) 07:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not confirmed yet, the complete results of the tests are expected this afternoon: Es ist zwar so gut wie fix, dass eine 28-jährige Wienerin nach einem Aufenthalt bei ihren Eltern in Guatemala an der Schweinegrippe (H1N1) erkrankt ist, ein hundertprozentiges Testergebnis wird allerdings erst am Mittwochnachmittag erwartet. But thanks! -- Grochim ( talk) 10:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the article sounded different, as I linked it... in that case its okay to wait Daniel at 84 ( talk) 11:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now its confirmed: orf.at derStandard.at Daniel at 84 ( talk) 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim ( talk) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for 2 probable cases in Slovakia does not really support the probable claim - per the article, of the 2 cases, one has so far tested negative for any influenza virus, and the second does not even have any symptoms - they should at best be moved to "suspected" instead of "probable" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.31.117 ( talk) 14:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Has just raised the suspects' number of the pig flu in Brazil. of 20 it was for 27.

SAO PAULO - 27 Are the persons monitored in nine states of the country and in the Federal area with suspect of having contracted the virus of the swine flu.

Can anybody publish and put the number of suspect cases for 27? thxx!!

Source: http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/mat/2009/04/29/gripe-suina-nove-estados-o-distrito-federal-monitoram-pacientes-vindos-do-exterior-com-sintomas-da-doenca-755492421.asp

-- Rodfanaia ( talk) 13:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim ( talk) 14:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20090429144821696C561369 -- Simonr9999 ( talk) 13:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The two suspected cases in Iceland turned out to be false alarms. The individuals in question do not have the swine flu. The source is here: http://visir.is/article/20090429/FRETTIR01/727631714 -- Cessator ( talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim ( talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

22-year old Croatian girl is held in isolation after she returned from Florida with symptoms...
http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/svinjska-gripa-i-u-hrvatskoj/431720.aspx E.coli ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Grochim ( talk) 16:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Test results are negative in the end. http://www.net.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/page/2009/04/29/0641006.html ( more here) E.coli ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

hi singapore does not have 13 suspected cases, all 17 who had flu-like symptoms have tested negative for swine flu. http://www.crisis.gov.sg/flu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuattc ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Default.XBE ( talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

According to El Diario de Hoy, one of the most read newspapers in El Salvador, there are now 3 suspected cases of swine flu in El Salvador. The laboratory confirmations will arrive on the weekend. http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_completa.asp?idCat=6364&idArt=3586764

asaber2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaber2 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Default.XBE ( talk) 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina http://twitter.com/Veratect/statuses/1650847309 Ecuador http://twitter.com/Veratect/statuses/1650748161 Both have one possible case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

argentina is already on the table with 12 suspected cases, and im not sure twitter is the most reliable source of information, can you provide a link to a more reputable source? Default.XBE ( talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is not that reliable but Veratect, the company that issued the twitter is really reliable. They use sources from media outlets and health organization in 37 different languages to deliver updates in real time. I would link to Veratect but they don't post their twitter updates on their website. Here is the link that tells about their twitter updates. http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/first-use-of-twitter-during-a-public-health-emergency.html 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 07:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/health/30flu.html?ref=health .   Don't know if we should do anything about it.   Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should give a half point to the U.S. row and a half point to the Mexican row. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly say that in the written text (and I assume we do, though I haven't checked); however, for the purposes of having a summary table, I'd prefer to simply stick with where the death occurred. (Which still says something about the spread of the disease and the quality of care available.) If we were to start backing things out by country or origin / nationality, many of the suspected international cases would have to moved as well since many of the non-Mexican cases were contracted via international travel, and a significant fraction of those diagnosed are not nationals of the country they happen to be in now. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From an epidemiological point of view, it seems most relevant in terms of causation where the patient came from, but in terms of future spread, where he was while ill. Victor Engel ( talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more misleading to say Mexico, without reading the text (cba to get a account to login), if the death occurred in the US it should be listed there. Let's say I went to Mexico last week and got it and died, how misleading wouldn't it be for us to write "One person has died in Sweden from swine flu", the deaths as I see it are sorted on geography not nationality. chan dler ··· 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

But child got flu in Mexico! It is not the same. It has to be at least comment on this (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorellen ( talk • contribs)

Its still a death in the USA. As the source say "First swine flu death in US", and the list is about geography deaths in the country, not about the peoples nationalities. chan dler ··· 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I also agree it should be about geography rather than "source" of infection. For instance, in the case of infection in Peru, the woman is Argentinian who was returning from Mexico via Peru, but it is still counted as a Peruvian case. Moreover, if we look at the place of infection every time, then perhaps the cases in most countries would be considered "Mexican" cases. Besides, the place of infection is not always obvious. Roy2005 ( talk) 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [35]) publish a daily report on their homepage (e.g. [36]) with a useful table showing "Cases Investigated", "Lab Positive", "Lab Negaitve", "Cases Still under Investigation". -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two people in Trondheim just got negative test reusults while two others are being tested. [37] (Norwegian)

Two others have been tested with negative outcome. [38] (Norwegian)

There is also one boy in Vestfold, but he is recovering, and the tests haven't given any positive results. [39] (Norwegian)

This means the the number of uncertain cases is down to 5+. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleco ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The ECDC report from 08:00 [40] says that Russia and Greece each have a suspected case. Meanwhile, Belgium has found all six cases not to be swine flu. Since this report is probably already a little out of date and these are only single suspected cases it might not be worth updating for this one, but the next report should be available soon. Mike Serfas ( talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done its not difficult to add, so might as well kep up with reports IMO Default.XBE ( talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A 75 year old woman died at a hospital in Guatemala with symptoms of flu, and high fever. The victim was identified as Jacinta García Ambrosio, and indicated that when she arrived at the hospital had very high fever.

Source:

http://prensalibre.com/pl/2009/abril/28/310967.html

(Translated version)

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fprensalibre.com%2Fpl%2F2009%2Fabril%2F28%2F310967.html+&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanaroth ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. We should keep an eye on this, but I don't think that a country should be added to the death column until it has been confirmed. Wine Guy Talk 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to add it. We do have a "suspected deaths" sub figure, so I don't really see a reason not to. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exist a girl in an Oporto Hospital (São João), that is waiting for her exams, and I've discovered a notice that says that is a portuguese military in a Lisbon Hospital (Curry Cabral). He had came back from Texas, in the beginig of this week, and today has surged the information that he is in the hospital, waiting for the first exams, that if are "confusing" they go to the Instituto Ricardo Jorge, to be made more exams, you can read the notice here João P. M. Lima ( talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PigFlu Oink ( talk • contribs)

Pleast add Egypt to the table http://twitter.com/Veratect/status/1655230473 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"No Official Confirmation Released", so no.- chan dler ··· 04:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add Fiji to the map as supected case?... and to the table?... I don't know how to do it. SOURCE http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=120407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.95.170 ( talk) 05:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. -- Avenue ( talk) 10:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand's confirmed cases should be 16 with 104 suspected. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 06:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But there are only 3 "laboratory confirmed", which is what the table heading is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.153.118 ( talk) 08:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It says, "There are now three new confirmed or probable cases of swine flu in New Zealand, taking the country's official total to 16.

All have tested positive for influenza A." I think you misread the source. Thanks! :) 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The first column in our table is for laboratory confirmed cases. NZ has 3 of these. The "official" total of 16 is made up of 3 confirmed cases plus 13 probable cases. Probable cases have tested positive for influenza A (and I think negative for some strains), but have not yet tested positive for H1N1 (the swine flu). They go in the next column of our table. Reread your source, along with this MoH update, and hopefully it will all be clear. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we change Peru's numbers to five suspected. http://twitter.com/Veratect/status/1656599594 62.69.130.82 ( talk) 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC

I don't think Twitter is a valid source. Could you provide us references to news articles from the media? - Xavier Fung ( talk) 08:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree with but this Twitter is from a bio surveillance company, Veratect, that monitors media sources and official health agencies in 37 languages for updates. They are pretty reliable. I would link to this information on their site but they don't publish their updates there. Only on twitter. Here is a link to the information about their sources. http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/first-use-of-twitter-during-a-public-health-emergency.html Hdstubbs ( talk) 12:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But according to WP:ELNO, social networking sites like Twitter feeds are not advised to be linked, and each twitter post is not easy to verify its correctness. I'd tend to play save not to post these data, unless the correctness could be assured by other 3rd party publications which are reliable.- Xavier Fung ( talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A suspected case has been reported in Arad county, Romania. An 18-month old boy who had traveled to Portugal and Spain presented swine flu symptoms and blood tests have been ordered, according to Mihai Tarcus, director of the Public Health Department of Arad County. http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-ultima_ora-5651541-copil-din-arad-intors-recent-din-spania-portugalia-este-suspect-gripa-porcina.htm (Romanian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelian ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I don't understand Romanian so I AGF the OP's sumation is accurate and this is a reliable source Nil Einne ( talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An update to this article states that this is not a case of swine flu. Romania has no other confirmed or suspected swine flu case. It should be removed from the list. (In Romania the press would open up champagne to have at least such a case - this is my personal comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.65.112 ( talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspected case reported today,a traveller from US is showing flu-like symptoms http://b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=30&nav_id=358154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.153.5 ( talk) 11:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The case is not swine influenza http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=30&nav_id=358154 (in Serbian) Dejan Jovanović ( talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Local media reports that the Croatian possible case of swine flu is not infected with any virus at all http://b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=30&nav_category=12&nav_id=358078 First paragraph underneath the bolded text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.153.5 ( talk) 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to translate that paragraph to english? Just for the curious english folk... 72.136.137.24 ( talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In short: Ira Dzenero-Margan chief of service for epidemology of infectios disease said to HRT (croatian national television): Tests have shown that 22 year old Croatian from Osijek, which was suspected of being infected with swine flu virus H1N1, doesn't have any flu, especially swine flu.

Other part, of the article talks about swine flu in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.70.178 ( talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

3 year old girl had a confirmed swine flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.231.55 ( talk) 11:42, 30 April 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).