Talk:List of notifiable diseases

Definition and introduction
this article needs to tell the reader what the definition is of a notifiable disease. Kingturtle 20:41 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC) PS. what is the status of SARS in accordance with this list? Kingturtle 20:43 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Is this a US-only thing, or a concept in many countries, which (surprise!) we only talk about the US version of? -- Tarquin 21:25 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Surprise! If we read to the end of the article, we find that we DON'T only talk about the US version. Most nations require this sort of public health notification. The diseases reported will differ, but the basic principles of monitoring of disease outbreaks and tracing contacts where appropriate is nearly universal. Add lists of other nations if you can find them. -- Someone else 21:43 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * exactly. I only saw that bit after I scrolled down... I've edited the intro so it at least looks like a general article -- Tarquin 21:55 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Korea
Korea has similar lists of diseases. I compiled the list as http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%95%EC%A0%95%EC%A0%84%EC%97%BC%EB%B3%91 (법정전염병) from the relevant law (전염병예방법). Someone can translate this into English?

Reformat list?
Would it be reasonable to re-format the list into a list of "diseases that are notifiable across the globe", with each disease listing the countries in which it is notifiable? Seems to be a large amount of redundancy between the US, UK, and Australian lists, which will only get worse if/when other countries' details are entered ...

ross river virus
may I ask why, under notifiable Australian diseases, ross river virus has been mentioned twice? I just thought I would inquire before I deleted the repete in case there was a particular purpose.

Rona_CaBiLlO Ronacabillo 05:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This article could use some cleanup.
I noticed that on this page, after each disease listed is a short summary the disaese's fatality rates, causes, transmission, etc. I think that it may be better if we simply listed the diseases, without this short summary. The short summary is not necessary on a list page, and makes the page somewhat "dirty." Also I find there are some other weird, unnecessary things on the page, for example:


 * Rabies, animal
 * Rabies, human

Is there really a need to differentiate between them? It's not like plants get rabies... Haha, well I really just brought up the rabies thing because I thought it was funny, but the real problem is the short summaries after each disease.

Anyways, I think it seems clear that this page needs some cleanup, and once again, I think it would be best to simply delete all of the short summaries that follow each of the disease's name. What does everyone think? Arnesh 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists are not appropriate
This article is just a list. I suggest we make it a category, that all the diseases in the list link to. Does anyone have a problem with this? --Millancad 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think that's the best way. What would happen to the paragraph at the top though? vLaDsINgEr 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as one initial link is Notifiable disease, we still need to define what that is. That certainly gets into *why* a particular disease *must* be reported (e.g. identifying an incipient epidemic).  But if all the lists go away, transformed into cats, do you put this article into the category.  That would make sense, I guess ... Hmm. Shenme 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know that being a list in and of itself disqualifies it from being a useful article (especially if it can provide more information than a category - see below) - see List_of_medical_topics for many other lists. Also see Lists_(stand-alone lists) & a section on it's talk page at: "Ban on Stand-Alone Lists".


 * My only concern with killing the list and making it a category is losing the ability to see at a glance one particular countries notifiable diseases (you can always look at the sourced websites, but then you lose the advantages of wiki-links), I've tried to think of ways to allow the data to be presented both ways (by total list and by country) without too much duplication or over-categorisation, but haven't come up with anything yet.


 * I do agree with separating the "Notifiable disease" article out and expanding it with information on why, how and where (incl. histories & sources of various countries policies/lists).


 * Creating a category may also be useful, as is the case with Genetic disorders which has both a category and a list (which lists extra information such as mutation & chromosome). The question is which countries diseases do you add?  My guess is all of them.  I considered subcategories per country - but that could mean you end up with one disease in 40 categories (one for each country it's notifiable in).


 * I'm going to work on the Notifiable disease article in the meantime and try to turn it into a proper article. Zarius 12:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done some work on Notifiable disease, need to turn in for now so I posted my first draft and a few comments on it's talk page. Zarius 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite inaccurate. Botulism is a notifiable disease in the UK - it has been since God was a boy - see here -> http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/NotificationsOfInfectiousDiseases/ListOfNotifiableDiseases/ I think it would be a better idea to have a list of countries and their notifiable lists (and the EU - the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) maintains a list of notifiable infections with corresponding case definitions. I think arranging it in that way would be much more satisfactory.  Each contributor (who knows his own country's list could maintain that country's list - I for example would be happy to do this for Ireland's list. What do others think? Johnathanbingley (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebola
Why is Ebola not included in the list of notifiable diseases when it is plainly a very werious condition, all too often resulting in death?

The Ebola virus is one of several diseases which are classed as viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHF). I have checked on the list of notifiable diseases and this is in fact listed. Therefore, clinicians are aware that they should notify the appropriate authorities if they come into contact with someone who they suspect has symptoms of the ebola virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.28.253 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

India
The indian list of notifiable diseases relies on a regional source (ie. the pondicherry government),

there are various others lists like

Schedule 2 of Factories Act

Merchant Shipping Law

Aircraft Public Health Law

Various other regional Acts(Manipur, New Delhi, ...)

karnataka NDCP

etc.

Each having their own list and so forth so I question the validity of the given list as various diseases like anthrax while not on pondicherry government's list, is present in other lists.

365 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)