Talk:Pandemic severity index

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Start

Two questions regarding the scope of the PSI:

  1. Is the PSI used by any organisations outside the CDC? Is it used throughout the US? Is it used internationally? Has any other organisation contributed to its formulation?
  2. Is the PSI only relevant for Influenza pandemics?

Thanks--ZayZayEM 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose is to inform everyone concerning which social isolation measures should be taken. It is designed to function like the Hurricane severity index. So if you know the coming hurricane is at one strength you as an individual might choose to act one way versus acting another way if the hurricane was a cat 5 for example. Individuals, companies and local officials will be making decisions such as stay home or not, close factory or not, close school or not. How people use scientific assessments provided by government funded experts is mostly up to them. Mandated social isolation measures like closing airports is being evaluated with computer models that show whether to do so or not is critically determined by precise details concerning the transmit-ability and lethality that are only roughly identified by this PSI. But this PSI is for public consumption. The actual mandated procedures in the case of a flu pandemic will be determined by the computer models supplied with the precise data from the scientists once they have an actual pandemic flu virus to evaluate. WAS 4.250 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not really trying to be rude or piss you off, but you realise that you haven't actually answered either of my questions, do you? It's purpose is already clear in the article. Is it actually functional and accepted on a semi-national/national/continental/trans-atlantic/trans-pacific/international level.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the US government announces that its experts believe a hurricane is a category five does cuba ignore that? WAS 4.250 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance?--ZayZayEM 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have flu pandemics often enough for this to be tested by "what happened last time?" This was just invented. You are asking what the credibility of the US government experts is in the world community and I tell you that our experts are second to none and in the case of a flu pandemic will be eagerly looked to for advice. You want to improve an article on a subject that you know nothing about and don't have the faintest clue about what is a reasonable question to ask. You don't want to piss me off yet that is inevitable given that you refuse to actually read the background material about the subject you are trying to write about. You are putting effort into this I can see from your sandbox, but no amount of such effort negates ignorance. Read the source material. WAS 4.250 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you that our experts are second to none.
-WAS

This simply isn't good enough for wikipedia. I know US experts (generally) have global influence, but we need to have this referenced from a credible second or third party source. As this is something sort-of-fresh of the table, it really begs its encyclopedic value until it actually has been tested and accepted. I get no real information about what this index is, just its purpose. I don't even get that this is a proposed scheme that hasn't even been really utilised by anyone yet. Take a look at the article on Tropical cyclone scales, they have details like who uses them where, and when/how/why they were developed.

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used only to describe hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Ocean and northern Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line.

I know this seems like I am targetting you, it's not for simple harrassment. These are valid concerns about the writing style in several articles where you are a main contributor. You must say where information comes from and provide relevent context - you cannot place government reports as facts, they are government reports regardless of their credibility.--ZayZayEM 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me questions. I answered your questions. I get nothing back from you but ignorant lip. I'm done with you. Look up the answers to your own questions from now on. WAS 4.250 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No you didn't. You haven't answered either of my questions. All you've done is called me ignorant.
    1. Who uses the PSI? Who has suggested the will use the PSI? Has the CDC even wholly adopted the PSI? Have any internaional CDC-equivalents adopted the CDC's PSI? Have any organisations in or out of the US criticised or supported the PSI?
    2. Is the PSI relevent only to Influenza? (What about say, black plague, smallpox, SARS, cholera, typhoid or other pandemic agents.)--ZayZayEM 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PSI is a new CDC guideline for communicating the risk posed by pandemic influenza to the US population. It is not an international classification and is not applied to any other disease. The article quite accurately describes this guideline and its proposed application. I've added a bit to the lead. Tim Vickers 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    that one sentance make s a big difference. thanks Tim. I still think this article could do with some expansion and more than a single reference (though the further reading helps out). I would particularly like to see some comments by non-US government associated health bodies.--ZayZayEM 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do tables

I can't do tables. The list of Category levels would look so much better in a table.--ZayZayEM 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would look even better with more examples... Turkeyphant 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source please

Can someone provide a source for "to the US population"? As far as I know there is no such limitation. Further, common sense would indicate the desire of US officials to "indicate the risk" to US citizens and military personnel all over the world and to our friends and allies all over the world. Does anyone have a source for this unnecessary, pointless and bizarre limitation on the intended use of the PSI? WAS 4.250 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CDC is a domestic organisation, none of its recommendations have international standing by themselves. But check out the USINFO source I added.--ZayZayEM 13:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your excellent rewrite satisfies all my concerns with regard to this. Great job!!! WAS 4.250 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Any comments? I think there are some tense issues. Is PSI singular or plural?--ZayZayEM 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job. One index with multiple levels. I'm thinking singular when referred to as a whole while plural if referring to one of its levels. Sorry if that's an inadequate answer. WAS 4.250 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm going to be really polite about this. I'm not trying to be a wanker or troll, but depsite the effort I just put into this article unless anyone can change my mind it is probably going to be nominated for Deletion.

This is a proposed US domestic health classification guideline from that the CDC themselves have acknowledged is a work in progress. The sources I used are for the most part PR exercises loaded with public health and governmental buzzwords for media digestion. Nothing much exists (online) beyond these February press releases. The CDC churns out guidelines like these with regularity, it doesn't mean they deserve a wikipedia article.

The PSI does not currently meet Notability requirements. It may in the future, but not right at this time.--ZayZayEM 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old inclusionist versus deletionist problem. H5N1 is notable. Efforts to plan for it are notable. This is a key piece of the US effort to plan for it. The question of exactly how much social isolation is useful or desireable in a flu pandemic is an issue governments are spending many millions on specifically and billions if looked at broadly including computer studies, historical research, published studies and practice drills. The need for an easily understandable communicatable way to communicate level of needed social isolation in a flu pandemic has been made apparent by problems in exercise drills that have been run. This is not some meaningless bureaucratic guideline. It is the outgrowth of intense study in how to avoid many millions of deaths. It's important. WAS 4.250 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not quite live. It's in a sort of Beta test stage. Many computer games in Beta have article, so I suspect it will survive a VfD, but at present, I personally favour exclusion. It's not important, it could be important. It really hasn't attracted that much attention domestically or internationally from the news and sources to me. It just seems a CDC PR exercise.--ZayZayEM 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Request

A diagram similar to the one here at health News Blog [1] would be great--ZayZayEM 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded two images from Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation (created by US DHHS, therefore in public domain) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pandemic_Severity_Index_1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pandemic_Severity_Index_2.jpg
Use whichever you think fits the article best. —G716 <T·C> 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent revisions

The CDC said they would revise the Index in the subsequent months. It's been about 18 months since the unveiling of the PSI.

Any of you guys with your finger on the pulse more than me have any news of updates to the Index?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pandemicflu.gov/plan/community/commitigation.html does not give me the impression that they planned to change it. Perhaps they made a comment somewhere (eg " The interim guidance will be updated when significant new information about the usefulness and feasibility of these approaches emerges.") giving themselves room to modify it if they ever felt a need and you misunderstood? WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stages 6 and 7 ?

On 26 April 2008, 156.34.44.68 added Stages 6 and 7 to the chart under "Guidelines," but I am unable to locate any such mention of such in the CDC references. But, if there is, I doubt the CDC would refer to Stage 7 as the religious term "Apocalypse." --- W5WMW (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that vandalism. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced "pandemic is going to get out of control"

The language "pandemic is going to get out of control" is sensational, unencyclopedic, and at odds with the Index itself. I replaced this with "how likely a disease will spread worldwide". Only Level 5 is about a pandemic. The other four levels are all non-pandemic (or pre-pandemic), and the language of the article should reflect this. And no disease is "under control". They all spread, mutate, and eventually end outside of human control. Interlingua 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

phases

image:WHO pandemic phases.png should be added to this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. Totally different scale.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in 2009 Swine flu pandemic scare

Has the HHS/CDC used the PSI during the current swine flu scare? I think that is a real test of how successful they were out of moving this from a developmental "beta" project into a live indexing scheme. (Although it probably only rates a 1 at most at present, not a very high CFR as yet). I've seen quite a few references to WHO Pandemic phases, but haven't heard anyone mention a PSI on news reports I've seen.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for the same thing, as I work for a bank and federal guidance indicates that I need to reference my business continuity plan to the WHO pandemic index and US Pandemic Severity Index. However, I've been searching for it everywhere and have not been able to find it. When I questioned the FFIEC (the regulatory agency who recommended the PSI usage) as to the location of the PSI, I was given the website to the original report that explains its use, not the actual index itself. ~~lsk4psu 9:20EST, 04 August 2009

Confusion with pandemic influenza phases

Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but someone appears to have confused the 2009 swine flu outbreak's rating of 5 on the WHO's pandemic influenza phase rating system with the pandemic severity index, two very different things. This may give the impression that the WHO expects greater than two million US deaths as a result of this outbreak, when, from what I've read, no one yet knows how fatal this strain will become. I'd delete it, but I haven't had my coffee yet and it'd be cool if someone else could verify this first. 173.79.50.138 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pandemic severity index. 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) 04:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colors ?

Is there a real guideline for the color or anything can do ?

Major modern influenza pandemics[1][2]
Name Date World pop. Subtype Reproduction number[3] Infected (est.) Deaths worldwide Case fatality rate Pandemic severity
Spanish flu[4] 1918–20 1.80 billion H1N1 1.80 (IQR, 1.47–2.27) 33% (500 million)[5] or >56% (>1 billion)[6] 17[7]–100[8][9] million 2–3%,[6] or ~4%, or ~10%[10] 5
Asian flu 1957–58 2.90 billion H2N2 1.65 (IQR, 1.53–1.70) >17% (>500 million)[6] 1–4 million[6] <0.2%[6] 2
Hong Kong flu 1968–69 3.53 billion H3N2 1.80 (IQR, 1.56–1.85) >14% (>500 million)[6] 1–4 million[6] <0.2%[6][11] 2
1977 Russian flu 1977–79 4.21 billion H1N1 ? ? 0.7 million[12] ? ?
2009 swine flu pandemic[13][14] 2009–10 6.85 billion H1N1/09 1.46 (IQR, 1.30–1.70) 11–21% (0.7–1.4 billion)[15] 151,700–575,400[16] 0.01%[17][18] 1
Typical seasonal flu[t 1] Every year 7.75 billion A/H3N2, A/H1N1, B, ... 1.28 (IQR, 1.19–1.37) 5–15% (340 million – 1 billion)[19]
3–11% or 5–20%[20][21] (240 million – 1.6 billion) 		290,000–650,000/year[22] <0.1%[23] 1
Notes
  1. ^ Not pandemic, but included for comparison purposes. 
Yug (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hilleman MR (August 2002). "Realities and enigmas of human viral influenza: pathogenesis, epidemiology and control". Vaccine. 20 (25–26): 3068–87. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00254-2. PMID 12163258.
  2. ^ Potter CW (October 2001). "A history of influenza". Journal of Applied Microbiology. 91 (4): 572–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01492.x. PMID 11576290. S2CID 26392163.
  3. ^ Biggerstaff M, Cauchemez S, Reed C, Gambhir M, Finelli L (September 2014). "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature". BMC Infectious Diseases. 14 (1): 480. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-480. PMC 4169819. PMID 25186370.
  4. ^ Mills CE, Robins JM, Lipsitch M (December 2004). "Transmissibility of 1918 pandemic influenza". Nature. 432 (7019): 904–6. Bibcode:2004Natur.432..904M. doi:10.1038/nature03063. PMC 7095078. PMID 15602562.
  5. ^ Taubenberger JK, Morens DM (January 2006). "1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 12 (1): 15–22. doi:10.3201/eid1201.050979. PMC 3291398. PMID 16494711.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h "Report of the Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) in relation to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009" (PDF). 2011-05-05. p. 37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 May 2015. Retrieved 1 March 2015.
  7. ^ Spreeuwenberg P, Kroneman M, Paget J (December 2018). "Reassessing the Global Mortality Burden of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic". American Journal of Epidemiology. 187 (12): 2561–2567. doi:10.1093/aje/kwy191. PMC 7314216. PMID 30202996.
  8. ^ Morens DM, Fauci AS (April 2007). "The 1918 influenza pandemic: insights for the 21st century". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 195 (7): 1018–28. doi:10.1086/511989. PMID 17330793.
  9. ^ Johnson NP, Mueller J (2002). "Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918-1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 76 (1): 105–15. doi:10.1353/bhm.2002.0022. PMID 11875246. S2CID 22974230.
  10. ^ Lin II RG, Karlamangla S (March 6, 2020). "Why the coronavirus outbreak isn't likely to be a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu". Los Angeles Times.
  11. ^ Schwarzmann SW, Adler JL, Sullivan RJ, Marine WM (June 1971). "Bacterial pneumonia during the Hong Kong influenza epidemic of 1968-1969". Archives of Internal Medicine. 127 (6): 1037–41. doi:10.1001/archinte.1971.00310180053006. PMID 5578560.
  12. ^ Michaelis M, Doerr HW, Cinatl J (August 2009). "Novel swine-origin influenza A virus in humans: another pandemic knocking at the door". Medical Microbiology and Immunology. 198 (3): 175–83. doi:10.1007/s00430-009-0118-5. PMID 19543913. S2CID 20496301.
  13. ^ Donaldson LJ, Rutter PD, Ellis BM, Greaves FE, Mytton OT, Pebody RG, Yardley IE (December 2009). "Mortality from pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza in England: public health surveillance study". BMJ. 339: b5213. doi:10.1136/bmj.b5213. PMC 2791802. PMID 20007665.
  14. ^ "First Global Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Pandemic Mortality Released by CDC-Led Collaboration". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 25 June 2012. Retrieved 7 July 2012.
  15. ^ Kelly H, Peck HA, Laurie KL, Wu P, Nishiura H, Cowling BJ (2011-08-05). "The age-specific cumulative incidence of infection with pandemic influenza H1N1 2009 was similar in various countries prior to vaccination". PLOS ONE. 6 (8): e21828. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...621828K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021828. PMC 3151238. PMID 21850217.
  16. ^ Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, Meltzer MI, Shay DK, Cheng PY, et al. (September 2012). "Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study". The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 12 (9): 687–95. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70121-4. PMID 22738893.
  17. ^ Riley S, Kwok KO, Wu KM, Ning DY, Cowling BJ, Wu JT, et al. (June 2011). "Epidemiological characteristics of 2009 (H1N1) pandemic influenza based on paired sera from a longitudinal community cohort study". PLOS Medicine. 8 (6): e1000442. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000442. PMC 3119689. PMID 21713000.
  18. ^ Wong JY, Kelly H, Ip DK, Wu JT, Leung GM, Cowling BJ (November 2013). "Case fatality risk of influenza A (H1N1pdm09): a systematic review". Epidemiology. 24 (6): 830–41. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182a67448. PMC 3809029. PMID 24045719.
  19. ^ "WHO Europe – Influenza". World Health Organization (WHO). June 2009. Archived from the original on 17 June 2009. Retrieved 12 June 2009.
  20. ^ "Key Facts About Influenza (Flu)". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019-10-28. Retrieved 2020-03-10.
  21. ^ Tokars JI, Olsen SJ, Reed C (May 2018). "Seasonal Incidence of Symptomatic Influenza in the United States". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 66 (10): 1511–1518. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1060. PMC 5934309. PMID 29206909.
  22. ^ "Influenza: Fact sheet". World Health Organization (WHO). 6 November 2018. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
  23. ^ "H1N1 fatality rates comparable to seasonal flu". The Malaysian Insider. Washington, D.C., US. Reuters. 17 September 2009. Archived from the original on 20 October 2009. Retrieved 26 September 2009.

Why is 2019 coronavirus disease listed in the pandemic chart?

Why is 2019 coronavirus disease listed in the pandemic chart? As far as I am aware, the CDC (or any other source) has not declared that, and furthermore the introduction to this page says the PSI is only for flu epidemics.

Meh222 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a listing in the table earlier since the citation given was pure original research. It might be helpful to add a code comment saying not to include it given that it isn't an influenza and hasn't been listed on the PSI to my knowledge. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research, the PSI seems to be defunct anyway. I updated the article with a citation accordingly. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is treated like a category 3-4 pandemic (declared as such by the WHO on March 11th), not an extreme 5-6. The fatality rate can vary from nation to nation (4% in the USA, 11% in Italy and .3% in Germany), now epidemologists said if you include serological exposure studies, the total global fatality rate for Covid-19 should be 1%! The "100 year bug" pandemic many scientists knew it would happen, especially a pandemic that is a coronavirus, related to SARS-1 in 2002-04 (a smaller scale on 1-2 but with a higher fatality rate than the current progress of Covid-19) and originated in China or East Asia, was predicted to possibly sweep the world in the first 20 years (two decades) of this century/ millennia. 2605:E000:100D:C571:8921:AB9A:1584:4730 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the edit on July 23 that listed COVID-19 as a category 5 pandemic. It should not be listed in that chart without a proper citation. Megathon7 (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to put a note about not listing Covid-19 at this point? Every few days someone adds it back in without sources despite this not being a current metric Ragdolcatllover (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a note should be placed in the article itself; that is more appropriate for this talk page. Several edit summaries on the page history also state that COVID-19 cannot be added without proper sources, and I suspect whichever individual(s) are re-adding it are doing so with deliberate disregard for WP:CITE. I put in a request for temporary semi-protection on July 24, but it was declined due to insufficient recent disruption. If disruption continues, I will resubmit the request. Megathon7 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pandemic_severity_index"