Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic/Archive 2

April 5 notimex news story
I have removed the sentence "The first evidence of abnormal influenza patterns in Mexico arose when Notimex, a Mexican newswire, reported on April 5 that Mexican health officials had taken sanitary measures in the rural towns of Perote, Quechulá and Xaltepec due to the spread of a disease affecting 60% of the population and with symptoms similar to those associated with the influenza virus." from the article. It was cited to http://www.swineflu.org.uk, which doesn't appear to be in any way reliable. I tracked down what seems to be the original source for this site at http://sdpnoticias.com/sdp/contenido/2009/04/05/369612. The Notimex article, however, just says there was an outbreak of respiratory illness that led to pneumonia and broncopneumonia. It doesn't refer to influenza at all. It actually says the sickness was in La Gloria (not the towns listed in at swineflu.org.uk), in Perote municipality. It also says the suspected cause is flies that reproduce in pig farms and lagoons of pig feces around the towns of Quechulá and Xaltepec. I think any connection to the swine flu outbreak is pretty much original research at this point, unless we can find a better source that connects this sickness to swine flu. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now found some sources that make this connection and have rewritten the section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sub-articles
I think it's best to hold off on creating extremely short sub-articles for the time being. The point of forking is to prevent the main article from becoming to long, but one-sentence stubs such as 2009 swine flu outbreak in Israel are of little use. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It has no sence to make such an "article"... 77.127.96.96 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

need to add conspiracy section
links http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_swine_flu_mexico Mexico's Agriculture Department said Monday that inspectors found no sign of swine flu among pigs around the farm in Veracruz, and that no infected pigs have been found yet anywhere in Mexico.

just before the outbreak http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/missing.virus.sample/index.html http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/04/24/testing-our-readiness-for-a-global-flu-pandemic-91466-23463061/ http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5270&Itemid=2 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I www.infowarscom/baxter-product-contained-live-bird-flu-virus/

this is a bio attack  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.10 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a doctor...
Everyone, wikipedia is not a doctor. If you need medical help for swine flu or something else,or if you suspect you have swine flu, you best call your local doctor. If you have a new Verifiable FACT, then go ahead and post it along with a reference. Please also make sure that your posts a legable. Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Man-made? Bioterrorism? Bioweapon? Conspiracy theory?
Look for sources. The WHO says it's not, but there are those that speculate in reliable sources that it could be man-made due to the unusual combination of strains.--Yo Dawg! What&#39;s Going On Today? (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding speculation like that to the article would require very, very good sources indeed (per WP:REDFLAG). This isn't an unusual event, influenza has crossed over from other animals into people many times before, and will continue to do so in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Zoonosis, reassortment, and superinfection involving influenza all have been reported before.  There is even a reliable source warning that poultry and swine handlers should be included in formal surveillance programs, precisely in order to catch similar events in the future.  See swine influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have any DNA or RNA data conferming or even supporting this therory? Don't jump straght to the worst conclusion.Ken Durham (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally avoid even discussing douchebagery like WP:REDFLAG, I encourage others to do the same. (Oh and if this turns out to be the 1 in 40 billion times that the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right and come up with REAL evidence to prove it, I'll buy you a Coke) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But we should try NOT to guess at thing during a panedemic like this. It could case panic and misjuged rumers.Ken Durham (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones and Hal Turner have claimed it is man-made and done on purpose to kill millions. Yes, they are regarded as lunatic fringe theorists by the mainstream, but it's important to note that people are saying it.--Yo Dawg! What&#39;s Going On Today? (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * lunatics should not be listend to. Show me some DNA or RNA proof of man made.--Ken Durham (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * agreeing with Ken here. I tend not to listen to white supremacists(Hal Turner) and Alex Jones seems like the type of man that gives conservative radio hosts a bad name. I'll bet you a dose of Tamiflu, its not really that important (or encyclopedic) to know what these people say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Message for user pages.
Hey everyone. I made a message for peoples user pages if they want it.

--Ken Durham (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing improvements to the 2009 swine flu outbreak article.  hmwith  τ   16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First case
According to La Nación (one of the two most important newspapers in Argentina), Adela María Gutiérrez is the name of the first case, the one where the virus mutated from animal to human. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google translated link....
 * On April 9th, a Mexican woman, age 39, arrived at a hospital in Oaxaca, Mexico with symptoms of severe pneumonia. She worked for the Tax Administration Service (SAT) as an intervier.. No additional occupational details or how she contracted the disease are mentioned --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google link please.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No English news piece related still, the same article is found in one of the most important Mexican newspapers, El Universal. News piece has apparently been confirmed by proper authorities. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are identical, likely a syndicated piece --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, the original was written in the Mexican newspaper, wanted to credit them since the Argentine one picked the news directly from there. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sidenote.. Considering the timing.. That would place the first outbreak at around the same time President Obama was in the region, the press corps is currently grilling the WH press secretary on weather or not Mexico concealed the severity of the case so as not to distract or cause embarsement during the visit. Since you seem more familiar with the Mexican press is there anything credible about that or any complaint about Mexican response? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a coverup? That is preposterus!--Ken Durham (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier press on this patient was in the Tiempo En Linea (see the archive for 2009-04-19) entitled "Confirman Neumanía Atípica" byline Iván Castellanos / Tiempo. There is also an entry about her dated 2009-04-16 on FluTrackersLeadSongDog  come howl  18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to what I'm reading on the second link you gave, (and its a little hard, given the awkward way google translates things), the Doctors at the hospital were denying she died of Influenza as late as 16 April. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The final results were available on April 16 (as mentioned in the first case articles): La confirmación oficial, por parte de la Secretaría de Salud no se dio hasta que el Centro para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades de Estados Unidos, ubicado en Atlanta, ratificó el caso, el 16 de abril último. (Official confirmation by Health Secretary wasn't available until the Control Center in Atlanta ratified the case). Until then, it was being treated as an atypical pneumonia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How many ignorants are required to spread paranoia into the world?
Funny, people are starting to believe everything they read on CNN before even reading a little bit of real scientific information. C´mon digest info before starting to use surgical masks and driving everybody to madness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.154.75 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed deaths column?
Could you add a "confirmed deaths due to swine flue" column in the box in the upper right? Right now there is only a "possible deaths" column. the "confirmed deaths" would be incomplete, of course, but I have seen some of those #s reported in the media. Matthias5 (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from another section Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

20 are so far confirmed to have been caused by the new virus. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8020676.stm --78.146.237.39 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Seperate articles for certain topics
The article is growing quite big by now, and hence I think it's time to start moving some topics out to seperate articles. TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases and responses by country
What about we move this chapter to a seperate article as was done similarly with the article of the Mumbai attacks back in November? TRBlom (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am supportive, as per WP:SS; the collection of responses is quite large already and I believe we can reasonably assume it will get larger. We can leave a summary of responses on this article.  Cordovao (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Will be necessary sooner or later as more cases are reported.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Initiated. TRBlom (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is needed yet. The article is still within acceptable size limits and most of the country subsections have very little content. -- auburn pilot  talk  20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite long already, containing quite a list that is also affecting the list of contents. Anyhow, it won't shrink, only grow, so let's just be there on time, so it won't get annoying for the reading to scroll all the way past it. TRBlom (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's actually not that much info; all the level-four section headers make it appear longer than it is. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the readability tool, the moved content only accounts for about 17 KB of prose (excludes references, images, and the like). It's not so much that it needs to be split into a second article. Each country should be fine with a subheading and a few sentences describing the issue. When it goes beyond a few sentences, a separate article for that country should be created. I just don't see a need for a Cases of and responses to the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. -- auburn pilot  talk  20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the creation of new pages on an as needed basis. I think a good rule of thumb is any nation with a confirmed case gets a page and any big nation that takes really drastic action also gets a page (like if China were to seal their borders, for example), and their listing on the main article page is reduced to perhaps a sentence or two and the link to the new page. If this thing burns itself out, we can always recombine, but if it suddenly crops up in several dozen countries all at once, there will be a lot of remedial page creation to be done in a short time. Nosimplehiway (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NZ video and US deaths
The video cited for the 111 suspected cases in New Zealand gives a figure of 20 cases and 6 deaths in the USA. In my opinion this makes it an unreliable source, since that is not consistent with any other data (I'm aware of) cited on this page. --π! 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've seen this before... Scroll up. Its several hours old and no one else is collaborating this: I'd attribute it to some kind of mix up on the numbers by the graphics guy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I scanned the page for "death" before adding this, but it's there as "6 dead".  Silly me.  Should we take down the NZ info or mark it as possibly unreliable?  Or just leave it since it's the best we have?  --π!  21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press says "nearly 2000" in Mexican hospitals with "serious cases of pneumonia"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124081528924558633.html#mod=article-outset-box

What do we make of this? This is the first I've seen an outright report that nearly 2,000 people are hospitalized with serious anything. I have a feeling--yes, yes, OR--that not all the news is getting out of Mexico based on this, since this is the AP now saying this. What do we do with this? This is directly counter to a lot of the commentary that's been coming from the Mexican government. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do we do with this? Panic, that's what.  (Seriously, though, I advise we leave the figures the same and cite this in the possibility of the disease being more virulent than thought.  Odd there wouldn't be any reported cases of pneumonia north of the border, though.)  --π!  20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US, most deaths associated with influenza are due to secondary infections resulting in pneumonia. But those deaths are the most likely to be laboratory tested for influenza, so it is highly unlikely that this strain has killed anyone in the US.  It would have been detected immediately.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As a note, this is a cumulative total, so does not mean that 2,000 people are in hospital at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another note: the lack of deaths outside Mexico suggest the possibility that the deaths in Mexico are due to the intersection there of swine flu with something else, such as an especially virulent pneumonia-causing bacterium or a problem with hospital sanitation.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the last paragraph in the top section?
The concern of what the millions of schools and universities will do because of the flu is a main issue. I ask whoever keeps deleting it to stop. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not keep re-adding it. I do not say this because I don't agree with your aim, but because you may risk breaking WP:3RR.  The onus is on a poster who adds something original to, if the add is contested, bring up the issue here to the talk page to gain approval before trying to re-add again.  What is the text you wish to add, and from there you may gain community approval which will mean your text will stay.  Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Earliest confirmed case to date, Feb 2009 in La Gloria, Mexico - 3 independent sources it appears
A four year old boy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-search-outbreak-source

Clinical test confirmed, on this, per the article, but oddly the Mexican government is claimed--outright--in the article to downplay this (how do you downplay a clinical lab test which confirms it??).

It appears this article in Grist Magazine from this past Saturday, which I posted here, was correct-- La Gloria as of now per several sources and lab tests at least appears to be where this began. The Smithfield Food connection is there too, but read these two articles. I haven't seen any test-confirmed results in any sources earlier than this. This also lines up squarely with Dr. James Wilson's blog analyzing the situation here, so we have 1) one of the world's leading experts in the field in a WP:RS compliant blog post, 2) a major news source confirming it and lab tests, 2) other news sources also identifying this. What can/should we do to mention this earliest appearance of the bug in La Gloria? rootology ( C )( T ) 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now moved from phase 3 to 4
acording to cnn the w.h.o. have moved from phase 3 to 4 --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please give us a link to your source? Cordovao (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't find a Internet link but CNN International just had a grapic saying "Mexico:WHO raise to phase 4" (or something similar)--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it is on the cnn.com front page as breaking news--Simonr9999 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your information. Unfortunately, linking to the CNN front page is temperamental as the text on there changes frequently, but based on the seriousness of the WHO change I expect a proper article will be up shortly for us to link to.  Cordovao (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27/swine.flu.international/index.html " (CNN) -- The World Health Organization has raised its pandemic alert level in response to the outbreak of swine flu that originated in Mexico, U.S. homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday. Relatives of flu patients wait oustside Mexico's National Institute of Respiratory Diseases. The move indicates the world body has determined the virus is capable of significant human-to-human transmission." --Simonr9999 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_20090427/en/index.html --82.103.205.150 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shrunk TOC
I added toclimit to this article, as the table of contents was getting a bit long. The only thing it did was eliminate the very long list of countries under each continent header (see before and after). This will allow people to still find the relevant information they seek, without having to scroll/scan through the level 4 subheadings that will likely only increase in number. -- auburn pilot  talk  20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph concerning Schools and Universities?
There is a big issue about what schools and universities are doing to prevent the spread of the swine flu. I have written a paragraph and referenced it. Does everyone agree to keep it at the beginning?

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed while numerous of other schools and school districts in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students. It is of great concern many U.S. schools and universities will be forced to close within upcoming weeks to prevent the spread of the flu." TheCoolOne99 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball predicting the future upcoming weeks. Especially without sources. See no particular reason schools are more important than everything else shut down in Mexico. Should be in the country specific sections.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"As of April 26, 2009, Mexico City Schools and universities remained closed[33] while other schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[34][35] On April 27, 2009, Mexican Government officials announced the first nationwide shut down of schools in history.[36][37]"

Now? TheCoolOne99 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but why only mention schools when almost everything is shut down in Mexico? In the intro we should only provide a general outline.Ht686rg90 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Border
Is it really neccessary to say, "Following this discovery in the states of Texas and California (which border Mexico),"?

This seems like extremely common knowledge and adds pointless bulk to the header. Thoughts? 205.155.5.206 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that a US reader probably knows that, international readers may not. It's only three words, leave it. Wine Guy   Talk  22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe it could be reworded to, "Following this discovery in the bordering states of Texas and California."74.220.66.33 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked it a bit. There are American and Mexican states involved, including Mexico State (which is a state in the nation-state of Mexico), and furthermore the D.F., like Washington, D.C., isn't a state at all, but is exactly congruent with Mexico City.  Fortunately that level of granularity isn't called for in the opening paragraph.  kencf0618 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First "mutation" in a woman from Oaxaca
I have altered the claim that the virus mutated inside a woman from Oaxaca. This is just a mistake on the part of the Mexican headline writer. If in fact a virus mutated inside a person or an animal that was then unlikely enough to be tested, the test should reveal a mix of pre- and post-mutation viral RNA not found in later cases. Resurr Section (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First case in Argentina
Can anyone please update the map and add Argentina as a possible case? Here is the reference (in Spanish).

Reference format
I think that the edit code is harder to read by unformating the inline citation templates and blurring the distinction between text and code. Why not use the format in this article, it makes no difference to the article display format. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; though, it's hard to keep the citations formatted correctly/consistently in such a high-visibility article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Cases in Massachusetts
This is probably worth updating the North American map. It's already on the US page. Two people are being tested in Massachusetts after a trip to Mexico.

Here is the reference (different than the one for the US page):

--Rick 69.43.113.2 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases in the United States
There are new posible cases in new US States, the references are in the main article. I think the North American and US map should be updated. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

8 New Cases in Canada
8 possible cases in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Here VeronicaPR (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Five new probable cases in New Jersey
CNN JUST announced they have news of five probable cases in New Jersey. Once another source comes online or on air can someone make a yellow highlight of the state on the map; I don't know how. TheCoolOne99 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been new posible cases in ther states such as Idaho, South Dakota, North Carolina, etc, the references are in the main article of the US.--Vrysxy[[Image:Flag of California.svg|30x15px]] ¡Californication! 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme consistency
The world map was updated with a new colour scheme, which no longer matches the rest of the maps on the page. --π! 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

S Korea Suspect case
Sam bristol (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC) S Korea has a suspected case, as reported on Asia Pacific news. Could someone add it? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/425395/1/.html


 * Done. Veronica 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added edit notice to this talk page
FYI, to try to control some of the chaos that this talk page is becoming, I have added an edit notice to this talk page (just click "edit" to see what I'm talking about) advising people who just want to add updates to country case counts to do so at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. I recommend that conversations regarding individual cases be moved there so that this talk page can be about the actual article contents. Oren0 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases by country
Why are we maintaining a runny tally on these cases? At this point every continent except Antarctica and Africa has cases reported, and I'm sure that will change as it seems we are only at the beginning stages of the discovery/outbreak. Is there some specific relevance in it? Even if so, can we reliably prevent the cases from being doubly counted when some article posts "x" number of new cases and then another article reports "y" cases that they aren't the same ones? If it is decided we need to track every nation's caseload, should we not set criteria for a source (e.g. health ministry for each country)? --MartinezMD (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please discuss this on Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. --Una Smith (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 149 deaths
This source doesn't support the statement: "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source [165], [166], and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042702017.html do support the statement "The strain appears to be unusually lethal in Mexico, causing 149 deaths (20 confirmed) so far, mostly in Mexico City." Dumuziwik (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

diarrhea is NOT a symptom
The diarrhea that these spring breakers have is freaking travelers diarrhea - e. coli. It's possible to have 2 infections at once people... come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Source? --Vessol (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your sorce? Where did you get your info?--Ken Durham (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The CDC disagrees. Wine Guy  Talk  18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for 50 confirmed US Cases
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=6782396 69.231.128.137 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

brazil
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina's respone not notable?
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Flu cases in Sweden turn out not to be swine influenza
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Government Reaction
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: Belo Horizonte registers one more suspect of swine flu
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why they took away Brazil if Brazil has 3 suspects of the Swine flu?
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed they have over 60 Cases of Swine Flu and now at Level Yellow.
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil: 3 for 11 the suspect cases of swine flu..
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Restructure for readers
Having detailed similar information by individual country makes this article too large and provides poor reading. Some suggestions:
 * 1) A new section to summarise common and notable "National responses". I don't see the point in itemising every country's similar announcement on this page. Delete these.
 * 2) A new page for (List of ?) possible cases by country. If the topic is regarded as news rather than encyclopedia-worthy, move it to wikinews/wikia.
 * 3) A new page for the virus strain and/or ilness. This article is about the outbreak. Specialised articles also help attract experts.
 * -- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other nations may not be all that interesting to a citizen of a particular nation but his own nation will be. Both cases and other responses which are quite diverse. Wikipedia is not written for the readers from one particular nation. Ignore what is not interesting.Ht686rg90 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By poor reading, I meant lack of narrative flow and appropriate focus. Having dozens and potentially hundreds of items is a list, not an article. I have no problem with an individual article per country or a list page. -- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was suggested earlier today that the "Cases and responses by nation" should be moved to a separate article (or list) but it was rejected then since the material was not very big in size compared to rest of the article.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See "Seperate articles for certain topics" above.Ht686rg90 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cases and responses by nation" is now 40kb. This is certainly large enough for a page. Any opinions on this point, or the other suggestions? -- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's ready for its own page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as I didn't see the need a few hours ago, I don't see the need to split it now. The section is not 40kb, but less than half that at 19.9 KB (when calculating WP:SIZE, references, images, and other formatting should be discounted). -- auburn pilot  talk  02:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would favor splitting, if barely. The section is quite large and is only poised to get larger.  Not to WP:CRYSTAL, but if we believe that in a short time even more countries will be listed and we'll have to split, why not just do it now? Oren0 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this section as being mostly a list, showing annoucements (screening/quarantine/pork-bans/cases/test-results) by country. WP:SIZE excludes lists from "readable prose". To me, the issue is more about whether it is a list, and if so, whether it should comprise 50% of the article. -- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New about mexico
Classes are suspended country-wide. There's been a lack of surgical masks and vitamin C complements. Most mexican can't travel by airplane since almost all flights need a connection in Mexico City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.89.104 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added that classes are suspended nationwide at the beginning of the article.

TheCoolOne99 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Prior influenza season" incorrect interpretation of source.
Sorry, I do not remember my wikipedia username or password so I can't edit this myself. The last sentence of "Prior Influenza Season" reads: Furthermore, from December 2005 through February 2009, a total of twelve human infections with swine influenza were reported from ten states in the USA.[45] The source it cites is http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/?s_cid=swineFlu_outbreak_internal_001. However, that source does not contain the information in that sentence. Somebody please remove the misinformation, or correct the source. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just removed this sentence as I couldn't find the details in the citation either -- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite Error
Just a heads up. There appears to be a cite error on the info box. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, seems to be fixed now. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica
Looks like there is a confirmed case in Costa Rica. Here is the source (in Spanish):

http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/abril/28/pais1948013.html

If this is true, could someone please update the table, as I don't know how to edit it.

(By the way, why can't I edit the table? Seems I can only edit the text.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy2005 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The table is a template. -- Grochim (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed case in Costa Rica
source: http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/abril/28/pais1948013.html

The costa rica health department has confirmed a swine flu infected. Confirmation was given after the results of a second test where available from the US Centre disease control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.158.217 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This kind of information is being gathered on Wikipedia here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracking table update time request
Moved to Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

World Organization for Animal Health
The OiE put out this released today in Paris clarifying that "There is no evidence that this virus is transmitted by food." I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. LeadSongDog come howl  18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has also been cofrimed by other sources. It is mentioned in one country where they banned North American Pork (Really how much pork does Romania import from North America?). It could be mentioned there or in a trade section if the bans become a widespread or sustained response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added something to this effect in the prevention section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany: the 3 possible cases no swine flu
As of the german newspaper "Maerkische Allgemeine" the 3 possible cases in germany are now proved to be NO swine-flu infections. -Validom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Also, in Spain there are 26 possible cases, not 35, plus one confirmed.--Fryant (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There had been lots more "possible cases" in Germany, but all negative. Currently there's only one possible case in Bavaria: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/47/466627/text/ —85.179.140.94 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rate of death in Mexico compared to other countries
Reading the article, I wasn't able to find exactly why the rate of death in Mexico is so much higher than in other countries. Is this solely because other countries are more developed with better medical care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.204.250 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because it has had more time to incubate in Mexico as it originated there? --Vessol (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At least one hospital in Mexico initially lacked antiviral drugs and most stay-at-home mild cases are likely not getting reported. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've heard much more dire news from Mexico, as in the number of dead being much higher, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for anecdotal evidence. --Vessol (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the high level of air pollution in Mexico City is so high that it weakened people's lungs. Resurr Section (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it could be temperature related. How does Mexico differ from the US? Mexico is a lot hotter for one thing. And for a virus that spreads through the air and attacks the lungs, air temperature is most definitely relevant.Hawthorn (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's pure speculation and contradicts material on the transmission of flu on the generic influenza page. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware many of the deaths in Mexico appear to be from pneumonia which could be from a secondary or co-infection. This could be an existing problem in Mexico that is spreading there but not elsewhere so far (which could also be related to the quality of healthcare there, environment etc). It's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware of but the poorer quality of the detection systems and healthcare, the fact that it's only recently been detected et al mean that many of those with lighter symptoms who had the disease were not detected. See for some discussion Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They could potentially have a higher rate of survival, and we wouldn't know it if they underreport cases (common amoung the poor who would not be diagnosed/treated). We have weeks or months to get the information.  Anything now is speculation. Stick to the available facts. --MartinezMD (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean by 'it's also possible there are far more cases in Mexico then we are aware' Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is total speculation, but haven't the US cases been mostly children? The 28 at that one school in New York represents more than 1/2 of confirmed US cases as of yesterday I think.  If like the 1918 infection this one tends to kill people with mature immune systems (see Cytokine Storm), that alone could account for the discrepancy.  Also, if we assume this has been in Mexico longer, say a month or so, it's had much longer for those deaths to accumulate (how far back in time does the Mexico "attributed" mortality list go?)  If we're looking at the "tip of the iceberg" for each country's infections, I suspect the base of Mexico's iceberg is much broader than that of the US.  As the virus spreads in other countries and a broader swath of the population is infected, my non-educated guess is the larger sample will result in a wider spectrum of severity.  Like I said, total speculation.  --Replysixty (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but the virus is always changing when it's circulating in human bodies. As higher the virus population is, as higher the mutation rate, too. And the virus population in Mexico is far more higher than elswhere. For example, I chatted with a friend from Mexico yesterday and she said that she had fever, and her grandfather, too. A lot of people in Mexico don't go just to the doctor because of fever, and other cases have shown that the virus can disappear quickly with only mild symptoms. That means it is not adapted to humans well. On the other hand it is quite possible that the dark figures of infection are far higher and only some of the virus strain are leading to death. It needs some time to understand the virus. -- Grochim (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets not speculate about the mortality rate based on mexico - currently there is so little information available. Two things: 1: there are suggestion the epidemic started all ready in february,, with all ready 1800 cases in a small town, leaving a a bit more than 100 for the currently confirmed cases. 2) There are fatal cases in various regions of mexico, which is highly likely to requires lots of cases even with a mortality rate of 10%. For me enough reason to believe there is a fair bit of under reportage. Therefore, I think, no good estimation can be made of the case fatality ratio or what so-ever. Lets wait for reliable data on this issue. You will need a good case definition and reliable data, both not available at the moment. Maybe there should be a statement that it is discussing the difficulties of estimating such a rate. On top of this, treatment, age, quality/access of health care, environmental factors etc. will make this ratio very time/place/situation dependent - even with the exact same virus. (AJvH (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Please note that the virus is likely to have been originated in Mexico. Therefore it's likely that the virus has been around for more than a month. Even tho the official "probable" cases are around 2,000+, actually, those are severe cases, just within Mexico city the mayor have reported more than 16k swine flu-like cases. With less than 2,000 needing hospitalization. Before April 26 all swine cases were treated as common flu, therefore is probable that most deaths are due to miss medication. (Konegistiger 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

South Korea
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand has confirmed cases.
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the Top
This article is now bigger than the 1918 Spanish Flu article. Around 60 million people died in this one. Is this outbreak really more serious than the one in 1918? Wallie (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the 1918 Spanish Flu article was more significant in terms of death rate it does not mean this article should not be bigger. Many things are different between now and then, now there is more information readily available then there was back then, due to globalisation this swine flu can travel between countries a lot faster and there are more people in the world now that will become affected. Therefore more information is warranted, wikipedias purpose is to ensure all information about this can be accessible in one location, if you have any issues with that you need to speak to the media to stop reporting, therefore the page will not be updated.121.221.95.47 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. On that reasoning, if this 2009 version exceeds 60 million in deaths, I guess you will still think that the "death rate" doesn't matter. As for countries affected, I can assure you that many countries were affected in the 1918 outbreak. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also think about the amount of sources this article has. In pure article text, the article isn't even that big. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources? The article should be NPOV. If there are 60 million killed, the same coverage should be given to both events. I just think that the POV is sometimes pushed by the younger folks. Some who were around in 1918 might have a different POV. After all they are living through both the 1918 and 2009 outbreaks. Wallie (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope is different. Now news travel immediately, before it took days before they were published. Comparing events happening almost 100 years in between is even malicious. There wasn't internet, there wasn't Wikipedia, there was a global war, healthcare wasn't as developed as today, and viruses didn't travel as fast as today. There are too many differences to compare them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it malicious? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a current news service. I just disagree with some people. I think the 1918 incident was more serious than the 2009 one is now. Others may think that the 2009 one is more serious. Wallie (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1918 was 90 years ago; of course there's going to be more information on a current flu epidemic than an historical one. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is supposed to present a balanced view. I would have thought that 60 million deaths was significant. Older people used to think it important. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to younger folk in the 21st Century. That's the way it is I guess. :( Wallie (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing prevents anyone from improving the 1918 flu pandemic article. If you think that one should be longer, fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died. The old guys who lived through it think it was important. Does that not mean anything? Wallie (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it should be bigger than this one. Read up on it and be bold. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moni3. :) Wallie (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a paper document, and articles can be of any length. We don't set lengths for articles based on how important some people think the subjects are - "It should be bigger than this one. 60 million died." They should all be as long as possible, within our content guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, WP:VER and so on. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia suffers from recentism, and from the desire of editors to be part of whatever is currently in the news. Every blurb on TV sends people scrambling to their keyboards. Eventually it may get pared down (and the 1918 article may get improved). The 1918 epidemic poses no threat to my family's health, but this one might, so it is of concern.  This a consequence of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" compared to "an encyclopedia with an editorial board." ''Wikigroaning" refers to noting things like the coverage of Outer space versus Star Wars. Things in pop culture or in the news get far greater coverage than important historical things. Edison (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland
Moved to Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Face mask comment by UK health secretary
J removed a paragraph regarding a statement by the UK health secretary:

"However, in the United Kingdom, Health Secretary Alan Johnson told MPs on April 27 that, "Although we are aware that facemasks are being given out to the public in Mexico, the available scientific evidence does not support the general wearing of facemasks by those who are not ill, whilst going about their normal activities."[120]"

J's explanation was "Prevention and treatment: Rm nn quote from someone with no medical background that may, in fact, be quite inaccurate and, I regret, dangerous if people are searching Wikipedia for advice."

Firstly, the health secretary of the UK is almost certainly acting on scientific advice so its dubious to claim that his advice is dangerously inaccurate (and misleading to say he has no medical background). Secondly the article is not giving medical advice but reporting that of others (amongst other things). If there is a notable criticism of the health secretary's statement then that could be included. Otherwise I think it should stay. I've reincluded it. Barnaby dawson (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Its more imporatant to include information that goverment officals make then for us to try and determine what is medically best. And if you think the UK's director of Health has no medical expertise, well your going to love the fact that there not one of the 20 US Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, Surgeon Generals, DHS) is currently filled by a Senate approved nominee as directed by the US Constitution. Which means the response is currently being run by Dept of Homeland Security; 'Hey, if we can screen luggage, we can call ourselves medical experts.' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile 5/8 DO NOT have the flu
Reference:

Blopa64 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Chile has now 18 Unconfirmed or suspected cases
Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blopa64 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

China, new case reported
A new case has been repoted in china. We should update the main page. --Ken Durham (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly are you seeing this on CNN? I can't find any indication of swine flu. See e.g. . Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hand washing
When are you suppose to wash your hands? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main page is already out of date, and needs to be unlocked
64.105.0.160 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With the amount of traffic this page is getting, it's best that it is locked. We can't risk vandalism giving readers untrue information. You can use editprotected to request edits in the meantime.  hmwith  τ   16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom
The section for the United Kingdom shows a map of the Republic of Ireland with the caption "currently none". As the RoI is not part of the UK, can't this section be renamed "UK and Ireland" OR can the map be re-captioned? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, its misleading to say the least. Ireland has 6 suspected cases at the moment.--78.16.190.221 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more cases to the Mexico Column
Mexico in all probability has many more cases than it is reporting. It should at least be 630 more. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swine-flu29-2009apr29,0,5107384.story

What about putting an asterisk or a plus sign by the number to indicate that there are probably more cases than are being reported? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate removed from article
I added the image at right to this article under the section Pandemic concern. It seemed very relevant to include an image of the most serious modern flu pandemic in the section that already specifically mentioned that previous pandemic in the same section: much like the deadly Spanish Flu of 1918. Shortly afterward, Calliopejen removed this featured picture candidate with the edit note "rm irrelevant image - not related to this disease" I believe this removal was made with a mistaken rationale, and would like to reinstate the image. Durova Charge! 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed; the image should stay in the article, especially considering the widespread comparisons between this outbreak and the 1918 pandemic. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it should not be here. Yes this outbreak may turn out to be like the 1918 epidemic but it might also turn out to be like the SARS outbreak or other much less severe flu outbreaks. Why aren't we putting a picture of SARS or the Hong Kong flu in the article? It is silly to include a photo of a completely separate flu outbreak here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The swine flu outbreak hasn't been compared to SARS nearly as much as it's been compared to the 1918 pandemic. See, for example. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's largely because it's much less dramatic. (To the extent that the viruses themselves are similar genetically I still don't think that justifies including this photo.) And in any event this photo is just of nurses doing some sort of demonstration. Nothing historically important is going on in the photo. (And to boot the caption was totally misleading by not explaining what's going on, because it looks like there's a dead body on the stretcher.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is of high historical significance. Moreover, an incorrect caption should be simply edited, not completely removed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just changing the caption isn't necessarily sufficient if the image looks like a dead body and most people will just skim over it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) The section is called pandemic concern. Surely it's appropriate to illustrate the 1918 outbreak; the image itself is fairly mild: a demonstration of public health measures taken at that time, not long rows of hospital beds etc. It is relevant, and not alarmist. Would it help if the caption specified more clearly that this was a demonstration photograph? Durova Charge! 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the image need, the disease as yet only has the potential to become a deadly pandmeic. No deaths have occured outside of Mexico and the vast majority of cases are limited to those who have had recent travel to/from Mexico. While I agree with the need to detail the potential and to compare and contrast the outbreaks; comparisons of the current situation to the 1918 pandemic take a substantially different human reaction given a visual image. At this time, that comparison is premeture, unwarrented and is borderline Inducing Panic. It is the visual equivilant of showing the WTC in every article on terrorist bombings in India. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with image need in its relevance to the article. While it absolutely gives historical perspective there is no spot in the article that currently involves historical perspective in any great detail.  Simply drawing parallels to the 1918 pandemic does not warrant this picture's inclusion.  If a section were to be created specifically to draw contrasts and comparisons of this outbreak vs. previous outbreaks/epidemics/pandemics and draw historical perspective (a totally different discussion) then I can see where the inclusion of this image may be warranted.  In the current form of this article though I don't see how this picture could provide useful insight into the current flu outbreak. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Table needs to be updated
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, 88.233.100.240 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That table is transcluded from another page. Information for the table is being gathered on Wikipedia here.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia
Los Angeles Country Coroner is looking into possible deaths in Califonia. Looking for source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SF Chron quotes the LA Times ""Coroner's Capt. John Kades (KAY-dis) says tests are being run on two bodies to see if swine flu was a factor in their deaths, but there is no confirmation that the disease killed them. Kades offered no other details of the men."" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Coroner's spokesman Craig Harvey said Bellflower Medical Center reported the death of a 33-year Long Beach resident Monday afternoon from symptoms resembling swine flu. It's that diagnosis that needs to be confirmed," Harvey said. "An autopsy will be performed to establish the cause of death."" --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for archive?
Could someone with the experience please archive this talk page? It's getting way too big. I'd do it myself but don't know how to, yet. Thank you! Jozal (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This happens automatically on coversations that are 12hours old. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the enlightenment. :) Jozal (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of manual archiving while we wait for the bot. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian. The page was getting massive.  hmwith  τ   19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

California Governor declares state of emergency
Just pick this up from here. -Xavier Fung (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Confermed with CNN--Ken Durham (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added on US page with Reuters source --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was the outbreak first detected in Mexico?
The source citated in this section about the origin being in Mexico doesn't mention anything about that. The information I've found metions that the first cases were detected in California. Can anybody give a correct citation of this?

Concerning the first deadly case, is it feasible that the virus mutated in that person? I read the source, and it says so, but it's not very reliable. We should just put in wikipedia that it was the first deadly case. Thank's--Ricardo.m.r. (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WHO documents state that the increase in influenza-like illness associated with this new strain was first detected in Mexico, in 3 so-called local outbreaks. The new strain was first detected in California, in a county bordering on Mexico. News of the new strain triggered Mexico to send samples from their local outbreaks to Canada for testing and some of the samples had the same new strain. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Background information
Canada's early contributions are missing from the background. Mexico contacted Canada to ask for help in identifying the virus on April 17th, Canada had confirmed Swine Flu by April 20th. Canada's confirmation of Swine Flu in the Mexico samples was very important in the early recognition that people were dying from this, that Mexico was a hot zone and that the Mexico virus is the same as the California virus.

Dumuziwik (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Also, evidence exists of a February outbreak in the eastern Mexico state Veracruz. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30434921/ This should be added to the background section. Dumuziwik (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cases are deiliberately under-reported in my state.
Here in North Carolina, I'll quote our media reports: "The state is encouraging providers to only report more severe cases – people with higher fevers or more prominent respiratory problems."

Thus the patchwork of private care here gets a state mandate to under-report flu symptoms. Just wonderful. And ignorant. The state can't be bothered with identifying and quarantining the less-inflicted. I'll bet that in another week we will all be shut-ins. 172.129.205.158 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary goal of the US influenza surveillance program is to detect new strains of influenza that kill people. So, yes, they prefer reports of people with severe influenza (and/or pneumonia). This new swine flu strain causes mild influenza and appears not to be killing anyone, except in Mexico. Usually, influenza alone does not kill; what kills is pneumonia due to a secondary bacterial infection. Anyway, your doctor cannot report influenza, only influenza-like illness, and most of that is not influenza of any kind. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * None of that excuses doctors at this juncture from not reporting mild cases of ILI where I live. The new strain is suspected to have been spread here and it can and should be quarantined. BTW, isolated populations were spared from the Spanish Flu by travel restrictions during that period, proving that not every governing body during that era was inept... not that the fatalistic WHO sees much merit in travel restrictions now. 172.162.20.67 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

confirmed infectred in Bilbao (Spain)
The 3rd confirmed infected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.200.204 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Split "Atribbuted Deaths" column
You can split this column in two (confirmed and posible deaths) like "posible and confirmed cases", this make the information more readable, and dont mix cases, that is important. And in the Mexico row there is only 20 confirmed deaths showed in the references, you could update the link with the information of 26 deaths or fix the error. --Programacion en Estado de Ebriedad 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update maps
The maps should be updated, there has been one confirmed case in Costa Rica, and unconfirmed cases in other states in the US.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the use painted in dark red??? are those deaths confirmed by the California Health State Department??--Vrysxy[[Image:Flag of California.svg|30x15px]] ¡Californication! 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The two recently deceased people have not been confirmed as having swine flu. Cordovao (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't appear that Russia and Thailand still have suspected cases. (Perhaps it was updated and someone just forgot to remove these?)  --π!  20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Careful what we say.
We must be very careful in what we write. Someone put a WHO heading and wrote in the first sentence "The World Health Organization (WHO) saw no need at this point to issue travel advisories warning travellers not to go to parts of Mexico or the United States."

Some people just read parts of Wikipedia. The CDC advises NO TRAVEL to Mexico unless essential.

We must be mindful of what we write. Maybe a warning on top or write carefully like saying the WHO didn't advise but the CDC later came out with a warning. Swine flu is no laughing matter. We'll see thousands dead. We could see millions dead. Dying is not funny, despite what vandals do. User F203 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please do not say "We'll see thousands dead". There is no proof of that.  I do see your point regarding relating the WHO and CDC responses.  Cordovao (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 60 million died in the 1918 episode. This did not rate a large Wikipedia article. If there are only thousands killed, we get off quite lightly. 60 million is also a lot of people, is it not? Wallie (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a resource for coordinating responses to emergencies. Both references should be included out of interest but not as a reference in an emergency. Also, stop being so melodramatic about it, I'd be incredibly surprised if we see even ONE more death from this Virus. 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already over 100 deaths from the virus. rootology ( C )( T ) 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I said one MORE death. With the actions that governments are taking, the situation SEEMS under control. I'm not trying to troll or play the thing down, I'm just stating my opinion 86.148.142.147 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion shows how serious the situation is. People think only 100 dead.  We will definitely see thousands dead.  Just look at the common flu every winter.  That kills thousands in the US and 250-500,000 worldwide (see this article, someone else found this figure).  This flu is more worrisome that the yearly flu every winter.  Therefore, at least a few thousand dead is a certainty.  Hopefully, not millions dead. User F203 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I apply "We must be very careful in what we write", something you wrote, to something else you wrote "at least a few thousand dead is a certainty. Hopefully, not millions dead."  Anyway, please read WP:NOTFORUM before making any further comments on what you believe will happen.  Thank you in advance.  Cordovao (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that lots of people will die is not the main point. The main point is that we have to be careful and not be a WHO spokesman.  The CDC does have travel advisories.  This distinction is important in an article about something that is going to kill many people.   Everybody knows many will die, just not how many.  I hope it's not as many.User F203 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that many will die? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the major point of this thread. However, over 100 dead already.  Every winter, 250,000 to 500,000 people die (source=Wikipedia).  The common flu in the winter isn't deemed an emergency but this is.  So the proof that many will die has already been proven (100+ dead) and there's no proof or hint that the deaths will stop at what it is. :(  This topic sickens me, I'm leaving now. User F203 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no such statement has been made by an external source, and certainly not with that level of certainty. Neither Avian Flu, nor SARS ever broke 1000, so time will be a better judge of that possibility.  Point taken on the 'be careful anyway' as it is a serious topic, but the WHO did say they didn't believe it was containable.  The reactions by individual governments has differed including a complete travel ban by Cuba.  The WHO comment could be put in a section about reactions to the potential epidemic, but shouldn't be at the top of the page given the disagreement in related official sources.  The thousands comment has already raised alarms on this talk page alone, so I think it's safe to say it is a matter of being careful as well.  aremisasling (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A Chart Suggestion- Infections Over Time
I hate to suggest this, but given the daily changes to the table on the article page, what I would think would be more useful than the geographic maps would be a cartesian graph with X being the date (days since "case zero") and Y being the number of reported infection per region/country/city/etc. Thus a line showing number of infections over time could help visualize the rate of infection. Different lines could be used for different countries or to show total infections vs. terminal infections. I picture something like dshort's economic Four Bad Bears graphic. Such a graph may also be useful to visualize "waves" of reported infection as well as illustrating how the rate of infection may differ between countries, or, if the data exists, between other epidemics/pandemics. Eventually (but hopefully not) such a graph may need to be adjusted to account for population rather than raw numbers. Or maybe a logarithmic version would be useful as well. Such a graph may be generated with Calc or maybe the Bar Box Template (or another Wikimedia template). If such a copylefted chart doesn't exist already (I'm guessing it does somewhere), this might be a good place to get it started. Any thoughts? --Replysixty (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I made a crappy version of what I mean.  I'm terrible with Calc, but this is the general idea.  The source for these numbers are early reports on the forum at Flutrackers, a Huffington Post article about patient zero (suspected to be at least two weeks before April 13, or about April 1) I found, and the NYTimes timeline.  Probably should have connected the dots better, and scaling the Mexican suspected cases crushes the US cases, but hopefully someone can do a better job of this with a sophisticated database/spreadsheet.
 * Swine-flu-infection-graph.png
 * --Replysixty (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chart Suggestion:::

If you want to send along the spreadsheet for the data, then I can help make a chart. I think it would be best to upload to wikimedia commons. That way people can edit and update easily.Enviropearson (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a spreadsheet expert- basically I have 3 rows- days from "case zero", US infections, and Mexico infections (we could add more). As the numbers came in on that day (and numbers were changing per-day), I picked one report, noted the source, and then put it in the box.  Then made a clumsy graph of that.  I know we can do better.  We would need to decide methodology, since the reports are varying, and even within a single day the numbers increase.  If Wikipedia supports graphs (which I couldn't find) we'd be able to do this a lot easier. Otherwise, we need to find a centralized point to collaborate (Google Docs doesn't support graphs... does Zoho?).  Maybe a mysql-backed database that could generate graphs on-demand..?  ie, mapview, by country, by demographic etc.  This will require good solid info.  Maybe the CDC could be the central source?  do they provide this raw data already? --Replysixty (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is this graph is graphic a cumulative number, rather than the current # of patients. Very misleading as it looks like the disease is sky rocketing. More what you want to do is graph the # reported on each day. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding support to this suggestion of a graph of cases over time.

I have been checking this wiki page as a way to be informed of the progress of swine flu and I have felt a lack of such a graph showing overall progress of cases. As a regular reader of wiki (and some ocassional editing) I was going to suggest a graph of progress also of "Cases over time" to add to the current page.

These are my suggestions for such a graph.

1. What statistics? What should be graphed?

I suggest track the statistics for the world only, rather than attempt tracking individual countries.

The figures ploted should be the "Totals" figures at the top of the current table "Cases by Country". A total of four lines: Namely Cases (Labratory Confirmed & Suspected), Deaths (Attributed & Confirmed). This keeps it simple, and compliments the information currently in this table, providing a view over time of the overall situation.

2. Where should such a graph start in time?

Time 0 on the graph should be the date the first case was identified. This way the graph shows progress from the very beginning to present in time. The identified point of first case may change with new information. For example, the recent identification of a village near a pig waste site in Mexico as possible origin.

The origin time should be adjusted updating the graph as facts become better established and with authoritive references of first case. That may take several weeks to be clearly established. Given swine flu will continue for some time, pandemic or no pandemic, updating the origin point will not change the overall look of the graph to much, so I do not see an issue from a readers point of view and possible confusion taking this approach.

As a citizen of Earth, I find I am using this wiki page as, in my evaluation, the most reliable and easily accessable information source to remain informed of the progress of swine flue and the possibility of a new pandemic. I think those central to this wiki page are doing an excellent job overall. Well done. Hope these suggestions from a "outside readers" point of view are of value to your endeavours.

CofE001 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenofearth001 (talk • contribs)
 * If and How do these numbers come down? When cases are confrimed? When cases are cleared as negative? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking further on this. I don't know how up-to-it everyone is, but I think this would be pretty cool:
 * There is no technical reason to limit the graph to world totals rather than country, state, or region.
 * Each country should have an agreed-upon authoritative source (such as the CDC in the US, which is currently issuing state-by-state counts)
 * The world stats should also have an authoritative source, such as the WHO.
 * We should expect and accept that sometimes the numbers won't add up 100%, and that at a certain point we'll have estimates rather than exact figures.
 * Graphs should be generated regularly, at least every 24-hours.
 * Numbers should be retroactively corrected as new information comes to light
 * Standard graphs (total suspected infections worldwide, per country, mortality, etc.) will be useful, but if the raw numbers are available, people could ideally be able to generate any kind of graph they want- say to compare mortality rates or rates of infection by certain characteristics (region, age, etc- whatever we have available), this could also be useful in analyzing the trajectory or lethality of the virus in different parts of the world.

The more I think about this, it may be beyond the scope of wikipedia to achieve, but perhaps wikipedia could benefit from a sort of real-time statistic warehouse-like database. It would be nice if the raw numbers could somehow be transcluded from a centralized area, so that the data is updated once and then automatically appears in every article. I also suspect we should keep an eye on this page from the CDC as it will be very helpful. --Replysixty (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article split
I see someone split out the country-by-country section, which I think was probably a good decision as a general matter. Now, however, we need to rebuild the section in this article. I think a good approach would be a focus on countries where actual cases are suspected or confirmed, a only brief mention of the various restrictions on travel and pork import etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Should only be a summary as usual for main/daughter articles.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's too short now. While the "one country, one single-line paragraph" approach wasn't the best, we need to have a summary of at least the effects in North America (whether more granularity is needed is debatable, although I'd be in favor of it) and Europe. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The map
I like it! One person has been caught coughing in Russia, and so they chalk up one suspected case - so most of the top of the world gets to be painted bright orange. Wallie (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the map is intended to show what countries have been affected, meaning colouring all of Russia yellow is an unavoidable effect.  Cordovao (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an easy solution but I don't think Putin would like my Siberian Liberation plan. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cordovao (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Major facepalm right there. However I see where you are going with this. Perhaps we should break larger counrties up based on existing social, natural, or political lines. If you think you can do it pig, go ahead. If not, shoot me a message and I'll see what I can do...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you google it, theres a much better map, with dots pinpointing individual cases. It seems the flu is staying away from extreme cold as its furthest north suspected case was moscow. and that was a passenger from mexico with a fever, so its probably not even that far north. Alaska, is a major tourist area despite the extreme weather conditions, and they have no cases, suspected or otherwise. I have a feeling if this does turn into a full pandemic they will be telling people to run to the north. Or for people on he southern hemisphere, run to the south! Also, hawaii hasn't been hit yet despite our(yes, i ive in hawaii) high velocity of tourists. Hopefully it stays that way, but its probably only a matter of time.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his point was that it is a rather misleading map. When you're talking about cases in the hundreds it seems ridiculous to label a country of tens of millions as "affected" when the handful of cases in that country are not even confirmed. The country-wide shading lends disproportionate weight to what is so far a very minor outbreak. Remember, hundreds of thousands of people die from influenza per year anyway. We certainly should keep the page current but I'm sure there is a way to do that without joining the moral panic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thats why I told him if he can do the coding to go ahead and do it. I even volunteered to do it if he couldn't. I was just pointing out an interesting fact.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reposition/remove chart?
The chart at the top of the article is getting a little out of hand (i.e. massive). Would it be better to remove the chart and only have it in the subartice 2009 swine flu outbreak by country? Or should it be moved? (Maybe to the by country section?) The problem with moving it is there would have to be a big space because the table is much much longer than the by country section now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. yes, a further column was added, that's why. Better is to delete a column, either Confirmed or Attributed deaths. We don't have much figures to fill the columns. -- Grochim (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We can fix it/format it better (we have enough smart people for that) but I'm still opposed to removing it from the top of this main article. It's an invaluable resource, and the best single focal point for where things stand. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We could hide it in a collapsible box. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, imo, Juliancolton. Cordovao (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the map at the top and the collapsed chart next to the by country section? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the table should remain at the top; it is a much better reference than the map since the map shows no differentiation between countries with many confirmed cases and those with only 1 or 2. My suggestion would be to split the table in two, with one table for countries that have confirmed cases and a second, collapsible table with possible cases below. Another alternative is to only have a table with confirmed cases, since it's getting to a point that every time someone gets a headache in a country it gets reported as a possible case. Wine Guy   Talk  20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Map Colours
Can we please bring back the original black/red/yellow scheme. The current colours are pretty poor, plus it will be harder to distinguish between the colours as the affected country gets smaller.
 * Agreed, we also already know the ocean is blue. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah leave the oceans white.
 * I agree that black/red/yellow was better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms
Nowhere does this article specifically discuss the symptoms of this disease (except the picture). If they are the same as every other swine flu, then maybe a sourced statement to that effect should be added. (And maybe a brief summary of the symptoms with a pointer to the complete article.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. The symptoms are quite possibly the most important part of the article, short of the casualty table - and they are missing. 66.41.149.20 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

'Hundreds Of Kids' Have Suspected Swine Flu
"Many hundreds" of schoolchildren in New York are sick with suspected swine flu, according to the city's health commissioner. -- Grochim (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many columns in table; suggested merging of refs
I think there are too many columns in the 'Cases by country' table, perhaps the references should be merged into the other columns such as the table in 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States? This would also make it clearer which reference is for which number in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nskrill (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I second this. Someone want to be bold and fix it?  hmwith  τ   20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the way it was yesterday... does anyone know why it was changed? --π!  20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd check the edit history of Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. In the meantime, I made the refs column thinner.  hmwith  τ   20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be easter for the reader, because they wont know which reference is the right one.--Vrysxy[[Image:Flag of California.svg|30x15px]] ¡Californication! 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I separated the confirmed and suspected deaths because three editors separately suggested it. You can change it back if you want; I'm indifferent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nskrill (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3 cases in Venezuela
Can anyone add Venezuela and update the map?? And Uruguay has one case, here are the references, they are in Spanish Venezuela, Uruguay--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are suspected cases for those who don't speak Spanish, but yeah, let me add them there. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done
To all who have contributed positively thus far, I wanted to say well done. The outbreak is a sensitive and fast changing issue, and the quality of the article at the moment stands as a testimony to the value of the Wikipedia community. Thank you, and let's keep it up. Cordovao (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed! Though I haven't personally contributed to the article(s), I've been watching them progress and maintain a high quality despite the huge amounts of information flooding in. Well done, everyone. Jozal (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We're all going to die. 75.164.159.67 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But the article will survive ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, great response Grochim. Cordovao (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Grochim gets a point. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia longa, vita brevis, mutatis mutandis. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful and not just focus on the WHO. Those who want WHO's viewpoint can go to their website. The WHO and CDC are starting to have separate opinions. NPOV requires that WP not be a WHO spokesman. I see no problem now but let's be mindful when editing. User F203 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Attributed/Confirmed Deaths Confusion
May I suggest that the "confirmed deaths" be incorporated into the "attributed deaths", since confirmed deaths are by definition attributed? So still have two columns, just have the confirmed deaths added to the tally of attributed deaths. Or add (unconfirmed) to attributed. It's a little confusing as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.165.37 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Swine Flu Genes From Pigs Only, Not Humans or Birds
See http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/swinefluupdate/. I would update the article with this information, but at the moment I'm occupied. Emw2012 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait until it's confirmed by more sources. This journalist can't even spell the University of Edinburgh correctly, which makes me severely doubt the quality of his research. Many other sources have claimed that it has the human/avian/swine components, so I think we ought to make sure that's thoroughly debunked first.62.253.240.9 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen this is both true and false. There are 8 pieces of RNA in the virus, of which between 2 and 5 came from European pigs and between 3 and 6 came from American pigs.  Of those 3-6 pieces from American pigs, one most closely matches bird flu RNA in simple homology searches, and one most resembles a piece of human influenza RNA from a strain circulating around 1993.  (These are two basic polymerase genes, PB2 and PB1 - which can have an important effect on species specificity )  The simplest explanation is that many flu strains in pigs have come to include bits of bird and human viruses - the "mixing vessel" idea.  But the homologies between these sequences and other known bird, human, and swine sequences are not really that different (see  #20), and only members of GISAID currently have direct access to the sequence.  Until we see a published molecular taxonomy of these sequences it might be premature to say whether a gene came from a bird or a pig based on the top BLAST match.  Nonetheless, some people have made these statements, perhaps based on careful analysis, and for now we should cite all the reliable sources we can find without choosing one favorite interpretation. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map problem
Portugal has NO confirmed cases. Should be white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.11.67 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the legend again and realize your error. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have any suspected cases either. (I'm assuming he means it should be gray.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are also assuming he is a he. I learned the hard way to never make such an assumtion. ;) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A safe assumption it turns out! (Preliminary user survey says that only 12% of wiki editors are female. : Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Userbox
Use this template to put the userbox on your page

If you have swine flu use this template Drew R. Smith(talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This box needs a tag.... --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A wha? This is more for amusement than any scientific uses.Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All we need is one that says they have and they might haved and we shall be fine.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Working on them now...Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the "Have swine flu" box up. Probably not going to do suspected box. seems like a waste...Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion on this page limited to discussion regarding improvements to the article itself. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm invoking WP:IAR here. There are a lot of editors working very hard on this page, and a bit of harmless, light relief never hurt anyone. Well done so far, and keep up the good work guys. Manning (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you manning.Drew R. Smith (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

More cases in Nicaragua
OKay, 3 posibles cases in Nicaragua has been confirmed, now it supposed to be in red (can anyone add it to the tabl?) here is the reference in Spanish.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Source 8 bunk info
I don't edit Wikipedia because it's scary, but I thought I would let those who do know that source #8 links to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081755.html, which is an editorial that is unrelated to the swine flu outbreak. Hope it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.158.48 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually its source 9 right now... The headline is correct "Authorities fear third and fourth cases of swine flu in Israel" but the url should be http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081774.html --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

✅ A thank you to the editor. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Deaths new number
Actual Deaths from swine flu in Mexico is not 20, but 7 according to WHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.249.29 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've updated the table, but we should explain the discrepancy in the article somewhere. -- Avenue (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Map difficult to read?
It seems to me that his newer map is difficult to comprehend as a lot of the countries blend together, because they're so small. I know you can just click on the map to make it larger, but the olded map seemed a lot more easier to read to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.2.171 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can use a googlemap someone setup now you can track the flu's progress right to your front door. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a PNG version. – Howard  the   Duck  10:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Name section
Seems like it might be worth writing one. Sources:, , , , ,. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.  Sandstein   06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New possible cases in Colombia
The total number is 42. Source: Las autoridades vigialn 42 posibles casos de gripe porcina en Colombia --SaitoK (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Grochim (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on Sambucol should be removed
✅ A thank you to Tim Vickers --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Treatment paragraph on Sambucol is extremely poor. The majority of the references are years old studies or WebMD articles that show Sambucol has had some effect against some (unnamed) strains of the influenza virus. The first source is the only one that mentions the Swine Flu outbreak at all. The one word mention on the PNJ is: "Alan Woolford, a Perdido resident, has stocked up on an anti-viral herbal remedy called Sambucol, ibuprofen, diarrhea medicine and face masks." The notoriety of it as an effective treatment or a note-worthy response taken by doctors or even random individuals is extremely scant. I recommend this paragraph be removed until some offical medical authority makes a statement on it with regard to this outbreak, or a source states someone more notable than Perdido resident, Alan Woolford is using Sambucol. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google News search turns up exactly 3 mentions of "Sambucol". The PNJ, The Huffington Post, and the Rocklin and Roseville Today.


 * The Huffington Post mentions it as Tamiflu with "no negative side effects". 'Doctor' Matthew Stein then goes on to call Garlic. and Grapefruit seed extract "true wonder herbs". - Um yeah


 * The Rocklin and Roseville Today. mentions it as "Always remember the wonderful cough suppressant, Sambucol!  We are now carrying it as it is from the black elderberry extract; literally stops coughing in its tracks, is an anti-viral liquid and tastes fantastic! ". Not Exacty journalism. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS applies, now more than ever. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided this section to document (a) that some people are taking this extract, (b) there is some (limited) evidence in the literature of its effectiveness against ordinary flu, but mostly (c) that it may increase the risk of death by "cytokine storm", a leading explanation for the deaths in Mexico. I understand that the sites advocating the use of elderberry for the swine flu do not describe it very scientifically ... I think if they did they might think twice about it. Here it is:

"A few news reports describe the use of an elderberry (Sambucus nigra) extract as a potential preventative.12 The preparation has been reported to reduce the duration of influenza symptoms by raising levels of cytokines.345 However, the use of the preparation has been described as "imprudent" when an influenza strain causes death in healthy adults by cytokine storm leading to primary viral pneumonia.6  The manufacturer cites a lack of evidence for cytokine-related risks, but labels the product only as an antioxidant and food supplement.7"


 * 1.
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7

I should add that as per WP:MEDRS, the first two sources are used for historical information (that people are using the substance). Sources 3 and 4 are the more recent and more conventional among the four references that turn up from a search of "sambucol and influenza" at PubMed. (A search of elderberry and influenza turns up more articles, but nothing explicitly contradictory; are interesting  but their relevance is hard to prove). Source 5 serves as a tertiary source from WebMD, a well-known Web site used by patients. Source 6 is a 2008 book about pandemic influenza with quite a bit of interesting information. Source 7, the manufacturer Web site, is included because if I'm casting any doubt on their product, they deserve to have their say on the issue.

Mike Serfas (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect figures
The death/case figures are sourced from the press, who are not always accurate. Best to go with the WHO figures which are much more reliable, having come from official sources. Since swine flu cases are notifiable, these are as accurate as we can get. (Unsurprisingly, these are much lower than the media-hype would suggest.) Let's use common sense here, and avoid sensationalism. Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This came up before and it was agreed that we should use the more up-to-date figures from the media rather than the WHO figures which are out of date. For example the WHO claim that there are currently 26 cases in Mexico and 64 in the US, which gives a US bias because of the better access to testing laboratories. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmed" deaths
WHO says "Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths". That means that there were 7 confirmed deaths, not 26. Could someone correct me if I am wrong and point me to official WHO data that says otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.19 (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and correct. This has been widely reported. Wallie (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit
Hi I can't edit but could some either delete or re-write and source this sentence.

"Mexico dealt with virulent strain, which didn't export other countries, which isolate devastation Mexico only." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.130.82 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Suspected case have decreased to 2 only
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090429/4/bxmf.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BVEsun (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Table already updated with official reports from Centre for Health Protection. -Xavier Fung (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland's suspected cases have decreased
Someone please change it in the table. There are now only 2 suspected cases - a Mexican woman, and a Pole recently traveling to Mexico. Three other patients are confirmed not to have swine flu. Based on news from onet.pl, Poland's major web portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.65.179 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)