Talk:Influenza pandemic

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Which 88 governments is the US collaborating with?

The US is collaborating closely with "88 governments", this article says.

This is a serious point. People are going to need to know this, and whatever response you may have, please suppress it and instead give the information Im asking for: WHICH EIGHTY EIGHT?

Do you have a list?

There must have been some source to the "88" citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.214.237 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It's entirely possible that the source we have says "88 countries" without naming them. I'd be surprised, for example, if a newspaper story bothered to list them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments

Think there would be a way to fit this in?:

During the influenza pandemic of 1917, [R.K.] Smith reported that osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) (see Lymphatic pump) decreased the mortality rate from 5% to 0.25% among 100,000 patients.(Knott 2005)

  • Knott, E.M.,Tune J.D., Stoll S.T, et al, Increased Lymphatic Flow in the Thoracic Duct During Manipulative Intervention. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association: Vol. 105, No. 10, October 2005, pp. 447-456.[1]

gallen01 02:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"People try every remedy they can think of." is in the article. It could be expanded to list "every remedy" which would include prayer, vitamins, exersize, voodoo, and OMT. All of which have someone somewhere swearing they work with statistics to back them up. In short, it really doesn't fit in here. WAS 4.250 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I might agree with your argument that it doesnt' directly fit - which is why I didn't just add it to begin with. It doesn't seem productive however, do dismiss research as vitamins (which reminds me of the paid-tv ads) and voodoo. The article cited, doesn't claim that it was a 'remedy', it claimed that OMT increased lymph flow, which possibly has a positive immune effect, which might help fight secondary infections. It is a fact that the lymphatic system is part of the immune system. It's not a fact that voodoo effects anything at all. Apples and oranges.
Given the article's description of a pandemic: "there not enough doctors, hospital rooms, or medical supplies for the living", it begs the question - so what out of "every remedy" do people actually try? And do all of these treatments have the same level of effectiveness? By the definition of pandemic, laymen would be the ones engaging in self-treatment, rather than MD's, so I do happen to think that simple, medically backed treatments (which are not necessarily remedies or cures) do happen to be pertinent information. Maybe for a flu treatments article? (heck - there is a bloodletting article after all...) gallen01 03:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to agree that it "doesn't directly fit". You say "It doesn't seem productive however, do dismiss research as vitamins." I take 400 IU of vitamin E and 500 mg of vitamin C and a regular multi-vitamin daily. You say "The article cited, doesn't claim that it was a 'remedy', it claimed that OMT increased lymph flow, which possibly has a positive immune effect, which might help fight secondary infections. It is a fact that the lymphatic system is part of the immune system." Yes, that's why we agree it doesn't belong in THIS article. You say "It's not a fact that voodoo effects anything at all." I disagree. Part of voodoo has to do with actual ingestion of medically affecting substances. Part of voodo has to do with the effects of suggestion. You say "Given the article's description of a pandemic: "there not enough doctors, hospital rooms, or medical supplies for the living", it begs the question - so what out of "every remedy" do people actually try?" What part of "every" don't you get? You say : "And do all of these treatments have the same level of effectiveness?" NOW you are talking my language! Provide an unbiased (in wikipedia-talk thats NPOV) source that gives evidence OMT is as effective as hand washing (for example) in a flu pandemic and OMT deserves to be included. You say "Maybe for a flu treatments article? (heck - there is a bloodletting article after all...)" and I say if there isn't one, start one. Good luck to you and happy holidays. WAS 4.250 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah

i am kind of wondering why you think 'preslaughtered prepackaged food' in some kind of industrialized production facility is necessarily safer.

none of that crap stopped Mad Cow Disease from happening, in fact without modern 'superior' farming methods, Mad Cow Disease would not exist.

if you want safety, get safety.

if you want safety, saying 'get industrialization' is rather stupid, because then you will just have a bunch of unsafe industrialization.

Pandemic or propaganda?

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/view.php?hidDate=2005-11-11&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=0000000000000000070510 shouldnt this be mentioned? --Whywhywhy 12:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary you refer to is nothing more than a biased scare piece filled with half-facts and lies about subjects other than H5N1 to justify believing nothing he reads in the media about H5N1. It contains NO ACTUAL DATA ABOUT H5N1 TO SUPPORT HIS POSITION. Please read the nonmedia references in H5N1 and make up your own mind. The first paragraph references to a scientist's analysis of the latest mutations of H5N1 are especially revealing. WAS 4.250 15:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article you cite does little more than quote himself. He also says that SARS and AIDS were of man-made origin [2]. I believe in the power of big business, and I am skeptical of our focus on Tamiflu as a way of dealing with a coming pandemic, but the "global military-medical-petrochemical-pharmaceutical cartel" is a little overdone. Just a little...  ;-) Pigkeeper 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current swine flu concerns, this paragraph is in dire need of updating. Is H5N1 the swine flu? This article is a hot topic now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.7.127 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

Canada

An August 2005 report by a Canadian investment firm warned of complacency in the face of a possible pandemic.[3] BMO Nesbitt Burns compared a possible future pandemic to the 1918 flu pandemic and the 2003 SARS epidemic in Toronto, Hong Kong, and China:

SARS — which was nowhere near as dangerous as a lethal flu — should have been a lesson about our vulnerability to new infectious viruses and the lack of resources in health care systems and the business community to cope with epidemics. Regrettably, the world relapsed quickly into complacency, and is almost as collectively unprepared now as it

was when a new kind of flu ravaged Spain in 1918.

The authors added that economic globalization has produced certain vulnerabilities. Travel between countries would increase the spread of the H5N1 virus and supply chains would be disrupted by a pandemic. The report also cautioned against excessive faith in a recently announced vaccine developed by Sanofi-Pasteur, and also noted that a key ingredient of the currently available anti-viral agent Tamiflu comes from China, a source that could be disrupted if that country saw a human outbreak of H5N1.

Comments

The above does not go where it was. Whether all of it or some of it or none of it shoud go into the article somewhere else under a different title, I have no current opinion. WAS 4.250 19:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I'm going to drastically re-write the section about pandemic strategies, because it reads like it was copied almost exactly from a website, and while since it's a government website they probably won't mind, I think it could be put differently. Watch this space...:) XYaAsehShalomX 19:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer

What about Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer? — mark ✎ 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? We wouldn't need a disclaimer if we didn't have medical data. WAS 4.250 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thus. It just struck me that there seems to be a lot of advice in this article, while I thought Wikipedia wasn't meant to give advice (only to report facts). Although I won't dispute that it's useful now that people read a lot about this in the news, it also feels a bit like a slippery slope; it's not really encyclopedic, is it? — mark ✎ 15:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Wikipedia, the continually updated over-million-article online resource is giving the word "encyclopedia" a whole new meaning. Check out Boom Town (Doctor Who) and tell me again if the content in this article is less important to be available to information seekers. Cheers, and welcome to the brave new world of encyclo-everything-we-can-verify! (Be sure not to miss the 18 notes at the end which include the must be included information that "Two newspapers are featured in the episode: the Cardiff Gazette and The Western Mail. While the former is fictitious, the latter is a real publication.".) WAS 4.250 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overdone?

Does anyone think that "Advice in Case of Pandemic" sounds a little on the alarmist side? I mean, none of the last two pandemics were anything like that crazy (and before anyone brings up 1918, there is no way to compare today's conditions with 1918). -unsigned

The advise is from official sources - our governments. Who in turn, got the advise fro the world's top expets.I'm serious here. I've seen the documents on the web at official web sites. H5N1 is acting UNIQUELY SCARY. Governments are spending huge sums to not only try to prevent this thing from occuring, but also to do everything they can to mitigate it. The threat is very real. The pandemic is not real - yet. WAS 4.250 18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the advice section is that bad but I do think that the "nature of a pandemic" section was a little on the alarmist side, so I edited it - although you're welcome to add some more stuff if you want. XYaAsehShalomX

Well done, XYaAsehShalomX, well done. Thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Unsigned: You are right to say "there is no way to compare today's conditions with 1918. In fact, changes can make a pandemic much worse. On the good side, we now have antibiotics which will certainly reduce deaths due to secondary bacterial infection. But we don't have much more to fight viral pneumonia than we did in 1918. Tamiflu? (oseltamivir)-- Maybe, but what that does is shorten the normal 5-7 day course of influenza by one day. And we don't know if it will work on the next pandemic strain, and there are already indicqations that H5N1 (the most likely source of the next pandemic) is developing resistance to it. Ventilators? Good luck getting one when you need it. Hospitals don't stock many extras, and in a severe pandemic less than 25% of patients who would normally be placed on a ventilator will be able to get on one.

People travel internationally MUCH more and MUCH quicker than in 1918. That's why SARS, which is not very infectious even compared to run-of-the mill seasonal flu, popped up in 6 countries within a week. That would make a pandemic spread MUCH faster.

"Stuff" travels internationally even more than people. Everuything from the food in your drugstore to the N95 mask you'll want to wear comes from somewhere else. The world has MNUCH more trade than in 1918. Now imagine what happens when 40% of the workforce-- truckdrivers, airplane pilots, dock workers, etc) are home sick.Frankceo (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

A timeline would be nice, from the day that crucial mutation took place in a cat, bird or whatever. How far into it would the announcement come that "it's out now."? How much longer to get around the world? When will deaths peak, and how long after that will the virus generally dissapear from the human population? I know none of these are fast-and-hard numbers, but if you can give me a ballpark range, that'd be great. Thanks.--74.227.160.88 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline data on Avian flu and Human flu can be found at our article on the causative agent species called Influenza A virus. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline data on the global spread of the strain that is the current pandemic concern (called Asian lineage HPAI A(H5N1) can be found at Global spread of H5N1. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline data on creation of a flu vaccine for H5N1 can be found at H5N1 clinical trials.WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How far into it would the announcement come that "it's out now."? A highly pathogenic strain of H5N1 caused flu outbreaks with significant spread to numerous farms, resulting in great economic losses in 1959 in Scotland. The randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, staged, dose-ranging, Phase I/II study to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of 2 doses of an IM inactivated influenza A/H5N1 vaccine in healthy children, aged 2 through 9 years ends February 2007. See the above articles on details for events between 1959 and 2007. It has already been announced that "it's out now". See this article for its data on pandemic stages. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much longer to get around the world? It will be endemic in birds in every continent by the end of 2007, but maybe earlier. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When will deaths peak? No has even the beginnings of an idea on how to answer this, which is one reason the most informed are the most scared. This virus strain is acting different from every other known flu virus ever. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long after that will the virus generally dissapear from the human population?No has even the beginnings of an idea on how to answer this, which is one reason the most informed are the most scared. This virus strain is acting different from every other known flu virus ever. WAS 4.250 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Strategies for individuals in a pandemic" How-To status

Delirium is right. The "Strategies for individuals in a pandemic" is a HowTo. It needs to be reworded. Better yet, it should be moved to its own article. This article is already too long. --Mperry 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that the information be available to the people. Change anything you like; except do not diminish our influence on helping people. WAS 4.250 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Strategies for individuals in a pandemic" section

I see this was discussed several months ago, but I just stumbled across this page and quite frankly - the whole section should be removed. Rationale:

  1. It is completely un-encyclopedic in tone
  2. It is a possible copyvio according to the above comments
  3. It contains a large amount of telephone numbers, something which is frowned upon in part because of the ease with which they can be subtly vandalised
  4. Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer - "Will the seasonal flu shot protect me against pandemic influenza? No, it won't protect you against pandemic influenza. But flu shots can help you to stay healthy."
  5. Large quantity of "economic advice". Pretty sure that's not what Wikipedia is either.

I'm being bold and removing the section. Before anyone re-adds it I'd like discussion of its merits to take place here, if it's not too much trouble. QmunkE 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Feel free to change the tone. Do not delete due to tone.
  2. It is not a copyvio. Do not delete beacause you suspect this is a copyvio, as it is not.
  3. I'm watching so "subtle vandalism is not a problem. Becoming out of date is a problem, and I'd support deleting the numbers on that ground at the end of this flu season.
  4. What is your problem here? People want to know this. Rewrite if you can write it better.
  5. Suggested behavior by responsible authorities in case of a flu pandemic is encyclopedic. WAS 4.250 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of citations also concerns me - where is all this "advice" coming from? I count two in-line citations for the entire section. I'd like to take this to get a broader opinion so I'm starting a request for comment below. QmunkE 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - "Strategies for individuals in a pandemic"

Dispute over whether this section should be in the article.

The question

Simple enough - does this section belong in the article - is a contravention of what Wikipedia is not? Is it possible to re-write it so that it satisfies current policy on verifiability and original research, as well as style guidelines? I removed it yesterday, feeling that it doesn't belong in the article - certainly not in its current form and probably not ever. I suggest it is removed, and a complete re-write done before it is even considered for re-insertion. QmunkE 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context

The context is Avian Flu which says

"H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that infects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain, and continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing a leading expert on avian flu to publish an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives." WAS 4.250 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I think there is a place for a section like this, but not as written. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and we should be avoiding "how-to" and "advice" sections, which is what the majority of this section of the article is. What should go in this section is a commentary of what other people (e.g. World Health Organisation, leading experts, governments etc.) have suggested: not endorsing it, not telling people to do it, but a commentary e.g. "The UK's department of health has drawn up a policy document outlining steps individuals should be advised to take in the event of an emergency. Measures it suggests include X, Y & Z. However, leading experts from the USA and Canada have suggested that A, B & C may be better. " and so on.. --John24601 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do that. There is no substantial difference of opinion among experts. WAS 4.250 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the way it's written is still inappropriate. The lists should go, and so should the instructional style e.g. "Think of a back-up plan - what would you do, for example, if you could not buy food from the supermarket, because it was closed?" could be written as "Expert X has suggested that people should have a back-up plan for the event that supermarkets are closed, because...." --John24601 06:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to write it better. Just don't delete any information. WAS 4.250 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to be someone's instruction manual. The information should be deleted if nobody is willing to properly format it - the onus to do that lies with the material's creator, not me. --John24601 06:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as an instructional manual. The section should be deleted. This section should be trimmed down, and all instances of "you" and "your" (directly addressing the reader) should be replaced with a more general term such as "individuals" and "their".--Daveswagon 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this section with prejudice. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, nor are we reliable, this semi-authoritative information on a wiki is dangerous.--ZayZayEM 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article stinks...

Sorry but the following sections are entirely unencyclopedic and violate WP:NOT by being indiscriminate recommendatins of strategies to follow during a pandemic. If they were well sourced from multiple reliable sources and reflected a global outlook, it might not be so dangerous.

It's a combination of unreferenced material, scaremongering propoganda and advicewikipedia really doesn't maintain the responsibility to disseminate.

Okay, these sections need to be scrapped.

The article starts of saying that an influenza pandemic is an epidemic... now that's just silly. It would be better to link to pandemic and that's what an influemza pandemic is. (Yes I could change it, but I really think I need to illustrate how bad this article is at the moment).

This article has way too much focus on H5N1 which is relatively new on the scene, and the counterpoint to that, is the complete lack of any history of previous influenza pandemics such as Spanish flu which is mentioned in the first sentance and promptly forgotten about.

semi-discriminate lists such as Influenza_pandemic#International_government_sponsored_scientific_seminars_on_H5N1_pandemic_prevention should either be scrapped, or at least moved into their own subpage. Again these focus on relatively recent events and relate to H5N1 more than simply Influenza pandemics.--ZayZayEM 06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just change it. I'm stunned by how crappy, disorganized and off-topic this article is on a well-researched topic that has tons of accurate and up-to-date material for the layman to write a good article about. Please don't illustrate anything, just wack it. Thank you in advance. KP Botany 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the references listed in the reference section? Have you read http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/pandemicplan/index.html or http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/pdf/HHSPandemicInfluenzaPlan.pdf ? This is not an indiscriminate anything. WAS 4.250 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not focus on H5N1. It just seems that way to you. But feel free to add sourced data. WAS 4.250 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing the article needs to is have more information added. It's already 52KB in size. It needs to be shortened. Whether content should be removed completely or moved into other articles I can't really say. --Mperry 01:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote what part you feel is scaremongering? Perhaps the fact that the experts are scared and governments are spending billions of dollars to prepare might be a hint that there is something to be scared about. WAS 4.250 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHS is a US governmental department, it is not an accurate reference for a globally accurate plan - and its rather moot as such sections regarding advice are unencyclopedic and dangerous. Looks like I just signed my Sunday away fixing this article.--ZayZayEM 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you start by reading the sources listed in the reference section rather than simply editing to match any preconceived ideas you might have. Further try editing in bits rather than all at once. If half your edits are good and half are bad, I'll just revert the whole thing. I'll try to be available in real time when you try to help this article (and it can use help) so that maybe we can get it done in one day. But do read sources first. And you are wrong about the place of the US gov't when it comes to flu pandemic planning. Use WHO instead of US if you like, but their documents say the same thing. WAS 4.250 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic planning is very encyclopedic and what gov'ts say about it is very encyclopedic and part of ehat they say ids how for individuals to act both to prepare for and to do during. The actual wording we use could be vastly improved, but the content is encyclopedic. WAS 4.250 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for tone may be the best way you can help this article. But content should not be deleted by someone who does not understand the subject matter. Read the sources before you alter or reorganize or delete. But the tone can probably be improved without that. So maybe you can start with editing for better tone. It sure needs it. WAS 4.250 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go control freak over articles. The tone as it stands presents an innaccurate view of the subject, and the article contains way too much ancillary off-topic information in an informal (and from my point of view alarmist) tone. Please do not remove tags such as {{afd}} {{cleanup}} {{accuracy}} particularly if concerns have been brought to the Talk page. Removal of such notices is vandalism and I will be going through the appropriate channels to have them reinstated while I do background work on reforming this article.--ZayZayEM 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignorant of the subject of this article. Your judgement is irrelevant. WAS 4.250 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignorant of my familiarity with epidemiology, virology, bioethics and public health communication. But credentials are irrelevent. --ZayZayEM 06:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said "The article starts of saying that an influenza pandemic is an epidemic... now that's just silly." You are ignorant of the subject of this article. WAS 4.250 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quote mine. I suggested Pandemic as more appropriate. yes, a pandemic is technically a global epidemic, but it's not quite as accurate as calling it, and more importantly linking to, what it actually is. Please take this as criticism coming from several isolated editors.--ZayZayEM 09:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do link to pandemic in the first paragraph. WAS 4.250 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These tags were well-placed and belong on the article. Look at how it opens, without even discussing what the flue is, the second sentence rushes into warning about it:
    • "An influenza pandemic is a large scale epidemic of the influenza virus, such as the 1918 Spanish flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that there is a substantial risk of an influenza pandemic within the next few years. One of the strongest candidates is a highly pathogenic variation of the H5N1 subtype of Influenza A virus which is rapidly mutating and could mutate into a variation that transmits easily human to human causing a pandemic. If such a mutation occurs, it might remain an H5N1 subtype or could shift subtypes as did H2N2 when it evolved into the Hong Kong Flu strain of H3N2. For the purpose of flu pandemic preparedness, prepandemic flu vaccines are being developed against the most likely suspects which include H5N1, H7N1, and H9N2.[1]"
  • What? You can't even discuss what it is without freaking people out about it? ZayZay's correct, the alarmist tone is overwhelming. I went to the link and see it's an interview, in part, with Garrett, who is an extreme alarmist, but doesn't sound the least bit like this, because she presents ALL of the evidence, from multiple excellent resources, including public health officials, practicing MDs, virus chasers, then draws rigorous conclusions from the evidence. She also starts by discussing the disease--an interesting concept that might go a long way here. The disease, how it becomes a pandemic, historical instances, all in the lead paragraph, then an article developed around this. KP Botany 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on flu and H5N1 and so forth. WAS 4.250 05:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you shouldn't expect readers to go and read those and then come back here. Chances are they won't come back to this article if they find the other one more interesting. Try and keep each article as self-contained as possible. Carcharoth 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that criticism and gave added five sections in response. WAS 4.250 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys - I just wanted to add my wholehearted support for User:KP Botany and User:ZayZayEM. This article needs an enormous amount of work in terms of content, referencing and style. Good luck to both of you (and anybody else) who takes it on, I have attempted in the past but given up due to the kind of resistance you're getting, which I don't have time for.--John24601 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the article needs work. But it does not need gutting by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject. Some of the comments below indicate ZayZayEM and I may be able to work together to improve this. I already added five sections in response. I'll change the titles to two and add some more refs in response to some of the comments. We'll see how this goes. WAS 4.250 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that this article has a totally unencyclopedic feel about it. It reads as if it was written by a non-native speaker of the English language, and by someone with a poor grasp of the subject (sorry). It. needs to be completely rewritten.Abelian (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism: Redux

I hope this can count as constructive criticisms--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Thank you. Let's work together on improving this article. I suggest we fix what we all agree needs to be fixed and then deal with stuff we disagree with. We agree on everything except the deletion of information as near as I can tell (so long as I adequately source the accuracy of the statements), so let's fix everything except your desire to delete information first. I'm hoping that between my sourcing and your fixing of tone the issue of deleting data goes away. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long. Unnecessary information. Indiscriminate information, governmental alarmist propoganda and anything of an instructional nature needs to go. Useful, but not directly related information should be merged out to daughter articles.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an alarmist tone. Example of alarmism: "(WHO) warns that there is a substantial risk of an influenza pandemic within the next few years. One of the strongest candidates is a highly pathogenic variation of the H5N1 subtype of Influenza A virus which is rapidly mutating and could mutate into a variation that transmits easily human to human causing a pandemic". WHO is a credible source, but no direct attribution is given in text in this instance. "One of the strongest", are there others?, speculation as to what H5N1 could become steps on the toes of WP:CRYSTAL as it is unclear as to what data supports this.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some refs today. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and refs are now in the H5N1 section. WAS 4.250 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone needs serious work. The other two points aside from alarmism, are instructional tone and a condescending tone.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the page to help with instructional tone and a condescending tone. But I disagree with the "alarmist" part. What you are calling alarmist is in fact reality, and I'll source it. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings like "What is influenza?" reek of condescending to me.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Fixed. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Strategies for individuals" breaches WP:NOT an instruction manual, and relies too heavily on US governmental sources.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that wikipedia is an instruction manual, or that the section "Strategies for individuals" does not provide instructions? Or are you ignoring those remarks because you feel that the section does not rely too heavily on US govt sources? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that we can fix it without removing any information. WAS 4.250 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unclear on focus. While information on non-H5N1 flu pandemics have been introduced, they are not cohesive. These sections need to flow to have a cohesive article. Again daughter articles can help here by allowing other information of an encyclopedic nature to remain a part of Wikipedia, just not here.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. Perhaps try editing it without removing information to achieve focus and flow? WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced. What? with 57 reference notes, you must think I'm joking... but sadly no. Certain parts of this article are well referenced, others: Rely to heavily on from too few sources. Which risks WP:UNDUE, as authoritative as US governmental departments and WHO are, they should not be the final word, particularly as they usually have their own sources. Have large blocks of unattributed text, interspersed with footnotes. Are these footnotes for the entire block, or just the certain statements immediately surrounding the note? Certain Lists have a similar rogue footnote approach to referencing.--ZayZayEM 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is indeed inconsistant. Point out passages and I'll supply sources. WAS 4.250 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculative" is the word that comes to mind when reading much of this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this article should not attempt to make any predictions of what "might" or "could" happen, much less formulate advice or instruction to readers based on such speculation. Documenting reliable sources that have made such predictions or given advice is another matter. The "strategies" sections and the introduction, in particular, need to be completely rewritten. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original reseach here. Just repeating stuff that every responsible government on Earth is telling its citizens because every responsible government thinks it is important for its citizens to know about this life or death issue. WAS 4.250 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a governmental soapbox. We do not push governmental propoganda, no matter how responsibly organised it is, that is a POV and WEIGHT issue--ZayZayEM 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Which is why this article does not have any governmental propoganda. WAS 4.250 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand propoganda does not imply false or even intent to mislead. Any public information of a non-direct-statistical nature from a governmental body is propoganda.--ZayZayEM 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"1+1=2" does not become "propaganda" just because the government teaches it. WAS 4.250 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes it does. Propoganda can be used in a non-perjorative way. Wikipedia should not say "1+1=2" citing a single national government, that would be sponsoring propoganda. If "1+1=2" non-governmental sources should be readily available for use as citation. It's an excellent example.--ZayZayEM 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Please everyone who thinks a cite is needed someplace please add {{Fact}} whereever you want me to add a cite. I don't wish to cite every sentence unless that is what you think is needed. WAS 4.250 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just "fixed" one of the strategy sections. I'm convinced the problem is that you guys are simply not reading the refs already supplied. But whatever. Maybe the issue lies in properly noting in the article who is claiming what. So does my "fix" help? WAS 4.250 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I read them I see things like, you use "are" to describe Influenza A genera, then the article at CDC mentions there is only one species. So, it shouldn't be Influenza A are anything, it is. You say "H number (for hemagglutinin) and an N number (for neuraminidase)" then use "HA and NA" in the quote from the same page, this is unclear to the reader. This is about a pandemic, but the definition of pandemic is a tertiary paragraph, and you talk about genera in the introction, but don't mention genera elsewhere in the text, though maybe I missed it. That's a start. I put in some fact tags, also. KP Botany 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Influenzavirus A is a genus of the family of viruses called Orthomyxoviridae in virus classification. Influenzavirus A has only one species in it; that species is called "Influenza A virus". Influenza A virus causes influenza type A (also known as Influenzavirus A flu, type A flu, or genus A flu). WAS 4.250 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "is" or "are" depends on whether it is being discussed as a single entity (which is is) or as a name for several different entities (which it also is). WAS 4.250 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're discussing a genus that has only one species, it IS a single entity. You can't change taxonomy to justify your grammar. Good grief. "Influenzavirus A are the cause of all flu pandemics and are known to infect humans, other mammals and birds (see also avian influenza)," So, you're fine with saying, "It are the cause," rather than "It is the cause?" Could you back off from defending everything and attacking everyone and simply correcting these errors so that READERS can understand what you are saying? I will feel free to edit for clarity when I understand what you are saying. KP Botany 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Influenzavirus A are" means "Variants of Influenzavirus A are" WAS 4.250 07:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H and HA are both correct. They are both used. Like US and USA. WAS 4.250 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading this flu stuff with eyes that have seen it what seems to be a million times. Fresh eyes (yours) are needed to make sure the writing is clear to someone new to the stuff. Feel free to edit for clarity, without changing or removing data. WAS 4.250 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table under the genera, doesn't match the data in the source article. If it was compiled from multiple sources, reference both, please, whoever added it, or change it to accurately reflect the data. KP Botany 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you mean, but I assume you have or will add {{Fact}} where needed. I'll get to these as I can. I'm retired so I have time, but when it gets boring I do other stuff for a while. WAS 4.250 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the issue lies in properly noting in the article who is claiming what. Wikipedia cannot state "the sky is falling[1]" - to make this encyclopedic in style, we have to state "Climatologist C. Little predicted in 2006 'the sky is falling'[2]". This is the difference between reporting an opinion and stating it as fact. More on this difference. Hope this helps. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Sheffield Steel. Please identify the Chicken Littles. I'd use {{who}} but can't even find weasel words to label.--ZayZayEM 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The chicken littles are pretty much ALL the experts who are up to date on the research concerning H5N1. But we need to source and name them in the article, so I will. WAS 4.250 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be wary of original synthesis. Please do not exclude experts because they do not agree with a point of view. Cyclic reasoning may apply, if you equate being up to date with being alarmist.--ZayZayEM 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No expert opinion concerning recent data ia excluded. The only contrary opinions are nonexpert and people who say that according to what they learned ten years ago blah blah blah. EVERY body who bothers to read up on the latest data is in agreement that H5N1 is a huge threat. WAS 4.250 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you, therefore, have a reference that lists who all the experts are, sot hat I can verify that you did not leave out any expert opinions? Please post here, in response, what that reference is. Thanks. KP Botany 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(<---)100% of the experts can be found here and here. Call them up. Perhaps you would even like to improve the article. It really needs it. But you probably just wanna delete it because it isn't much of an article yet. WAS 4.250 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you are frustrated because you can't bring yourself to believe that all this is actually true. But the world's experts on flu are actually very well funded and organized and in agreement. WAS 4.250 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. " - WP:V. I realise you are frustrated that the truth isn't what wikipedia is for.--ZayZayEM 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You supply zero references. Troll. WAS 4.250 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References for what? I haven't edited the article yet. I have expressed valid concerns.--ZayZayEM 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of innaccuracy in portrayal of references

Formerly from the introduction:

Influenza pandemics occur inevitably but at unpredictable intervals. When the next flu pandemic strikes, an outbreak is expected to last about six to eight weeks in each affected community, although multiple waves could occur. High employee absenteeism rates are expected that could disrupt businesses and essential services such as hospitals, police, fire, utilities (water, electricity, communications), garbage pickup and food distribution. (Deseret News article Utah influenza report paints a dire picture published April 4, 2007)

This sounds great, and is informative. However, even the newspaper article is a dead give-away that the article probably isn't talking too globally. Closer looking at the reference reveals that the expectations from the next flu pandemic were from the Governor's Task Force for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness, by the Utah Dept. of Health. The expectations were only talking about "when the next pandemic strikes the United States" (my emphasis). As worded above, the information isn't clear that this is about the next pandemic to strike the US (as opposed to to just the US), and it isn't clear that these are the expectations of a single Utah Dept. of Health Task Force, rather than say the CDC, WHO, NIH, or international consensus.

Wikipedia needs to report things exactly how they are in the source material. If it talks about the next US pandemic, we have to say next US pandemic. We also should try to acknowledge the source of that information, which is very easy given this article that it was "only" the Governer's Task Force for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (Utah) expectations. Without these additions the text material is innaccurate and misleading, and to me creates greater alarm than warranted by stretching the truth.--ZayZayEM 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good point to include that mortality is lower in developed countries due to the ready availability of antibiotics to control secondary infections. Concentrating on the impact on the US and similar countries with good health provision understates rather than overstates the risk of a pandemic. See this paper that estimates that 96% of deaths of a future influenza pandemic would occur in developing countries. Tim Vickers 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But in a high density and high transitory population like the US, rate of spread is also excacerbated. Certain countries already have stringent controls over population movements, and others just don't have the population to support a pandemic. The specificity of this report to the US/Utah makes it rather useless in extrapolating onto anything else.--ZayZayEM 04:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is why the Lancet paper is valuable for giving a more global view to this discussion. For instance, in the 1918 pandemic India had about 10-fold higher influenza mortality than the US (table 1). The predicted distribution of mortality from future pandemics is also strikingly-skewed towards the developing world link. If you need the Pdf of this, just send me an e-mail I've got access at work. Tim Vickers 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The population movement levels don't matter so much in the First World country when it comes to pandemics because of the amelioration factor due to things like public water supplies. This puts most of modern day India still at much greater risk. I believe that Garrett (spelling) discusses public water supplies in her book, if not, it is discussed extensively in the disease literature--although not recently, I have read specifically about this issue the advantages of public water supplies (sanitary potable water) over the disadvantages of faster spread in First World cities. KP Botany 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Collected fairy tales, ISBN blah blah
  2. ^ Collected fairy tales, ISBN blah blah

ZayZayEM Revamping article

Hi,

Currently revamping entire article in my personal sandbox. User:ZayZayEM/Sandbox.

I am going to be examining every reference to make sure facts and opinions are accurately portrayed and represented. I will remove any information of an instructional or advisory nature that cannot be reworded in a more appropriate encyclopedic tone.

I will also be refining on this article so it focuses on the topic, influenza pandemics. Less information on Influenza in general, non-pandemic Influenza, non-Influenza pandemics, H5N1, and semi-discriminate related information.

Information of an encyclopedic nature, but deserving of a better home, I will try and salvage and place in appropriate articles (creating stubs and lists as necessary).

Please do not remove the {{accuracy}} or {{underconstruction}} tags from the article unless no activity is seen by me on the talk, articlespace, or mentioned live-edit sandbox for a period of 48hours.


I apologise, I'm getting nailed by uni, work, women, and ironically the 'flu; but I'm hoping I should have this combed over by next weekend, possibly even Wednesday. Why did I make this commitment again.

Please leave any comments, or personal abuse on my talk page.

So sayeth the council of squirrels--ZayZayEM 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or not, apologies

Okay. Sorry. But my real life is not going smoothly at the moment. If anyone else would like to have a shot at the severe level of cleanup and fact checking required for this article I would be grateful.

I've left quite a few working notes at User:ZayZayEM/Sandbox if anyone wishes to edit there.

The main problems are that facts need to be more specific, less exagerated and attributed to the correct sources. It is important that sources and wikipedia match up. It is also important that wikipedia doesn't assert anything concerning future events, and while cases such as H5N1 and Spanish flu will probably serve the best examples (due to more literature available), they should not be the focus of the article. The article should be about what a pandemic was, and what a pandemic is, with perhaps some lining about strategies to deal with them.

I'm sorry but as always, real life takes precedent over wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return

I am going for a "from scratch" rewrite of this article that may or may not incorporate select select stretches of text from this page.

A brief look at my proposed structure may be seen at the in-progress here:

Any comments or suggestions on alternative major sections that could be considered would be welcome.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that information not be deleted from Wikipedia. Please don't delete data. Moving around claims in this article or to other articles or rewording a claim is not a problem. I'm unaware of any false claims in this article, so claims that seem suspect should be flagged as needing a source rather than removed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not falseness, it is irrelevancy and unecyclopedicacy that are issues.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to disagree on what claims fall into those categories. Please get other parties involved so we don't have a 50-50 split on figuring out "consensus". Also others may have ideas that we will both find acceptable. Everything in this article was added because someone thought it appropriate. Different people come to this page with different ideas and questions. In any case, thanks for helping to improve the article rather than merely tagging it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAS please examine the rest of this talk page. There is a clear repeated attempt by a number of editors to challenge the encyclopedic value of this page. There is no 50:50--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at my proposed structure, I would appreciate it if you would express help in actually writing/moving content under these headings. I am hoping that the new article will be at least 2/3 smaller than this article. This is just a start, so it may grow back to the original (or greater) size, but I would like to think it will contain more relevant information and facts, rather than plain infodump.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Why are they at the bottom. They're there to encourage the article to be fixed, so they should be placed back at the top like in every other article I've seen. DurinsBane87 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be deleted, but as a compromise a third party put them at the bottom. Why don't you fix the article, if you think it needs fixing? I don't think the tags are accurate. WAS 4.250 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying whether or not they need fixing, I have no expertise on the subject. I just think that if they exist, they should be at the top. If you think it's good enough to remove the tags and someone else disagrees, you can always get the conflict mediated. I don't feel I've been here long enough to attempt that. DurinsBane87 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was mediated. The result of the mediation was to put the tags at the bottom. (I use the word "mediated" to refer to the fact that we both accepted a respected third party's efforts to settle the issue.) WAS 4.250 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok then. Sorry DurinsBane87 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged material

I've removed this section, since it is uncited and has been challenged. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To have a flu pandemic several distinct phases must happen. H5N1's next phase is easy person to person transmission. After that occurs, it is theoretically possible to stop it before it becomes an epidemic,[citation needed] or if that opportunity is missed, to stop the epidemic before it becomes a pandemic.[citation needed] It is widely believed by the experts that it will not be possible to prevent any of these phases from occurring with H5N1,[citation needed] but if we are lucky enough to delay it for a few years, we might come up with a solution such as a influenza vaccine.[citation needed]

Three waves seen to 1918 and 1957 influenza pandemics

":...

Lone Simonsen, an epidemiologist at George Washington University, said she expected a third wave in December or January, possibly beginning in the South again.
“If people think it’s going away, they can think again,” Dr. Simonsen said.
Based on death rates in New York City and in Scandinavia, she has argued that both 1918 and 1957 had mild summer waves followed by two stronger waves, one in fall and one in midwinter."
Interesting source regarding the 1962 and 1964 Flu epidemics: http://www.biology-pages.info/I/Influenza.html

"Signs That Swine Flu Has Peaked"

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

Published: November 20, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/health/21flu.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.27 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

resource

How Hard Would It Be for Avian Flu to Spread? by Donald G. McNeil Jr. and Denise Grady published NYT January 2, 2012 (page D1 in print) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest contemporary influenza concerns are H5N1 and H7N9, comparative lethality & detection in birds

John G. Bartlett, MD

Bartlett's 2013 Review: Advances in the Highly Kinetic Field of Infectious Diseases

(p. 4 of 7 online) Medscape Infectious Diseases

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815114_4

December 05, 2013

...

The greatest contemporary influenza concerns are H5N1 and H7N9.[19,20] Recent reports show that H5N1 has been recognized for 16 years; there have been about 733 reported cases, with a mortality rate of 59%. H7N9 reports indicate that about 133 cases have occurred, with a mortality of 28%. Birds are the natural hosts for both agents, but there is a big difference: H5N1 infection is fatal in birds, whereas H7N9 infection is asymptomatic in birds, making elimination of the source virtually impossible.
[19] Gao HN, Lu HZ, Cao B, et al. Clinical findings in 111 cases of influenza A (H7N9) virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2277-2285. Abstract
[20] Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS. Pandemic influenza viruses -- hoping for the road not taken. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2345-2348. Abstract

...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Influenza pandemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shedding of viral particles

The last paragraph in the section "Epidemic and pandemic spread" has "... individuals become infectious before they become symptomatic ... For the average person, viral shedding tends to peak on day two whereas symptoms peak on day three." Good. Significant information. What is known about the decline of virus shedding? Mucous production and coughing, can continue for a week or more after the acute illness. Are virus particles still shed in this phase? When does shedding cease? If someone can address these questions, the article will be improved. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Influenza pandemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Influenza pandemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Influenza pandemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 flu pandemic calculations

In the section Influenza pandemics in the table Known influenza pandemics the numbers don't add up.

People infected (est.): 10–200 million[43]
Deaths: 105,700–395,600[44]
Case fatality rate: 0.03%[45]

According to the cited infection and death rates, the fatality rate should be from 105,700/200,000,000 = 0.05285% to 395,600/100,000,000 = 0.3956%.

I suggest checking other sources, or adding a note to the table explaining that the numbers are incompatible.

—DIV (1.129.110.141 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Galaxysword (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Galaxysword (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Influenza_pandemic"