Talk:Superspreading event/Archive 1

Twinkle revert good faith edits?
Hmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super-spreader&diff=607238323&oldid=607235446

This looks like a twinkle revert of 2 good faith edits. Please don't revert non-vandalism without an explanation. User:Malke 2010 can you explain your reasoning here?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversions
I think it would be better for people to discuss here exactly what the problem is with various edits, rather than simply reverting them with comments like SYNTH or OR. I haven't gone into the edits in great detail, but on cursory inspection is looks like Dballouz's edits have greatly improved the article. There may just need to be some minor tweaks (such as 'By far the most publicized and popular case of superspreaders is in the case of the SARS outbreak' which might be WP:OR). However we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sciencewatcher read this blog post and then jumped at the chance to play wiki-warrior without bothering to fully examine the edits. 24.215.93.38 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For a second I thought Sciencewatcher was the blog author, but that doesn't seem right. Anyway, my own first move after reading the blog was to check the edits. The student's edits *look* pretty decent, at first readthrough. Can you go into a bit more detail on where the problem arises? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @24.215.93.38: Assume good faith, please. Matt (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How about this... if we end up with a better article that is soundly written, then everyone wins. Who cares how they got here if they actually provide a positive contribution to the effort. Yeah, I'm guilty of not viewing all the diffs, but I can see from the history that there was a ridiculous edit fight between Malke 2010 and a newbie. Especially when you combined the fight with no clear discussion on this talk page demonstrating a good faith effort to hash out the differences before calling war. What could have been a welcome introduction to a newly passionate editor has turned into yet another demonstration to the public that validates their perceptions that this is a hostile place. BcRIPster (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, this page is for resolving debates on how to fix this page, not for stoking them. This is not an opinion page or blog response section. Please be constructive here. If you do just want to vent some steam, you can best do so at the aforementioned blog.
 * On the other hand, if you want to help check edits made by previous editors, or even want to contribute some edits of your own, please feel welcome! :-)
 * Can you point to particular edits that were done in error by one of the parties? Can you correct them?--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) All those soapbox rants tend to add up and not actually fix anything ;-)
 * Touché Kim Bruning. Thanks for the check. I think Matt said what I was thinking much better anyways. BcRIPster (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate template to put on this page to mention that this little edit scuffle a few weeks ago was the subject of a blog post that was linked on a high traffic web site? It seems like a mix between High traffic and Recruiting (good faith recruiting by an inexperienced user, off-site, of course, but still something to notify about). Likely the relevant Wikiprojects should be notified in case this descends into chaos. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there's at least 4 experienced wikipedians looking in as it is, now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Right? 
 * Clearly, but the whole point of WP:CANVAS is that you want neutral editors to weigh in. Subject matter editors notified through Wikipedia are are probably a better idea than whoever stumbles upon it, given that most of the traffic to this page at the moment is likely generated from that blog post and any knock-on coverage thereof. I'm not calling into question your neutrality on the subject, but it just doesn't seem like a bad idea to notify the relevant subject matter editors. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to go that way, how about notifying the relevant wikiprojects on their talk pages, and see what you get? My own take right now is that it looks more like an editor behavior dispute that accidentally expanded scope beyond the page at hand. Might be good to see if we can resolve it without dragging in even more people and maybe exceeding whatever the local Dunbar's number is. Though in the end, it's your call, really, be bold! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll likely notify WikiProject Viruses. It doesn't really look like a very active wikiproject anyway, so likely nothing will come of it either way. I'd still like to hear some opinions as to whethere a template here would be appropriate, and sugggestions as to which one to use. That said, I would humbly like to suggest that this not be treated as a "behavior dispute" but rather a content dispute. It's easy to spiral down a rathole dissecting whether actions were right or wrong when we could just as easily ignore all that and decide what the right content to include is. From reading through the new content, it seems to me that the research at the core of the thing is fairly solid, but it needs a little TLC to make it encyclopedic, and the sourcing could likely be fleshed out a bit. Resolving the content dispute here will immediately resolve the behavior dispute, and it seems like a firmer objective. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should all take a breath and review the edits and editing behaviour of this 'newbie' editor. Then re-read that whole blog post. This person claims someone from Wikipedia was advising them? Really? Does it sound like that person from Wikipedia was really being helpful?

As for the edits made by Dballouz. Do any of you know the meaning of super-spreader? How about asymptomatic carrier? Do you know the SIR model when corrected for carriers? What about the transmisison rate then? Eh? Any takers? As you read this editor's additions, do they really explain things better than before or are you left with more questions?

The edits are poorly done. It's a draft and the behaviour of the editor in getting reverted doesn't suggest somebody who is interested in writing an encyclopedia article and that includes their puffed up arrogant/one-sided/unverifiable childish at best blog post about their mediocre, lazy attempt to edit a well-sourced, well-written Wikipedia article. And as for the IP's showing up, it's apparent, on my talk page, that these are regular editors now editing as IP's. I think that's breaking some rules. Maybe some of you can go solve that problem. And as for see WP:Personal attack. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. (longer reply edited out, as I don't want to add to the fire). --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ponder about how to put it in more cool terms? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)
 * BcRIPster struck through their text already, which means they took their words back.
 * I hope other editors will act constructively too. Using IPs in the way you suspect doesn't seem entirely nice.


 * In the mean time, let's work out the situation, if/where required.
 * Can you explain what the specific issues are that you found with DBallouz's edits? Can you show me diffs on-wiki where this user is arrogant/one-sided/unverifiable/childish?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I do happen to have studied biology, so feel free to expand beyond monosyllabic terminology if required.
 * See the blog. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to focus on on-wiki behaviour, actual diffs appreciated. Can you show me 1 or more specific issues you found with DBallouz's edits that we can discuss? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Note that the blog -while interesting- does not appear to have been written by DBallouz, so is only of limited use wrt analyzing their own behavior
 * Please don't comment on my talk page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stay frosty, I know you're under a bit of pressure here, so I'm going to assume it's ok: but note that -typically- removal of attempts to resolve a dispute from your talk page is not the best of ideas (Can be part of the grounds for an RFCU).
 * Please do consider answering my questions here at least, as a sign of good faith. You don't have to answer right away. If you want to take a breather first, that's perfectly alright. I can check back in 24 hours if needed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think my request that this discussion be kept on the article talk page, and not on my talk page, is grounds for an RfC/U, feel free. As for answering your questions, so far I haven't seen anything you've written that suggests you are here to improve this article. I don't see a dispute. I see Sciencewatcher reverting my edit without any good reason other than he wants to edit war. Your questions don't seem aimed at article improvement either. You seem more interested in trying to put me on the defensive. You're both looking for an argument. You won't get one from me. Try Meghan's blog. In the meantime, if you aren't here to improve this article, then you are trolling. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw the blog (that's how I ended up here in the first place), and it seems to be a fair summary of the events that occurred here. Dballouz acted in good faith the whole time, and Malke unfairly reverted many of the edits. There are a few issues that need tweaked, but overall the edits seem good as far as I can tell (but note that I've only taken a cursory glance at the page). Certainly Malke seems to have some logic problems - see the discussion above regarding Typhoid Mary. Basically Dballouz was correct and Malke has some weird misunderstanding about the whole thing, which (rightly or wrongly) makes all of her editing suspect to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are personal attacks. You also don't provide any diffs to back up your claims. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal attack, it's stating the obvious. here is your logic error. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not here to improve this article. You are here trolling after reading a blog entry. You don't know the first thing about this subject and obviously in the time you've been making personal attacks and stirring the pot, you've not bothered to learn anything about it. I'm not going to respond to you again, as you are not here to improve the situation. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, tactically not the best answer. Would you consider striking it through? I assume you're a bit stressed atm, but by WP:ABF-ing sciencewatcher (an experienced editor in good standing, afaict), you're risking that 2nd signature required for a valid RFCU. Better to keep communications open. You can always come in in the morning and deal with things then, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So are you threatening me with an RfC/U? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm pointing out politely that you are currently close to the minimum parameters for one to be opened.


 * I don't think you need to be though, you seem to be a pretty decent editor normally.


 * Try not to assume bad faith of experienced users in good standing. Take your time, and sleep on it, if you can.
 * Even if you sincerely believe someone on wikipedia is trolling you; it's usually not tactical to actually say so. At very least pretend to assume good faith.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Wrt my own questions, I'm told that sometimes I come across as very assertive. I hope you can still take them in good faith. If you have a specific issue with a particular question, please point it out to me on my talk page.
 * You should take your own advice on that. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I'm off to bed now. I hope you have a nice evening. I hope we can have a constructive talk tomorrow or so. Poke me on my talk page! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Always check credentials of everyone you're sparring with, always assume good faith
 * Indeed! I'm off to bed now. I hope you have a nice evening. I hope we can have a constructive talk tomorrow or so. Poke me on my talk page! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Always check credentials of everyone you're sparring with, always assume good faith


 * I've taken another look at the edits, and I think I've figured it out (at least with regards to Typhoid Mary). It looks like DBallouz's reference for Typhoid Mary in the article wasn't a MEDRS source, so it wasn't sufficient to say whether or not she was a super-spreader. DBallouz later added a MEDRS reference to the talk page which did specifically say that Typhoid Mary was a super-spreader. I think perhaps Malke didn't notice that Stein ref in the talk page, which validated the Typhoid Mary addition. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this got way too confrontational for an interaction with a new editor whose good intentions are shown by registering and that its not a SPA pushing a political or social POV. Better to help her figure out how to contribute than to just reflexively revert.  Don't bite the newcomers. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So swinging back to this, I read the full piece and looked at the citations. Personally, and from a layman's perspective this seems (at the moment I'm adding this) like a reasonably informative page. I'm not sure what that's worth in the grand scheme of things, but figured I should put in my two cents from an editors perspective at this point. Furthermore, I found it way more informative than what was written prior to April 18th.BcRIPster (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agin like to just re-iterate that I think that Monday morning quarterbacking 's actions with regards to a newcomer is entirely unnecessary at this point, particularly on this page. A way, way more fruitfal way to resolve everything is to just go through the new material and make improvements as necessary and attempt to reach consensus where there are controversies. There's not that much material and it seems like people are already starting to comb through it. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The behavior itself is an issue. WP:DNB is an actual Wikipedia behavioral guideline and not a mere suggestion. If you disagree, there's a discussion page for modifying the guidelines. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think the appropriate forum for a referendum on 's behavior is the talk page for a virology article and not, say, WP:AN/I, or on user talk pages? This page is for discussion of the article on super-spreaders, not for a post-mortem on how unfriendly the editors here are. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's apparent who is here to improve the article and who is here trolling. Trolls never have diffs, never make positive suggestions, they love to feed conflict and are always looking for a way to make trouble. They love to quote policy, forum shop admin talk pages hoping for quick action, etc. It's best to ignore them. If they have something, there are forums where they can follow the very Wikipolicies they love to quote. This article's talk page is not that forum and they know that. Best to ignore them. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed at WP:AN/I in the conversation about Malke2010's request for talk page protection. And several editors have offered comments on Malke's talk page which he has chosen to delete. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Asymptomatic Super-spreaders
There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers could be considered super-spreaders. Well, considering super-spreaders are just defined as people "who infect disproportionately more susceptible contacts, as compared to most individuals who infect few or no others," I believe that asymptomatic carriers are super-spreaders, in fact, the most effective super-spreaders. If they are able to continue to spread the disease to several people before being diagnosed and subsequently treated/isolated, they are more effective super-spreaders because their rate of transmission is higher than the overall population. The key to being a super-spreader is having a high R0, and asymptomatic carriers are perfect examples. Unsigned comment by 19:35, 19 April 2014‎ Dballouz (talk | contribs)


 * You said, "I believe that asymptomatic carriers are super-spreaders. . ." Thing is, on Wikipedia it isn't really up to you to decide something like that. That is considered original research. You need to have an academic, peer-reviewed, medical journal article that makes the claim that they are one and the same. Also, I'm not aware of any "dispute as to whether or not asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders," so perhaps you could also provide a source for that. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

^The article cited to above was published in a Scientific Journal and considers Typhoid Mary a super-spreader. That, like almost everything else on the page, is from n academic, peer-reviewed journal. It says, "The minority of individuals who infect disproportionately more susceptible contacts, as compared to most individuals who infect few or no others, became known as super-spreaders, and their existence is deeply rooted in history: between 1900 and 1907, Typhoid Mary infected 51 individuals, three of whom died, even though she only had an asymptomatic infection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dballouz (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 April 2014‎


 * I think Malke is a little confused. It isn't just Dballouz's opinion that Typhoid Mary is a super-spreader, it is in a reliable medical source. It seems to be you who is doing original research by saying that asymptomatic carriers cannot be super-spreaders. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not confused. Dballouz does not appear interested in learning how to properly source and write an encyclopedic article. When questioned, he seems selective in what he'll respond to. As an example, see above claim in Dballouz's comment, "There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders." And then note that I then asked Dballouz to show a source for that. Still waiting for that source. The edits made were poorly written and poorly sourced. Go back and read what Dballouz actually wrote. Adding them back without making any attempt to rewrite them and resource them is simply edit warring by you. Please stop. Also, take a look at this editor's reverting behaviour. When advised to stop reverting, this editor continued to do so. That doesn't appear to be someone interested in building an encyclopedia. As for Typhoid Mary, a great deal has been taken out of context regarding asymptomatic carriers. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Stein, Richard A article does seem to take Typhoid Mary as being a super-spreader. What kind of detail do you seek? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, hmm... that's currently the source used in the intro. What do you feel is missing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about the quality of some of these new entries, but I have to say I don't see anything in these sources that indicates that the carriers have to be symptomatic. I kinda think that it's reversing the burden of proof to say that  affirmatively prove that super-spreaders may be asymptomatic since, if that distinction is never made, there would be no sources to indicate this (in the same way that there are likely no sources out there that say that a person is not disqualified from being considered a human if they are missing their left pinky finger). 128.32.151.118 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we can all agreed that the definition as cited contains no restriction on the method by which superspreading occurs. In mathematical epidemology, the superspreader is any agent infecting more inviduals than the r0 (to some level of statistical difference).

I'll concede that it's actually rare for asymptomatics to be significant superspreaders. For one, much of superspreading we see is actually down to the behaviour of the agents, not the pathoengenicity- see HIV by example and how drug use and sexual behaviour affects transmission. That isn't to say it doesn't matter: see optimal virulence for how the pathenogenicity can affect transmission. Measles is a good example where shedding is more important to transmission than behaviour.

Still, Typhoid Mary is a famous case of superspreading and should consequently be included. The R0 of typhoid is close to 2.8; and Mary is estimated to have infected 49 people so it's probably safe to consider her a superspreader (as the sources cited support as well).

That said, from reading the discussion, it's not clear to me that this discussion is 'really' about whether Mary was actually a superspreader, which she most certainly was, but down to the quality of the edit and the resulting reversion war. I think a way forward is to include Typhoid Mary, since she's definitely relevant, but to do so by revising the way Typhoid Mary was included. For established editors, in general it's best practice to make further edits on those additions made in good faith rather than simply reverting them, to avoid issues like this cropping up. And for new editors, when an edit is reverted, reverting a reversion is also not the best way forward; revising the edit and trying again can often resolve such misunderstandings. Lepidoptera (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thank you for your comments and page edits. You're the first editor in this 'discussion' to actually contribute and comment on the article. Regarding transmission, the R0 is actually a bit higher than that for Typhoid fever which is highly contagious. There are conflicting sources as to the exact number of people, and over how many years, Mary Mallon actually infected others. Some claim 22 people over 7 years, others claim 51 over 12 years, etc. There are several other variations out there in the literature. Perhaps that is a result of a misreading of the public health records of the time.


 * A true super-spreader has an immune reaction that actually makes the virus more efficient in reproduction, hence they are able to spread the virus at a far higher rate than would be possible in someone without this immune reaction. Mary Mallon, on the other hand, did get infected and recovered. Many people assume incorrectly that she was never symptomatic. She was and she recovered. However, at various times she continued to shed the virus. This was discovered with traceback anaylsis when those in the household where she worked became infected. However, over time, not all of her periodic tests came back positive, suggesting there were periods when she was not shedding virus and therefore not infecting others.


 * Super-spreaders were first identified with the SARS outbreak and came into the common lexicon at that time, because the SARS virus seemed to have a low transmission rate from person to person. Yet one person in particular, was able to infect up to 16 people without even having had direct face-to-face contact with them. He apparently either vomited or spit out a large amount of sputum near an elevator. This was enough to infect others in nearby rooms who also used that elevator. Mary Mallon, on the other hand, did not infect an unusual number of people. If you factor in the number of years and the actual transmission rate of Typhoid fever, you will see that Mary Mallon did not infect more people than the average Typhoid fever sufferer would be expected to infect. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "superspreader" was first coined in 1980 in an article titled "On the identification of superspreaders for infectious disease" Prior to the SARS outbreak in 2002, the term was most common in HIV literature where it seems to be used almost synonymously for individuals with a high contact rate.


 * For a "true" superspreader to meet certain criteria of pathogenicity, it seems like a very restrictive definition; do you have an citation that links the definition of superspreading to the host's immune response? I think the more general definition is both supported by the literature - the 2005 review makes it clear that contact mediated superspreading, for instance, is superspreading.


 * Also, in terms of Typhoid Mary, R0 is not time dependant; that is to say, it's not relevant over what time period Mary spread the infection. If the R0 is 4, for example, then that means that the typical typhoid spreader infects on average 4 people over the course of the epidemic, no matter how long or short that is. I agree that during Mary's time the R0 may have been higher than 3; however, it's unlikely to say, exceed the R0 of measles (ranging in 12-18) which is still well shy of the cases attributed to Mary. To prove definitively that she was a super-spreader is unlikely- you can't even do that in modern day cases. But given that she's mentioned as a super spreader in the literature clinches it, I think. Lepidoptera (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the point in having this discussion that sounds remarkably like original research. It's down to where we can find reliable sources. If there is a reliable source that says she is a super-spreader and no corresponding sources that would even call that into question, then it's down to an editorial decision about whether it's actually useful to have the information included in the page. Where are we at in terms of clearing the first hurdle? Have we agreed that the source provided is reliable? Unreliable? Do we have a source that indicates that there's some controversy about Mallon's super-spreader status? 128.32.151.118 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be down to that and due weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"" Mary Mallon, on the other hand, did not infect an unusual number of people. If you factor in the number of years and the actual transmission rate of Typhoid fever, you will see that Mary Mallon did not infect more people than the average Typhoid fever sufferer would be expected to infect. ""

- Malke 2010


 * Thing is, on Wikipedia it isn't really up to you to decide something like that. That is considered original research. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a remarkably unproductive comment. It essentially rephrases what I said but in a snarky way, designed to provoke an argument. Please keep it civil. 128.32.151.118 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the trolling I mentioned. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Off-wikipedia discussion of page
Using Wikipedia in the classroom: a cautionary tale (dynamicecology.wordpress.com) Hacker News discussion: 64 points 2 hours ago - 37 comments by jcurbo-Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This page was also recently mentioned on the Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list. Zell Faze (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To wit : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-May/004248.html --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, Sue makes comments without gathering facts. Malke 2010 said that she is also female.  This is not a case of a male-dominated encyclopedia bashing the female perspective.  It's two female editors (making the gender issue irrelevant) who are both educated in the subject, one more than the other, disagreeing - where one knows the ins and outs of the encyclopedia while the other one doesn't.  That's the nature of this dispute.--v/r - TP 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But unless I missed something, Sue never said Malke 2010 was male. They simply said that a new female editor was having problems which seems to be true regardless of what fault there is. The fact that both editors are female doesn't seem to make the gender issue irrelevant. It may be less relevant. But it seems to me it's still easily possibly a female editor may be more likely to have problems getting established here for various reasons and may be more likely to need extra help regardless of the causes and genders of everyone else involved. And even if this isn't true, if Sue feels the gender gap exists and is a serious problem, it may be that they feel devoting extra attention to helping female editors stick around is worth it, even if this seems unfair to male editors because both are equally likely to stick around (or not). In other words, while some of the commentary on the blog and perhaps elsewhere may be unfair, I don't really see how there's an issue with the mailing list post which was linked to or at least not in the way you indicated. (And I did check the archive and see no other emails from Sue relating to the issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This victim narrative is wearing thin. Has anybody thought to ask, what in the user name Dballouz screams, "I'm a female?" Absolutely nothing. The blogger/professor is following a victim narrative that is false. It's her problem, not Wikipedia's. She's projecting her own bias. Isn't that exactly what we're not supposed to do on Wikipedia? And I'm hatting this discussion because it really doesn't belong on the article talk page. I suggest it be moved to a different forum. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki discussion of an article can cause people to come in and affect the POV of an article, so is exceptionally relevant to the editing of an article. I'll leave the hat-note for now though, if it helps reduce your stress level. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Take care though: In situations similar to this, I've seen hat-notes start to backfire.
 * (after rv) :: Well, I was willing to compromise on the hat-note. I'm ok with hat-noting if it makes you happy; but if that's ok with you, I'll re-label it again. For instance, I don't quite think Sue Gardner mentioning this article could exactly be considered 100% irrelevant, per-se.  --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be policy here or here. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not relevant policy wrt refs to external discussions.
 * Even if it was: hiding reference to relevant forums is not conducive to getting people to go there. :-P
 * Alternately, one could make the argument that discussion should be moved to your talk page instead. I have a feeling you're not entirely happy with that argument either though.
 * alright?
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, tell you what, how about this ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

West Nile virus
Is there information in this paper that should be added to the article? Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting source Axl. I would say that they are using super-spreader in a rather metaphorical or idiosyncratic way so it's not really relevant to the article. That said, language does change, so if other academics are starting to use super-spreader in this inter-species rather than intra-species context I'd definitely reconsider. Jefffire (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This was my concern as well. The article currently seems to compartmentalise the term into humans only ("[...] is a person"), and in regard to intra-species transmission.
 * While it is true that it was first used intraspecies on May 10th, 2003 (para. 3), it is commonly used for interspecies transfer. Indeed, if one takes it in context of scale, super-spreaders inter- and intra-species are the same thing. In one, an individual person is the (inter-species) super-spreader amongst the peoples of their species, while in the other the bat species is the (intra-species) super-spreader amongst the other species of their kingdom.
 * Indeed there is an article which touches upon this (para. 5), where the term "spread-capacitor" is seemingly one current term for interspecies super-spreaders. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Name
The article uses both "superspreader" and "super-spreader". From a quick look around, it seems that the hyphen-less version is most common. Anyone disagree? — RockMFR 22:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I disagree. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasoning? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More common in medical literature. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3016762/  Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malke that the hyphenated version seems to be a bit more common. Try doing a few searches on google scholar for SARS or Thypoid Mary with either version and you'll see you get more results for the hyphened-version in both cases. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In mathematical epidemiology superspreader is more common, see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/abs/nature04153.html But I think super-spreader is fine, although I personally am not a fan of hyphenation in general. Lepidoptera (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know this doesn't apply directly to common academic use, but I was surprised to see Google Trends indicating that pretty much the only measurable search use is two words, non-hyphenated. BcRIPster (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to go even more off-topic, but people generally don't include hyphens when Googling because it's one of the least accessible QWERTY keys, and/or they recognize--or at least vaguely grasp--that Google returns roughly the same results with only slightly varying rankings. (Log out or start a private browsing session, and then compare searches between super spreader vs super-spreader. The difference is slightly more dramatic comparing results between superspreader vs super-spreader or superspreader vs super spreader). There is also the tendency of written-language English to reduce hyphenated compounds to agglutinate ones. Also--and this is getting into the realm of conjecture--I'd assume most people searching Google rather than, say, PubMed are just performing naive searches where spoken language instincts kick in. Studentism (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood, I was just being topical to the conversation. I imagine you're suspensions are valid. BcRIPster (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For good measure, Google Ngram Viewer has some limited book results leaning towards a single word version, though I wouldn't really say that it's a viable sample-set to be making a decision against. BcRIPster (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Typhoid Mary a superspreader?
This discussion seems to have been started above, but mixed up with other things. Malke has repeatedly reverted weakly sourced material on the grounds that she (Malke) did not believe that Typhoid Mary was a superspreader because Mary didn't meet Malke's defintion of a super-spreader.

Here's what my quick search turned up:



There seem to be a lot more along these lines. I found exactly zero sources that claimed Typhoid Mary was not a super-spreader. So the WP:BURDEN is amply met, and the consensus among academic experts appears to be unanimous: Typhoid Mary was a super-spreader despite being asymptomatic. Can we get this factual information back into the article now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing: Let's not make this about Malke. Your comment has a hectoring tone to it. Let's make this about what is best for the article. If you have issues, take them to the appropriate forum with diffs. Otherwise, please strike/refactor those comments. If you have the sources and feel this is factual, then by all means, make the edit. But be sure to give it the appropriate due weight. Typhoid Mary should not take over the article but simply be one example. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The most infamous superspreader" probably deserves a paragraph.
 * Does anyone else have any opinions on whether to include Typhoid Mary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * be WP:bold. One paragraph seems about right, and you appear to have reliable sources. Do you think you need consensus, or are you here for something else? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mary Mallon, known as Typhoid Mary, was a superspreader of typhoid fever in the early 1900’s. She worked as a cook for many families and because of her poor hygiene and handling of raw foods she transmitted typhoid to 49 people, three of whom died. Her case was unusual because she was an asymptomatic carrier of the disease. Mallon was the first documented case of an intermittent carrier of typhoid in the United States. She was healthy and displayed no symptoms, but she sometimes excreted the disease. Her urine and stool samples came back positive and negative for the disease, causing her not to believe that she had typhoid. When the New York City Health Inspector told her she was a carrier and to stop cooking, she refused and continued to transmit the disease, even after she was kept in isolation. It was her disbelief of her rare condition and poor hygiene habits that caused her to be a superspreader and infect the large number of people that she did."

Tell me what's wrong with this previous text. It's one paragraph. Why not just add that (with sources)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections, I have restored that text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I object. from what I can see, the last sentence, It was her disbelief of her rare condition and poor hygiene habits that caused her to be a superspreader and infect the large number of people that she did. is a piece of original research that is not in the sources, and of course is placed after the citation for that very reason. We need to be stating what the sources say, not drawing our own conclusions - which is at the core of the problems with User:Dballouz's edits. Would you be willing to remove that sentence or source it? --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a NOR violation; I've heard that for years, and it's clearly stated in sources like this and [//books.google.com/books?id=Dybn7wL1pFMC this] (p. 65) and [//books.google.com/books?id=tqlPFyN7-HIC&pg=PA40 this] and this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not seeing it. That conclusion is stated nowhere in the sources that I could find. We could just as easily assert that "It was her desire to be a cook that caused her to be a superspreader" from what's written there - after all she still disbelieved her condition and presumably retained her hygiene habits while she was locked up but didn't spread anything then! But that would still be drawing our own conclusions. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that her disbelief that she was a carrier caused her to spread the disease, and her poor hygiene caused her to spread the disease, and that she was a super-spreader, but that the very things that caused her to spread the disease to dozens of people did not cause her to be a super-spreader? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm saying that there appear to be many factors involved in causing her to be a super-spreader - the physiology that made her an asymptomatic carrier, her chosen profession, the societal values that rated her civil liberties above concern for the general population, etc. - and you've picked just two and called them the causes without any source that makes that assertion. Don't we have some policies about editors doing their own analysis of primary sources? --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do, and it is that policy that prevents me from writing all the factors that I think were relevant, and forcing me to stick to what the reliable sources say about it. The reliable sources appear to be focused on her persistent disbelief that she was an asymptomatic carrier, plus her belief that washing the hands was an unnecessary waste of time for a cook.  The sources say things like "She didn't believe she was to blame and even helped to care for the sick.  By doing this, she spread the disease even further" rather than talking about her physiology.
 * (If her civil liberties were actually rated above concern for the general population, then why did she get locked up without a trial, for three years, within mere days of the health board learning of her existence? Why was she then re-arrested and kept quarantined for the rest of her life—more than 20 years?  )  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think that text is an analysis of the sources by an editor, not a report, but I won't press the point. As for her civil liberties, it was a press campaign based on those that saw her released from her first confinement. That then lead to her second bout of disease spreading (which would not have occurred without the campaign - but I'm analysing of course!) For comparison, many people with mental illness had been locked up without trial for longer, without any campaign to let them back into the community. --RexxS (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think that text is an analysis of the sources by an editor, not a report, but I won't press the point. As for her civil liberties, it was a press campaign based on those that saw her released from her first confinement. That then lead to her second bout of disease spreading (which would not have occurred without the campaign - but I'm analysing of course!) For comparison, many people with mental illness had been locked up without trial for longer, without any campaign to let them back into the community. --RexxS (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems in several sections

 * The Typhoid Mary section is referenced using two sources. One is the comment from the Stein article, which appears to be Stein's own opinion/assumption. Stein is not reviewing epidemiological studies that show carriers of Typhoid are super-spreaders. Instead, the Stein article is a review of studies of the spread of tuberculosis and SARS. It also includes a brief look at super-spreaders in other species, specifically the West Nile virus carrying mosquitoes that infect American Robins. Since this is Stein's assumption that Mary Mallon was a super-spreader, it's not a reliable source. His reference for his comment is simply an unreferenced general article about Mary Mallon that repeats many of the fallacies commonly found in news articles. The second reference being used is an encyclopedia which states the same.
 * The Lloyd-Smith study looks at transmission dynamics in eight human infections: SARS, Rubella, Monkepox, Smallpox, Ebola HF, Measles, and pneumonic plague, but not typhoid fever. Lloyd-Smith and his team crafted a definition of super-spreaders but they did so based on the SARS epidemic and not on asymptomatic carriers of disease. Therefore, applying this definition to carriers is WP:OR since there are no studies that claim this.
 * The Transmission and Prevention sections do not integrate into the article but read as statements. The R0 is accurate for general purposes but is not specific to super-spreaders.
 * The Prevention section reads as an afterthought. How is one to a priori know who is and who is not a super-spreader before an outbreak? It's only after an outbreak starts, and is usually well on it's way, that an epidemiological traceback analysis identifies super-spreaders. Models can be predictive but they can't prevent epidemics caused by super-spreaders, especially given that these are emerging viruses that, absent super-spreaders, normally have little to none person-to-person transmission.

As they are not well-sourced, and are not well-written, and those bits that are do not integrate into the article as a whole, I suggest these sections be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add, it's important to keep in mind that Super-spreaders are an epidemiological phenomenon. As such, this is an epidemiology based article. Therefore, peer-reviewed studies are appropriate here, not news articles from BBC or CNN. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deletion, although I agree that news reports are poor sources of medical information. Stein's article is a reliable source - the journal is respectable and peer-reviewed. Stein's conclusions may be challenged - but the place for that is in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, not in Wikipedia. If Stein asserts Mallon was a super-spreader then that's what we report in the absence of equally reliable, contradictory sources. Your analysis of Stein's article is not a contradictory source. I've seen sources saying Mallon was a super-spreader, but no sources denying it. I've likewise seen no sources that define superspreaders as symptomatic carriers, so it may be time to give up on trying to create a definition that has no currency in the sources. If you think the sourcing is weak, then find stronger sources; if you think the writing is poor, then re-write it in a better fashion. But deleting relevant, sourced content is not an option. --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But these are assumptions. At best this makes the source weak. Even retaining mention of Mary Mallon, it doesn't require an entire section. It is WP:UNDUE by comparison. Your comment addresses the Mary Mallon bit, but what about the transmission/prevention sections? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm insufficiently expert to judge how strong Stein is in this context - we could check at RSN or ask at WikiProject MED, but I still don't think we can reject a source simply as weak when there doesn't seem to be anything contradictory. I do think it's sufficient to mention Mary Mallon; I agree absolutely that the current text goes into far more detail than I would consider DUE, so why not look at Stein and see if you can make a more concise summary? You obviously have a broad grasp of the sourcing and could précis what we know about Mallon - particularly as there is a detailed article at Typhoid Mary that we can link to.
 * The transmission/prevention sections are more difficult for me. I think there is a place for them in this article, but obviously WP:DUE applies. I'd be happy to hear what others think. I've done my best to clean out the jargon and re-write what's there in plain English, so see if that improves it at all for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The complaint that ==Typhoid Mary== has only two sources is especially weak, given that I've personally given SW3 5DL four sources. So, yes, Stein says that.  So do Ostfeld, Demas, and Cory, and at least a dozen other sources.  We could WP:OVERCITE if that's necessary, but I don't think that's appropriate.  Instead, if SW3 5DL wants to persist in this claim that superspreaders are 100% symptomatic, then I request that she provide even one (1) reliable source that says this.  I've seen exactly zero, and I did look.  And if SW3 DL5 is unable or unwilling to provide any such sources, then I request that she drop the WP:STICK and stop trying to exclude reliably sourced information that she personally disagrees with.
 * (BTW, I just ran across one saying that asymptomatic TB patients—asymptomatic because HIV suppressed the immune response to TB (which is what produces a persistent cough)—are underdiagnosed TB superspreaders, so this definition is not purely in use for historical typhoid cases.)
 * As for the other complaints: Lloyd–Smith doesn't own the definition of the term, which is widely used; ==Transmission== needs better explanation, but it might make more sense if you hadn't previously removed the more lay-friendly paragraphs about the 80/20 split; ==Prevention== is mostly talking about secondary prevention, not primary, although both are possible (if you happen to be dealing with a known disease and an identified person who is highly contagious for some reason).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the other complaints: Lloyd–Smith doesn't own the definition of the term, which is widely used; ==Transmission== needs better explanation, but it might make more sense if you hadn't previously removed the more lay-friendly paragraphs about the 80/20 split; ==Prevention== is mostly talking about secondary prevention, not primary, although both are possible (if you happen to be dealing with a known disease and an identified person who is highly contagious for some reason).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Super-spreader
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Super-spreader's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fine": From Herd immunity:  From Poliomyelitis:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Asymptomatic, take 3
Super-spreaders may or may not show any symptoms of the disease.

SW3 5DL has removed this with the edit summary "rmv OR. Stein, et al, do not claim super-spreaders are asymptomatic".

See those direct quotations? Do you see any plausible understanding of this text that does not involve these authors saying that super-spreaders can be asymptomatic? Doesn't a plain English statement like "Historically, one of the most famous examples of super-spreading was that of Mary Mallon...even though she did not show symptoms" indicate pretty plainly that superspreading can be asymptomatic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing You need to stop what appears to be hounding and an obsessive fascination with my user name, as you've repeated it 3 times in your comment in the last thread, as if you are angry and on the attack. Your comments do not appear geared toward improving the article but rather to engage in an unproductive tendentious argument. Perhaps you should take a break from this article. You claim to be a member of Wikimedia Foundation. I hope your comments aren't typical of foundation members. You keep mentioning my user name and directing your comments to me personally in an attacking, hectoring manner, yet as a WMF community liasion, you of all people should be aware that editing is about the edits not the editor. The policy, which you of all people as a WMF member should be aware is, comment on the content not on the contributor.SW3 5DL (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I routinely use people's names so that there can be no confusion about whose actions are being spoken of. I do it for clarity, not because of any interest in you or your name.
 * I think my comments are geared towards improving the article. I'm trying to figure out why you keep removing well-sourced information.  For example, yesterday, you posted this statement in the section above:
 * I wanted to add, it's important to keep in mind that Super-spreaders are an epidemiological phenomenon. As such, this is an epidemiology based article. Therefore, peer-reviewed studies are appropriate here, not news articles from BBC or CNN. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually believe that, then why did you add a news article as a source just half a day after posting your opposition to citing news sources? And not once, but twice?
 * In general, I think the sources you've added on your re-written section are weaker than the ones you removed. You added an 8-year-old news article, a 15-year-old historical article from a medical journal, a 15-year-old letter to the editor in that same journal, and a two-year-old newsblog article.
 * You removed, by contrast, review articles and books published by scholarly presses. If one of us were going to take a break from this article, then I suggest that it be the person who is removing citations to high-quality, recent, scholarly sources and substituting in links to the LA Times, The Telegraph, and letters to the editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've just affirmed my points. Take a break and especially, give yourself a one-way interaction ban.SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Nobody else agrees with your persistent and unverifiable claim that all superspreaders are symptomatic.  The information you've added even disagrees with it, because HIV is very famously transmitted by asymptomatic people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are attacking the editor and not commenting on the edits. My edits include asymptomatic carriers. You removed this edit that offers research that explains why carriers are asymptomatic. Also, my edits are well-sourced. Last I checked, The Lancet was RS, so is the NYTimes, the LATimes. If you disagree, take them to the RS noticeboard but please don't WP:edit war because you, for whatever reason that I can't fathom, appear to have become obsessed with me. Also, you've taken my comment out of context. When I said in the next to the last thread above,that we should use better RS, I was talking about your insistence that we use the BBC source when no other source had been found by you to confirm what that BBC reporter was claiming. I made that comment here on May 25. You came along later and added more sources here on May 26 well after I'd made my comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:MEDRS, especially the sentence that says, "For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources". Then I suggest that you re-remove this paragraph, which cannot be verified in any secondary sources.  Alternatively, you could ask for other opinions at WT:MED about whether a news article about a mouse study is appropriate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is opposed to the use of primary sources like letters to the editor and popular press reports that someone has published a paper—and especially for mouse studies!
 * I am dubious about your new section on herd immunity. You've supported it with a bunch of sources that don't even mention superspreading.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Prevention
This section was removed:

I think it would be a good idea to have a section of the public health aspects of preventing epidemics by finding and treating super-spreaders. Although I can think of a few ways to improve this, I'm not sure why this was removed in the first place. What do other people think of this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is sourced to a kind of meta-analysis of distributions that then turns into something of a discussion paper. That's not the strongest type of source, in my humble opinion, for the cost-effectiveness conclusions it makes. Nevertheless, on balance, it is probably good enough to sustain the non-medical claim that "If the cost to treat the 20% is less than treating the whole population, control interventions should be taken for this specific 20%" (although I wonder if this is opinion to be attributed, rather than fact to be asserted?)
 * The second paragraph seems to be sourced to a BBC news report of a single trial in South Africa. That's a pretty weak source for any medical article and I'm not sure that it's significant enough to deserve a whole paragraph describing it in this article. However, I'd be willing to be persuaded otherwise and I'd like to hear other opinions. --RexxS (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the BBC source is adequate for the purely non-scientific facts that TB patients are being tested in a particular way and then locked up away from the rest of the community. A fact about how a government applies scientific tools is not a fact about science.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph reads more like an essay or op-ed piece. It does not have encyclopedic tone. There is excessive focus on treating this "20%".
 * The first paragraph reads more like an essay or op-ed piece. It does not have encyclopedic tone. There is excessive focus on treating this "20%".


 * I couldn't find a suitable source about cough aerosol sampling in TB. I don't think that the BBC report is a suitable source. In any case, the claim about being "kept... in containment" is not stated in the report. Your inference that patients are being "locked up away from the rest of the community" is pure speculation. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think RexxS is correct that the statement about how to prevent (by treating the 20%) should probably be attributed as one source's opinion.
 * Why don't you think that the BBC news report is a suitable source for the fact that this technique exists and is being used in a particular place? Do you think that the BBC reporter is likely to have gotten the facts wrong in some material way?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This BBC news report is the only place where this technique is described. (There are various websites that link to the BBC report.) There are no journal articles that describe the technique&mdash;not even any case reports or proof of concept. A single news report of a technique that might be in use in one hospital does not make this sufficiently worthy of inclusion in the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  12:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the BBC news report were the only source (not counting any that repeat what it said), then I agree that it would probably not be WP:DUE (although mere examples need not be exactly DUE, since they're illustrations or applications whose purpose is to better explain already-DUE material). But don't you think that  (a study run by an outfit in Cape Town) is likely to be highly related?   does something very similar in Uganda.  Both of those explicitly talk about targeting resources to treat the (potential) superspreaders.  Consequently, I'm not sure that the BBC report really is the only source out there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

More likely this is a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter. It sounds like what is being referred to is actually Nebulizer treatments using saline which are often given to improve chances of obtaining a sputum sample for gram staining. The reporter is suggesting an instant sampler. If such an instant sampler did exist, it would be something of a breakthrough and mentioned widely. It would be in medical literature as well as the business press, such as the WSJ. In any event, the gram staining in itself doesn't identify a super-spreader. It simply identifies those with active infection. TB is its own super-spreader. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, and the fact that you would think this tells me that you neither watched the BBC source (it's a video) nor clicked through to the two PMID links I gave you (to the medical literature). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As your comments are hectoring in tone, I don't see the value in responding to you anymore. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, thank you for pointing out those two papers. Vanden Driessche didn't actually investigate M. tuberculosis organisms, but I accept it as a proof of concept. Jones-López does indeed imply that the device could be used to identify a more infectious subgroup. Nevertheless, the papers do not describe actual clinical use to stratify patients according to risk and modification of management accordingly. In my opinion, the description of this technique needs to be in a formal clinical guideline or in a review paper before it should be added to this Wikipedia article. Even then, it would warrant only a single sentence. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Axl, do you have any concerns with the first paragraph? I haven't read the source for it yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The first source (Woolhouse) does not mention super-spreaders at all. It does not imply that this "20%" should be characterized as super-spreaders. Inclusion of detailed information about the subgroup in this article would give a false impression.


 * According to the subsection "Defining a super-spreading event", the news/comment in Nature seems to imply that 1% of an infected population might be regarded as super-spreaders.


 * According to the subsection "Factors in transmission", super-spreaders "excrete a higher than normal number of pathogens" (reference Rothman). But what is a "normal number of pathogens"? How can this be defined in a continuous distribution? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Axl re: factors in transmission, agree.  see line 34 in this edit. I added the Rothman to provide a source for the demanded 'intro' which I don't think is needed at all. As for the rest, also agree. And nb the use of the Woolhouse, does not mention superspreaders at all, and is a 1997 source which, apparently in this instance, is being exempted from the dodgy 'outdated' status. The critical reading of sources is barred in this article. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need a better source, or ideally, more than one better source.
 * I like the general concept of the first paragraph: we have this thing called a super-spreader, and there are public health implications, and you can build effective policies around this concept and thereby reduce morbidity and mortality.
 * I'm not sure about the 20/80 thing; I suspect that it depends entirely on the disease. For some diseases, a statistically abnormal number of (viable) pathogens might involve only 1% of patients; for others, it might involve more, or less.
 * But we need better sources to support the material. I don't think there's any way around that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdated sources
WP:MEDRS strongly recommends the use of up-to-date reliable sources, advocating for the use of sources "published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years", with some leeway for subjects (like this one) that don't have hundreds of sources published each year. In general, however, using sources that are more than 10 years is almost always rejected for anything except purely historical information (e.g., citations to an especially famous paper in a ==History== section).

The current version of this article now contains about half a dozen sources from the 1990s—more than two decades out of date, in some cases. (Many of them, but not all, also happen to be primary sources, including at least one letter to the editor.)

I propose removing all of the sources that are more than (approximately) ten years old, and if necessary, removing any content that cannot be verified by sources that comply with WP:MEDDATE. Do you support the removal of outdated sources? (If you support it for some but not for others, then please feel free to identify the ones you would keep.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This RfC is malformed. You aren't showing what makes the sources 'outdated' other than your POV that they are, which seems to be limited to their age, not their content. Simply being older doesn't mean a source can't be used. Have things changed in the field since those sources were published? Is the information inaccurate or misleading as a result? And note to editors arriving here, super-spreaders were first identified in the 1980s and gained more notability with the 2003 SARS outbreak. Naturally, the sources are going to be older, but still accurate. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: the disputed sources are old but not that old. If they were 50 years old I would understand. However as SW3 5DL correctly writes it should be stated why sources older than 10 years should not be acceptable. I guess only a major medical discovery would justify such a cut-off. Is it the case? Silvio1973 (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , No, there's not been a major medical discovery. See the list of current Wikipedia articles below that use sources as early as 1971. The reason they use those sources is because the sources are still relevant, as is the case here. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

*Adding WP: articles that use sources as early as 1971: SW3 5DL (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Measles
 * Gout – which is a GA article
 * Herd immunity
 * Smallpox
 * Rubella – also a GA article
 * Pertussis
 * Polio – an FA article
 * Well, so where is the issue? Perhaps the initiator of this RfC could briefly explain why those sources are now not anymore valid. The arguments listed below are not convincing. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a persuasive argument for retaining inappropriate stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Assess on a case by case basis per WP:MEDASSESS, preferring newer reviews to older primary sources per WP:MEDDATE. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Balaenoptera musculus assess, yes. Which goes back to my original statement that this is malformed. The nominator is failing to explain why these sources should not be used. What other sources should be used? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me explain why these sources should not be used, then: These sources should not be used because they do not comply with the guideline. It is true that some of this material might be unverifiable in up-to-date sources, but that would indicate that the material should not be present in the first place, not that we should keep a 20-year-old source around for the purpose of providing outdated medical information to readers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: the short section in the 1989 measles outbreak is sourced (solely) to .  Per the strict letter of MEDDATE, this 16-year-old source is at least three times too old, but there's some flexibility, and sources up to 10 years old are usually accepted.  Per MEDASSESS, this is a medium-quality (at best) primary source.  Per WP:MEDREV, if a more recent secondary source can't be found, the material should be removed as UNDUE.  (I don't happen to know whether this particular source could be replaced with a recent secondary source.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re measles: Agreed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: WhatamIdoing The 1989 source is being referenced briefly, as an example, using their conclusion, which is allowed per MEDRS. As it was a one-time event, it's not likely to be getting a fresh update. The article is being developed. Like most relatively new articles, it is far from finished. You've made 6 edits to the article, 4 of them are reverts. You are disrupting all attempts at improving this article with your constant arguments and hectoring tone. How many times does Axl, above, have to tell you no regarding your demand to use that edit and source in the article?. And now with this RfC, you don't appear to be trying to bring in editors to solve an editing dilemma. You appear to be trying to garner support to take out more content based on this weak argument about sources. It appears to be more disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that if you look at WP:DRN options, starting an RFC is considered the ideal method of "trying to bring in editors to solve an editing dilemma". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opening an RfC is not ipso facto disruptive. Input from uninvolved editors is usually seen as a good thing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes for medical content we should use sources at least from the last 10 years. For historical content more leeway can be given. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc James Yes, exactly, as the article is covering outbreaks of infectious disease. Those outbreaks are historical and relevant to this topic and go directly to the recognition that super-spreaders exist in the first place. And the 1993 Paul Fine article is a classic article in epidemiology. That can stay, as I've added his update from 2011, as can the article that mentions the Pennsylvania school outbreak in 1989. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that if the only sources about an event, even a historical one, are primary sources, then MEDRS says that the event may not be DUE. The other historical events listed are verifiable in secondary sources.  In other cases, primary sources are supporting medical information, like this: In 2013, Stanford immunologist, Dr. Denise Monack, reported that she had found that Salmonella typhi persists in infected mice macrophages that have cycled from an inflammatory state to a non-inflammatory one. She reported that the bacteria remain and reproduce without causing further symptoms in the mice, and that this explains why carriers are asymptomatic.


 * A mouse study published last year about pathogenesis is not "historical", and all four of those sources are primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for supporting claims, medical or otherwise, provided that there is no synthesis at work.  WP:MEDRS only advises that isolated primary sources should not be utilized to question or undercut prevailing scientific consensus as reported through any broad secondary sources we may have.  Is such a juxtaposition occurring here?  S n o w  talk 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed as per the argument displayed above. --JustBerry (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Snow Rise and JustBerry, I think you need to read more than the first paragraph of WP:MEDREV. The first paragraph is about never using primaries to debunk secondary sources; the entire rest of the section, however, is about the importance of never using primaries (and especially not just mouse studies when making claims about humans!), for any biomedical claims at all.  If you read that entire section, and don't come to the conclusion that MEDRS opposes the use of primary rodent studies, then please leave a note on the talk page so that editors like User:Jmh649 can figure out if revisions to the guideline will be necessary to help people correctly understand the consensus on that point.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one did read the whole section beforehand (and am more than passingly familiar with the guideline owing to much of my editing being in the vein of physiology, medicine and related fields), but re-reading it once again in light of your comments, I'm getting the impression that your concern about the sources derives from a combination of the sources that warn A) to use caution in relying on primary sources before significant outside review or replication of the findings and B) that even secondary sources should be used cautiously if they are general media, are reporting on a single study and do so very close on it's heels. If that's correct, you are making a very nuanced argument that I have to admit I didn't fully appreciate at first.  It's a tough call, honestly, owing to some vagueness in a key statement in the guideline: "If no review on the subject is published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed."  "Reasonable" is pretty vague in this area of science when, as JonRichfield notes bellow in reference to another issue, sometimes research claim and verification (or rejection) come in rapid-fires spates and other times it's years before the ball is picked up again.  And this case is very complicated case, both as regards the nature of the phenomena itself and the manner in which research around it proceeds.  I will say that I don't exactly see the underlying claim -- that carriers (or even super-spreaders) can be asymptomatic -- as particularly controversial.  Is it the proposal of the specific immunological mechanisms which that you object to as questionably verified?  Could I get you to elaborate a little further here as to the specifics of your concern?


 * Just to be clear on one point as to how I interpret that guideline in general -- I tend to read it not as about "the importance of never using primary sources" but rather "the importance of using caution and weighting primary sources appropriately. I have to say, there's some substantial ambiguity and apparent self-confliction in that guideline, but if that section were meant to imply that primary sources should never be used, surely it would say exactly that and would not be filled with details on the specific scenarios in which they should be avoided.  If in fact your interpretation is what the guideline is meant to impart regarding sources on medical science, I think it's going to need to undergo some further community review and better wording to set that standard in stone, because that's a highly marked departure from general Wikipedia policy on verification, including sourcing as regards peer-review work in the hard sciences in general.  And it's certainly not the standard I've always known to be at work in how most all editors apply primary sources in medical articles.  Very complicated...  S n o w  talk 02:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Snow Rise, Yes, I quite agree, it is the "importance of using caution and weighting primary sources appropriately." Also, I found where the guideline regarding primary sources on MEDRS states a primary source is okay to use in a limited way so long as the edit is using the conclusions of the source. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose - Each individual source must be assessed on its own merits and within the context of the claim it is purported to support, as required by WP:V and other relevant policies and guidelines (and frankly common sense). Blanket dismissal of sources older than a given date is simply nonsensical and counter-productive. And for the record, WP:MEDRS definitely does not state that sources older than five years can not inform meaningfully on (and be perfectly valid sources for) medical content, historical or otherwise; it only states that the date of such sources should be taken into account when weighing its claims against those of more contemporary reports when trying to assess the current state of scientific consensus on particular claims and the resulting amount of weight we accord said claims.  Honestly, the course of action suggested in this RfC is untenable for pretty much any article and wholly in conflict with overwhelming community consensus on how sources are to be evaluated.  If debate over the sources in question has reached a deadlock, I recommend that the RfC author and other parties concerned with said sources construct a new RfC with more refined arguments on the particular claims and citations and exactly where they are found to be inappropriate or unduly weighted.   S n o w  talk 01:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To put it politely this proposal amounts either to illiteracy or insanity or both (unless someone is joking!) I have not read the alleged guideline, and don't care what it says, but as Snow Rise and SW3 5DL point out, the value and reliability of a citation are not determined, even as a first approximation, by any date whatsoever. A last-week's peer-reviewed elite journal's article could be retracted, discredited or nullified in this week's issue, whereas some publications (not even peer-reviewed, mind you!) more than a century old, remain not just valid, but definitive. Some material changes rapidly certainly, but its shelf-life as a citation depends on developments, not dates. After a spate of articles on a given field of research have successively obsoleted each other within weeks, we might have a hiatus of years before there is any substantial advance that justifies superseding a particular citation. Furthermore, any obsolescence of a citation in any subject at all is context-sensitive; if the point or concept it supported has been illuminated or discredited by a more recent (or even by a much older) publication that had been overlooked (such things happen, you know!) then it could be replaced by a more recent (or of course less recent) citation, but then it is not the date that makes the difference, but the information. (Otherwise one is very likely to replace it with a newer source that ... in turn quotes the superseded source as its authority!) Types of citation other than those reporting rapidly-changing matters of fact, concept, or evidence might well remain valid, useful and accessible for decades or centuries, and unless the newer citation improves on them, the older citation is actually preferable because the newer citation is second-hand. In short, outdated sources get outdated by other sources of higher quality or further progress, not by calendar dates. There also is a little matter of a citation referring to a past status in the field; if the current preferred point of view differs from the reigning situation of decades ago, it often is a matter of great importance to know why there has been a change, and as a rule the proper citation for the old idea is not a recent re-hash or paraphrase, but the original publication. If someone has nothing better to do with his time than nit-picking through texts and looking for three-year-old (or thirty-year-old) citations to replace, whether he understands the matter or not, good luck to him, but unless the newer citations are material improvements on the original, the original positively should stand for preference, rather than being displaced by derivative publish-or-perish products of convenient recency. And if the newer citation contradicts the older, it does not follow that the older should go, but that unless there is strong evidence in favour of one or the other, both views should remain (or both go) until there is definitive reason to prefer just one. And that reason is not just a publication date. Not even statistically. JonRichfield (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It seems reasonable to include sources considered dated per MEDDATE, especially ones that relate to events in the past. The article would be better served by possible examination of individual sources, rather than blanket decisions about their reliability going solely by their publication date.  — daranz [ t ] 15:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support agree that the content supported by this needs to be supported by a recent secondary source. There is a lot of suitable secondary sources such as review articles and major textbooks.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We for example have this 2013 review of the measles vaccine  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your rationale? The citation in the article now supports the content. A vaccinated child gave measles to 22 others. Your suggested source does not support the content. I'm going to expand the article using many past events, and I see no reason not to use the sources that best describe those events, no matter their dates. The dates don't change the facts of the event and in fact, are likely to be far more accurate than later references. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm thinking that a blanket mandate is wrong. I would consider the strength of the study or publication and primacy of physicians using it as what to look for, and differences in 'content'.  I'm also worried about the overall practicality - it's not like they completely re-issue all medical science every three years, there seem just not enough print space - and the implementation within Wikipedia vagueness of 'about 5 years' -- why that amount and what to do at 4.9 years or can there even be that exact a detection or is it just a poorly unenforceable guide ?  Markbassett (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Those are all excellent points especially the vagueness of '5 years,' which seems completely arbitrary. Not to mention, it goes against all the precepts of medical education. One always reads all the sources. And as you pointed out, there is no re-issue of all medical science. It seems uninformed to think that only the articles in the last few years are relevant considering that everything is medicine is built upon everything that came before. And to limit sources just because of date means eliminating some of the best sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting aside that it runs against precepts of medical education, it also runs strongly in contradiction to the general principles of verification on Wikipedia. So much so that I think it's worth investigating exactly how that statement came to be placed in that guideline, because I can't fathom it happening with broad community involvement.  I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but that provision is just so counter-intuitive and in conflict with general sourcing policy.  S n o w  talk 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on primary sources
As I said above, I invite you to have that discussion at WT:MEDRS. You might want to start in the archives. You would certainly not be the first person to claim that the MEDRS should permit WP:PRIMARYNEWS stories or decade-plus-old primary sources to support biomedical claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've suggested I would support either of those. You're formulating a strawman argument that assumes the most extreme possible position on my part; in reality I didn't even address the element of primary sources at all, which is quite a distinct matter from the 5-year shelf-life concept (which is applied to either primary or secondary sources -- and indeed the language of that section refers to reviews specifically and thus could be said to be mutually exclusive to the guidelines on primary sources you cite) that I actually do think is in distinct contradiction to the general principles of WP:V and WP:RS.  In fact, I have already taken a look at those archives and the rule of thumb is certainly not new; as best I can surmise, it was developed (by one editor, though later received well by the small number of contributors active on the guideline page at the time) around 2008.  The archives show numerous occasions when it has been called into questions as arbitrary, inconsistent with other guidelines and just generally counter-intuitive and non-workable, but has been staunchly (and also civilly) defended by those editors there who instituted it in the first place ever since it's inception.  I rather suspect the reason it has never been removed has more to do with the fact that those questioning it perceived that such an effort would entail going up against a unified group of editors who were invested in the rule and represented some of the guidelines' principle contributors over recent years -- an effort that would require organizing substantial discussion from other venues with potential to get ugly -- than it does with said rule being in any way consistent with general sourcing policy.  Nowhere else is such an arbitrary standard considered beneficial or even viable when it comes to verification, not even with regard to other physical sciences broadly or even other highly similar biological topics.  As regards this rule of thumb, the only thing I am more confident about than that it is both inconsistent with general community consensus on how sourcing should be done (and non-beneficial on the balance of factors), is that it is likely to be a monumental uphill battle.  S n o w  talk 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be best to approach that 'unified group of editors' by questioning their rationale for being invested in maintaining a flawed guideline. The claim is usually to prevent insertion of a point of view. But that fails when you use review articles which are the opinion of the reviewer, while the primary source gives direct evidence. And given that the materials and methods of the study are clearly stated, as well as any COI the investigators may have is disclosed, I don't see how a primary source can be legitimately excluded. The guideline itself states that it is all right to use a primary source so long as it states the conclusions of the source. It may be that these editors were simply taking from the general MOS for other articles, like BLP's, and not considering the exception for medical and scientific articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

, I agree and would support involving the wider community in revising those policies. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * please stop removing the cite to the review article by Robert May. It is a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal. If it were a letter to the editor it would still be acceptable in this article for the purpose it has been applied. Your reverts are disruptive to this article. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I haven't edited this article for a month.
 * As I told you earlier, you have cited a "comment", which is journal-ese for "letter to the editor", but there's no need to tell me to "stop removing" anything when I'm not editing it at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert May could write it on the back of an envelope and drop it at a tube station and it would still be a reliable source for this article. He knows the topic thoroughly and did a fine job reviewing Lloyd-Smith's work. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if May were the Einstein of the subject, reliable sources are always published; it is an absolute, zero-exception requirement. Scraps of paper dropped at the tube station are not WP:Published and therefore not reliable sources, no matter who wrote them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Add German site
Wanted to add

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superspreader

but since it already uses Q17083841 I couldn't. Also couldn't remove it there. Some please fix it (and tell me how to do it instead). Thanks. 195.75.72.179 (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't norovirus also count?
As I recall, it's extremely contagious, can be fomite spread easily and persistent in the environment, with something on the order of 6 - 8 viral particles inducing infection upon ingestion.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles like this are often lists compiled by Wikipedians, so it is easy to miss concepts which should be included. To include that virus here, ideally someone would cite any source which talks about norovirus being spread through a super spreader. Do you have a source?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's something from the US CSC mentioning 'as few as 18 viral particles'. http://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/hcp/clinical-overview.html Wzrd1 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing here about its potential to create super spreaders. Being easy to spread or highly infectious does not mean that a virus would create super spreaders. Can you tell me more about why you think this virus makes super spreaders?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hospitals and nursing homes end up shuttered to new patients or visitors each year, cruise ships quarantined due to infected passengers and crews. That certainly seems like a super-spreader.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that this article says that the concept of a "super spreader" applies to a single host, like a single person. I am not sure how norovirus is spread. It might happen in a population, where every person who gets the virus spreads it to new people. This would be in contrast to a single "super spreader" and being the only person to infect everyone else. Norovirus may also spread through food or infected surfaces, and that would not be a super spreader situation also. I am not sure - I do not know this virus and am not clear on what the sources say. Starting with a source which says something like "one person will routinely infect many others" would be a good start toward making the super-spreader argument, right?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Norovirus is spread via fomites from the oral/fecal route. Further research found that with norovirus, it's still being researched to determine if it's a super-spreader situation or not. I guess we'll leave it off the list until science ascertains if spread is via super-spreader or not.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw this news that 1000 people got norovirus at an athletic event. No super spreader is mentioned. I will be watching.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)