This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this article needs to tell the reader what the definition is of a notifiable disease. Kingturtle 20:41 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC) PS. what is the status of SARS in accordance with this list? Kingturtle 20:43 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Korea has similar lists of diseases. I compiled the list as http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%95%EC%A0%95%EC%A0%84%EC%97%BC%EB%B3%91 (법정전염병) from the relevant law (전염병예방법). Someone can translate this into English?
Would it be reasonable to re-format the list into a list of "diseases that are notifiable across the globe", with each disease listing the countries in which it is notifiable? Seems to be a large amount of redundancy between the US, UK, and Australian lists, which will only get worse if/when other countries' details are entered ...
may I ask why, under notifiable Australian diseases, ross river virus has been mentioned twice? I just thought I would inquire before I deleted the repete in case there was a particular purpose.
Rona_CaBiLlO Ronacabillo 05:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that on this page, after each disease listed is a short summary the disaese's fatality rates, causes, transmission, etc. I think that it may be better if we simply listed the diseases, without this short summary. The short summary is not necessary on a list page, and makes the page somewhat "dirty." Also I find there are some other weird, unnecessary things on the page, for example:
Is there really a need to differentiate between them? It's not like plants get rabies... Haha, well I really just brought up the rabies thing because I thought it was funny, but the real problem is the short summaries after each disease.
Anyways, I think it seems clear that this page needs some cleanup, and once again, I think it would be best to simply delete all of the short summaries that follow each of the disease's name. What does everyone think? Arnesh 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is just a list. I suggest we make it a category, that all the diseases in the list link to. Does anyone have a problem with this? -- Millancad 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is quite inaccurate. Botulism is a notifiable disease in the UK - it has been since God was a boy - see here -> http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/NotificationsOfInfectiousDiseases/ListOfNotifiableDiseases/ I think it would be a better idea to have a list of countries and their notifiable lists (and the EU - the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) maintains a list of notifiable infections with corresponding case definitions. I think arranging it in that way would be much more satisfactory. Each contributor (who knows his own country's list could maintain that country's list - I for example would be happy to do this for Ireland's list. What do others think? Johnathanbingley ( talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is Ebola not included in the list of notifiable diseases when it is plainly a very werious condition, all too often resulting in death?
The Ebola virus is one of several diseases which are classed as viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHF). I have checked on the list of notifiable diseases and this is in fact listed. Therefore, clinicians are aware that they should notify the appropriate authorities if they come into contact with someone who they suspect has symptoms of the ebola virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.28.253 ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The indian list of notifiable diseases relies on a regional source (ie. the pondicherry government),
there are various others lists like
Merchant Shipping Law
Aircraft Public Health Law
Various other regional Acts(Manipur, New Delhi, ...)
etc.
Each having their own list and so forth so I question the validity of the given list as various diseases like anthrax while not on pondicherry government's list, is present in other lists.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this article needs to tell the reader what the definition is of a notifiable disease. Kingturtle 20:41 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC) PS. what is the status of SARS in accordance with this list? Kingturtle 20:43 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
Korea has similar lists of diseases. I compiled the list as http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%95%EC%A0%95%EC%A0%84%EC%97%BC%EB%B3%91 (법정전염병) from the relevant law (전염병예방법). Someone can translate this into English?
Would it be reasonable to re-format the list into a list of "diseases that are notifiable across the globe", with each disease listing the countries in which it is notifiable? Seems to be a large amount of redundancy between the US, UK, and Australian lists, which will only get worse if/when other countries' details are entered ...
may I ask why, under notifiable Australian diseases, ross river virus has been mentioned twice? I just thought I would inquire before I deleted the repete in case there was a particular purpose.
Rona_CaBiLlO Ronacabillo 05:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that on this page, after each disease listed is a short summary the disaese's fatality rates, causes, transmission, etc. I think that it may be better if we simply listed the diseases, without this short summary. The short summary is not necessary on a list page, and makes the page somewhat "dirty." Also I find there are some other weird, unnecessary things on the page, for example:
Is there really a need to differentiate between them? It's not like plants get rabies... Haha, well I really just brought up the rabies thing because I thought it was funny, but the real problem is the short summaries after each disease.
Anyways, I think it seems clear that this page needs some cleanup, and once again, I think it would be best to simply delete all of the short summaries that follow each of the disease's name. What does everyone think? Arnesh 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is just a list. I suggest we make it a category, that all the diseases in the list link to. Does anyone have a problem with this? -- Millancad 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is quite inaccurate. Botulism is a notifiable disease in the UK - it has been since God was a boy - see here -> http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/NotificationsOfInfectiousDiseases/ListOfNotifiableDiseases/ I think it would be a better idea to have a list of countries and their notifiable lists (and the EU - the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) maintains a list of notifiable infections with corresponding case definitions. I think arranging it in that way would be much more satisfactory. Each contributor (who knows his own country's list could maintain that country's list - I for example would be happy to do this for Ireland's list. What do others think? Johnathanbingley ( talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is Ebola not included in the list of notifiable diseases when it is plainly a very werious condition, all too often resulting in death?
The Ebola virus is one of several diseases which are classed as viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHF). I have checked on the list of notifiable diseases and this is in fact listed. Therefore, clinicians are aware that they should notify the appropriate authorities if they come into contact with someone who they suspect has symptoms of the ebola virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.28.253 ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The indian list of notifiable diseases relies on a regional source (ie. the pondicherry government),
there are various others lists like
Merchant Shipping Law
Aircraft Public Health Law
Various other regional Acts(Manipur, New Delhi, ...)
etc.
Each having their own list and so forth so I question the validity of the given list as various diseases like anthrax while not on pondicherry government's list, is present in other lists.