Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic by country summary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unverifiable Information Must Be Removed

Suspected Cases, Probable Cases, and Unconfirmed Deaths are not verifiable information. They are based on hearsay, original research, and unpublished information (even though they might be mentioned in a popular press posting to a website). Only confirmed cases and confirmed deaths should be included in this table. Flipper9 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

this editor added tags to the main article, along with this one. The discussion is found here: Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Sensationalism Please comment there so everything is in one place. Ikip (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

main article content table corrupted

I notice that the main article content table is corrupted and mixed with contents from this outbreak table. -Xavier Fung (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Now it's back to normal. -Xavier Fung (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, probable and suspected?

Resolved

No real agreement was reached on my earlier concerns about New Zealand's numbers and this is still causing problems. Someone else recently pointed out the MOH site (which I for some reason never looked at before) and I notice how they do it is confirmed, probable and suspected [1]. I've now also noticed our table does have probable albeit as a subset of the suspected. Given that probable and confirmed are both WHO terms with appropriate definitions, it would be good IMHO if we could fill out the table with both probable and confirmed numbers and make probable in to it's own heading. This may avoid further confusion Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the guidelines were just published yesterday. I suspect then that we should have good information soon enough maybe even from the WHO themselves Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a warning comment to the NZ entry. The problem seems to have arisen because NZ's Ministry of Health has not generally distinguished clearly between probable and confirmed cases in its reporting (their latest update is an exception), and so most media reports have conflated the two categories. -- Avenue (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, hidden comments are usually quite effective in stopping this sort of well meaning but misguided editing, I'm surprised I didn't think of it Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see there is already discussion at the top which I missed so I'm closing that to avoid splitting the discussion in two Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan

Should we include Pakistan in countries with suspected cases? From this article three Pakistan nationals became sick with swine flu in Mexico and were flown to Pakistan. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/30-Apr-2009/Swine-flu-lands-in-Pakistan-tomorrow

Hdstubbs (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No unless they are confirmed by health officials. If these were counted, do we need to count every civilian travelled back from Mexico, US etc suspected cases? -Xavier Fung (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland probable case

I have found this [2] and this [3] provide a reference [4] that there is a "confirmed" case in Ireland. However, my search shows this news [5] saying that the case is "probable" and further testing would be done in UK and Ireland. I think this is a probable rather than a confirmed case provided that the latter reference has more explanation.-Xavier Fung (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Seen it is updated with ref. Case closed. -Xavier Fung (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Belize

Four suspected cases in Belize http://www.reporter.bz/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3508&Itemid=2 and here http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=13884&frmsrch=1

Hdstubbs (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Peru's information is wrong

Peru has no confirmed cases of the swine flu. The case alluded in the template is that of an Argentinian woman who landed on the country to be checked. She was traveling from Mexico to her country, Argentina, stopping briefly through Panama. When in Peru, she was diagnosed with the infection, and after being sure she was stable she was sent to her original destination. She is not currently in Peru, nor is she a Peruvian citizen or resident. The only reason for her staying in the country was that the captain of the plane decided to make an emergency landing to have her checked. Even though she was diagnosed in Peru, it isn't fair to say it's a Peruvian case, therefore I want to ask someone to please change that number in Peru's confirmed cases.

I apologize if I'm doing anything wrong here, this is the first time I contribute to a discussion page in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.153.62 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the same reasoning to keep one death under the USA. The baby wasn't American, didn't live in America, but he dies in American soil; so, he died in the USA, and the USA registered one death. This woman is not Peruvian, doesn't live in Peru, but the case was confirmed in Peru; so, there is one confirmed case in Peru. The nationality of the person doesn't matter; the point is the spreading of the virus, and so far it did get to Peru. Pmbarros (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that the argentinian woman does not have the swine flu. I'm sorry but this link is in spanish

http://www.peru.com/noticias/sgc/portada/2009/04/30/detalle32225.aspx

Paranoidhuman (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Korea needing update

Two more suspects, however the article also mentions "other suspects", which may lead one to believe these accumulate to the 3 already mentioned in our table, and not replace it (as the user who edited this article intended). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Guatemala

As of 04:42 30 April 2009, Guatemala had one suspected death (per this ref). Could we get a ref saying that this death was not swine flu, to back up the "0" that is currently in the table? If the current "suspected cases" ref says this, it should be inline after the "0" as well as after the suspected cases #. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we have a reference that tells this death is not due to swine flu, we must add it to the article. And so far we don't have such a reference. Gnaaye (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian case

The report is about the first case which is prooved to be negative. There are no suspected cases in Russia at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.223.81 (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Last Update"

The table has this "Last Update: 06:00, whatever" stuff on it, which is useful. However, when the table is included at 2009 swine flu outbreak and 2009 swine flu outbreak by country, it lists the last update of that page, rather than the last update of the table. Can this be fixed? -M.Nelson (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Transmission within country" column

With apologies, I deleted this newly added column. I don't see it as particularly useful or easy to define and it made the table considerably wider. Let's try to keep this table as compact as possible. Thank you --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Something to be put in the text. No need for another column.

Also, Nutriveg, please use edit summaries for such edits. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:59, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

When there are transmission between residents it's more likely it's spreading and not just between some which traveled abroad.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is spread in an individual country is of little significance long term. Any country with enough cases will have them, and only now and in the next few days is that significant at all. This is something to be discussed in the text, and in country sections, rather than essential info to track the outbreak. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:03, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

I think it's more important than that, but in any case, the table is not the best place to present this. It takes up too much space, for too little information. -- Avenue (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing countries which have no confirmed cases yet

Currently the table is huge.

I propose to collapse the countries which have no confirmed cases yet, something like this, but with better formatting for the collapsed section:

Cases by country

Country	Laboratory confirmed cases	Suspected‡ cases	Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡
Totals	271	2,595+	152 (20)
Mexico	172	1,995	152 (20)
US	64	255+	0
Canada	13	19	0
New Zealand	11	43	0
UK	2	40	0
Spain	2	29	0
Israel	2	2	0
Costa Rica	2	0	0
Countries without confirmed cases Country Laboratory confirmed cases Suspected‡ cases Deaths: Attributed (confirmed)‡ Australia 0 91 0 Brazil 0 20 0 France 0 20 0 Chile 0 13 0 Colombia 0 12 0 Argentina 0 12 0 Switzerland 0 9 0 Norway 0 8+ 0 Poland 0 5 0 Hong Kong 0 4 0 Guatemala 0 3 0 Honduras 0 3 0 Venezuela 0 3 0 Germany 0 2 0 Iceland 0 2 0 Austria 0 1 0 Italy 0 1 0 South Korea 0 1 0 Dominican Rep. 0 1 0 Uruguay 0 1 0
DARK RED: Confirmed cases followed by death; RED; Confirmed cases; ORANGE: Unconfirmed or suspected cases.
‡ Not all cases have been confirmed as being due to this strain. Possible cases are cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) that have not been confirmed through testing to be due to this strain.

What does everyone think? Ikip (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Not Yet: It is showing the aparent spread of the cases and their intensity. Dinkytown 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i vote yes, but can you make both sections use the navbox style? (BTW thanks for getting the rows to line up right) Default.XBE (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree. The spread can be seen with confirmed cases or by expanding.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support this change, per Daniel. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Though it is possible to make it so the headers don't repeat? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for collapsing the unconfirmed cases, but note that automatic readers (for the blind) are supposed to have problems with hidden/collapsed text. So it may be better to keep the table as is, for better accessibility. See MOS:SCROLL. Abecedare (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

a valid point, but if the table starts to become an accessibility issue for people NOT using autoscrollers and screenreaders i think we should collapse part of it, i dont think its at that point yet, but getting close, especially with all the reports of 1 or 2 unconfirmed cases Default.XBE (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are doing this, can you please make both of them have the same style (ie no gridlines)?130.216.222.197 (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked on WP:Village Pump Technical for help on how to make this a better table. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

re VPT: I've cleaned up the code a bit. there might be a better way to do it, but let me think about it. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(also from vpt) Wouldn't it be easier to use {{infobox}}? I can play around a bit. chandler ··· 06:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the table is getting rather unweildy IMO now, over 2/3 of the countries listed have no confirmed cases, did anyone get a good means of doing this worked out? the one here looks OK to me (even w/ repeating headers) but would need to updated with current data Default.XBE (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to collapse. The goal of it is to show how the flu is spreading but we now have confirmed cases in almost every continent and there is new information that both Argentina and Ecuador have possible cases. IMO it is getting really unwieldy. If someone really wants to know the case list of every country they can click on the box. Hdstubbs (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed the table and then other editors uncollapsed it. Ikip (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Columns, headers, brackets etc.

Cases by country
Last update: 4 March 2023 at 4:5 (UTC)

Country	Cases		Deaths
	Laboratory confirmed	Suspected‡ (probable)	Confirmed (suspected‡)
Totals	251	3,700+	9 (177)
Mexico	99	2,498	8 (176)
United States	93	654+	1
New Zealand	3	111(13)	0
Guatemala	0	3	0 (1)
El Salvador	0	3	0
Number of countries with confirmed or suspected cases = 40. ‡ Suspected cases have not been confirmed as being due to this strain of influenza by laboratory tests, although some other strains may have been ruled out.

Included an excerpt of the current table to show the issues with the current table.

There has been much discussion on the correct layout, number of columns and headers for the columns. I'll list the issues I think there are with the current layout:

1. In the not-confirmed case column we have - Suspected (probable) - whereas in the death column it is - Confirmed (suspected).

   This strikes me as inconsistent and potentially misleading, we should probably try to be consistent whichever way we choose.

2. The headers of the columns are not immediately clear, the distinction between suspected and probable cases is difficult - the WHO definition is fine, but we don't know how many of our sources are abiding by this classification.
3. The current death column format - confirmed (suspected) - is probably good as it avoids sensationalism; however there is a minor issue in that suspected could suggest that the deaths had not occurred.

It's not clear what would be best. I think the probable cases should be removed as it tries to do too much - we can't tell how many sources follow WHO classification and it looks like we are suggesting all the others are only "suspected" as per WHO when they could actually be probable but not reported as such.

Long term it is likely the layout will need to change completely as figures become clearer and I imagine we will take WHO figures then. Any suggestions? It would be good to get some major editors to decide on a common format and then keep it that way subject to further discussion. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:47, 30 April 2009 (GMT)

There's also the issue about whether the figures in each column are cumulative or a snapshot. Most of the sources I've seen for suspected cases give just a snapshot/current figure (and the exceptions give both a snapshot and a cumulative figure). I think that's also true for probable cases. But deaths are obviously cumulative, and I gather so are the figures for confirmed cases. Should we add a footnote to explain this to the reader? -- Avenue (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mt initial reading of the "suspected (probable)" format was that the probable figure was a part of the suspected number, which was added if it was available. Under that meaning, "111 (13)" would mean there were 13 probable cases, and 98 that were suspected nut not probable. But people are not using the notation that way. Instead, it means there were 13 probable cases, and 111 that were suspected nut not probable, i.e. 124 suspected or probable cases. So this notation seems ambiguous to me. -- Avenue (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is that we are probably going to get probable deaths soon enough. What do we do then? Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the old format with just confirmed/suspect was superior. It is just too difficult to determine what is truly a "probable" case and what is only being called one by the media. In the long term - i.e. after the outbreak is over/mostly over, the table can just use the official WHO stats, but for now they just aren't upadted often enough to be used as the only source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, and when discussed above consensus was not to have a separate column. I think the same applies for the brackets currently. Any thoughts from other editors? |→ Spaully^₪† 14:45, 30 April 2009 (GMT)

I think a "hospitalized" column would be helpful so the impact/severity of the disease can be seen 65.3.255.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Not really, some people in New Zealand are hospitalized just to keep them isolated. They are not in a serious condition and get nothing more than Tamiflu. (heard it on tv, no link sorry) F (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand reports the number of hospitalised cases in New Zealand as zero. Those who are merely in isolation in a hospital because they can't be sent home (e.g. passengers in transit) are obviously not defined as hospitalised in the official statistics in New Zealand.Hawthorn (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

If a suspected case is proven to be negative do we remove them from the table completely?--Avala (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Otherwise the table is a little misleading. Someone just glancing at it would think there are more relevant cases than there actually are. 62.69.130.82 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Any suspected case that is negative should be removed. However it's not wise to individualy remove cases by subtraction because you read one is negative this is OR and would easily lead to confusion an inaccurate information, wait for updated totals (if the article which says one is negative doesn't have them). If you mean a country with only one suspected case (and no confirmed or probable or deaths) then yes you remove the whole country (provided there aren't more) Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm guessing you meant the later, as Russia no longer has any cases. I've removed it, you're welcome to do the same with any other country that comes up Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "Current cases" to clarify that the figures are a snapshot, not a cumulative total over time. -- Avenue (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that's been reverted on the grounds it doesn't apply to confirmed cases. Sorry - I guess I'm not as familiar with that as with the suspected column, which I believe is a snapshot. I think we need to spell out all these definitions somewhere, because it's not at all obvious. Maybe start another thread though. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about Croatia. There was one suspected case but proved negative.--Avala (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There really is no need to change the title. I mean it is pretty clear that once a case is proven negative it is no longer a suspect case. It would be complete counter-intuitive to think "suspected cases" incldues all cases that once were suspect, but have since been proven either positive (and moved to confirmed) or negative. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspect Cases in Chile

We have 8 suspect cases in Chile tells the "Ministerio de Salud de Chile (MINSAL)" (Health Minister of Chile), the source of the information is in http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355563 and translated to english is here: http://74.125.91.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp%3Fidnoticia%3D355563&usg=ALkJrhglJaIeSr79lUmMO0-NB6kkxlWL6w --Satanux (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More sorce http://tele13.beta.canal13.cl/noticias/nacional/2612.htm Blopa64 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

We have now 24 suspected cases http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=355701Blopa64 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

As of May 1, there are 4 suspected cases still under examination in Chile. http://latercera.com/contenido/680_124057_9.shtml http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=356191

I'm afraid of screwing up the formatting on the table, but it would be great if someone could make the change. Thanks! Avocadrix (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two cases in Fiji

Please, can anyone add another case to Fiji, it says 1 but now there are two. http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=30040982b23b41b0558dd72dbc9fb5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.121.39 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source says one case has already left Fiji, so our table is correct. It also says that the other suspected case will leave Fiji today; we should keep an eye open for this. -- Avenue (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Updated based on this story. -- Avenue (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico higher confirmed count

Can we up the additional numbers for Mexico. Confirmed moved to 260. I tried to this several times and failed. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfYcVCw5PiKbk5yaX7JaF9NqhPygD97SVQV02 Hdstubbs (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone direct to where on wiki it tells me how to update references? I can update the url so that it goes to the right website but I can't change the reference at the bottom of the page. Is there some kind of trick to it? I keep trying to follow the examples on the page but then it just turns bright red. 62.69.130.82 (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove Dominican Republic from suspected cases.

The Ministry of Health of the Dominican Republic has stated that NO cases of swine flu have been reported. The immigrant who was suspected having swine flu was tested, and the results were negative. Source: http://www3.diariolibre.com/noticias_det.php?id=197821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.105.35 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Removed from the list. -- Avenue (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Should Ireland count as a country that's infected? The article referenced said that it was "probable confirmed" yet the table shows it as probable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.81.142 (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to news of a case in Ireland. Could someone add it?[6]--83.70.109.209 (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the case is confirmed and there's 6 suspected ones in Ireland. [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Block77129 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korea

The official annoucement of laboratory-confirmed case will be made on May 2, 2009. The lab-confirmed number on the case table should be corrected. --Intershark (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

When we'll have a source for this, yes. -- Grochim (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember country updates of this sort are discussed at Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table, not here. Rmhermen (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First confirmed UK human-to-human case.

Searching for a source, but it has just been announced on Sky News. Jozal (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been added and sourced on the UK page.—Teahot (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE5403U820090501 - First confirmed H1N1 case in Hong Kong. --haha169 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Already there. -Xavier Fung (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two suspected cases in Russia

There are 2 new suspected cases in Russia http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=77521 77.52.223.81 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Minorellen

11 cases in the UK now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8028974.stm (Although the 11th just happened so might take a few min. before it is on a website) --Simonr9999 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and there are 642 suspected cases --Simonr9999 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Y Got 10 up there, waiting for a ref for case 11. Where did you get the number 642 from? I can't see it. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:02, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

Found it. Doing. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:04, 1 May 2009 (GMT)

Update to 13. Per the hpa:

In addition to the nine confirmed cases announced earlier today (01 May 2009) there have now been a further four confirmed cases in the UK. These are one case in Scotland, two cases in the South West, and a Mexican pilot who has already returned to Mexico.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1241180239108?p=1231252394302

I believe we have to remove the case of the Mexican pilot since he has returned to Mexico already.GaussianCopula (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also propose that we use only the updated information on the hpa website for further confirmed cases.

Denmark has one confirmed case

Denmark has one confirmed A H1N1 case as per http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-22072069.html?rss... he got it in New York. Please update the template. CallmeMads (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Costa Rica has two confirmed cases

[[8]] start from there. Could someone add it to the table. Thanks. Block77129 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany has 5 cases, not 4

I already sourced it that Germany has 5 cases, but someone reverted it to 4 according to the WHO figures. But it's wrong, 5 cases are definitely confirmed in Germany [9][10]. The WHO figures are not up to date. -- Grochim (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What? You don't like making a UN run global orgainization the ultimate global authority and dominate source for all numbers on wikipedia? even inspite of its wrongness? How dare you sir! --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes I know. Let's hope the WHO is faster when there is a worldwide pandemic one day jajaja ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

People need to realize the WHO is a secondary source, the primary source are the people who actually do the testing which in europe is either the ECDC or the National Health Service. WHO is going to be slower because thats how things work. Secondly as a international orgainization, WHO is only allowed to report the numbers that the member nation gives them. If (country named after dishware) told WHO 0 cases, it doesn't matter how many youtube videos and blog reports we have people oinking in the street, WHO would say "Dishware:0 cases" People should only cite WHO when its numbers make sense and aren't disputed by reputable sources. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to update France data

Thanks to update France data :

• 0 confirmed cases
• 4 probable cases
• 46 suspected cases

(http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_porcine_300409/index.html)

--90.17.78.207 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (Yes I Anonymous)

France has been doing a good job of releasing daily bulletins with updates on the H1N1 in the country. As of the latest one on May 2,they have:

26 suspected, 7 probable and 2 confirmed

We should update accordingly. http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_porcine_020509/index.html

GaussianCopula (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - note that the way we are reporting the data, the suspect(probable) number becomes 33(7), meaning 33 suspect cases of which 7 are probable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Change with regards to suspected deaths in Mexico

Per this Reuters article dated May 2nd:

http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-39377920090502?sp=true

"MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - In a glint of good news for a world rattled by the threat of a flu pandemic, new laboratory data showed fewer people have died in Mexico than first thought from a deadly new influenza strain.

Mexico cut its suspected death toll from the new H1N1 swine flu to up to 101 from as many as 176 as dozens of test samples came back negative. Few patients are checking into hospitals fearing infection with a flu that has spread as far as Asia."

No update yet on suspected.

GaussianCopula (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done table was updated this morning (by another user) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

New source of information regarding Updates in Mexico

Looks like the Mexican government has established a website dedicated to tracking the virus spread in Mexico.

Last update was May 2 at 9:15am Mexico local time.

If this info stays updated on a daily basis, I would suggest we use it to track the mexican data. Latest data is consistent with what we currently have. 443/16

http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/

GaussianCopula (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Revising Mexico figures per new government update:

473 confirmed, 19 deaths

Please update.

http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/

GaussianCopula (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand has had another confirmed case, bringing it from 3 to 4. Update to table would be nice.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/swine-flu/2376777/Fourth-swine-flu-case

XxTommehxx (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Done by Hawthorn, within half an hour of this request. -- Avenue (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand information is a bit outdated. Suspected cases has dropped significantly from the 360 we are showing to only 89.

Please update. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/influenza-a-h1n1-update-twenty-030509

GaussianCopula (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Table up to date as of now. Update 21 information.Hawthorn (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico confirmed deaths

They have confirmed 101 deaths down from the suspected 168. I updated the table but this link needs to be added. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=93306&sectionid=351020705 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just heard in the Mexican news that there are 22 (15 female and 7 male) confirmed deaths.Surely the figures will be updated on this web page as soon as possible: http://www.prevencioninfluenza.gob.mx/--201.153.17.190 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the table, using that source. -- Avenue (talk)

France

There are now 10 confirmed cases of H1N1 in France (http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=surveillance/grippe_dossier/points_h1n1/grippe_A_h1n1_070509/index.html) and 5 probable cases (27 suspected cases) (same link).

For constant updated informations: http://www.invs.sante.fr/

If someone want to change the information in the table!

Thanks!

Philippine cases rose

Philippines has 39 cases now.cite news|url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/08/09/h1n1-cases-rp-rise-39 --The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 06:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Egypt

Egypt's confirmed cases up to 3. Reuters A elalaily (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated US death Numbers

Updated the US death numbers based on citations found on [[11]] Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table rather than clutter this article with all the citations found there. If this is not acceptable and I will do my best to rectify and include all the sources with which the sum is reached on that template. Der.Gray (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chile

The chilean ministry of health reported on June 8 at 10 pm (local time) that there were only 2 confirmed deaths. There are some chinese articles about the third confirmed death, however it was only suspected, and later it was confirmed that it wasn't the swine flu the cause of death.

And where is a reference for that? The only related reference I can find is the Xinhua article, a source, which is usually credible and accurate. I restored the entry in the table, until a reference for the contrary will be presented. | FHessel (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure changed to WHO source

I changed the U.S. "Confirmed cases" figure to the one given by the WHO. (The previously given figure (from the US source) included also probable cases, and is thus not really correct for this table.) I suggest that we stick to the WHO source (or other sources which really give the "Confirmed cases" number) for this figure from now on. (Note that most of the previous difference between our Total and WHO's Total for the confirmed cases resulted from the U.S. figure we used, so I assume that the US report the "correct" number to the WHO, even if they don't publish it themselves.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should seek to keep it consistent but using confirmed cases. The CDC gets its information from the individual states now and says that where there is a difference the states published numbers should be used so we could also use the numbers tabulated in the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table table. Daveonwiki (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "by" instead of "but" in your first sentence? It seems we could use the "Total" number of the second column of the table you gave (if the data there are really only confirmed cases for all 50 states), but it would make this template hard to maintain. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the difference in numbers comes primarily from a time delay. That said, Daveonwiki's suggestion of using the US table's numbers is reasonable - and we have done this in the past. A few people complained that doing so was using Wikipedia as a reference, but that isn't actually true - citing the table is just a short cut to repeating the 50 references used to create it individually. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can use CDC numbers (US source) just as well as the WHO data, there is evidence that the numbers from WHO also consists of both confirmed as well as probable cases. The ECDC report states the same numbers as the WHO concerning USA, and notes that the numbers consist of both. (http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/files/pdf/Health_topics/Situation_Report_090529_1700hrs.pdf)¨. --User:Pedromarx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. The ECDC report says it uses also data from the national governments. While you may be right, your reasoning is original research. By their own account, WHO reports only confirmed cases, and CDC reports only combined numbers, thus only WHO is suitable for our purposes.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Btw, the numbers from ECDC are not exactly the same as those from that day's WHO report. OT: You should not claim to be User:Pedromarx when that username does not exist. Just use your IP adress for signing, or a nickname without the "User:" prefix.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm new to Wikipedia and wrote here for my first time.

To the case, when I wrote that the numbers were the same, I was just referring to the USA figures (ECDC compared to WHO). Pedromarx, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.62.48 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all right. Welcome to Wikipedia, then! - I was also referring to the USA figures, but at the time I wrote the above comment, ECDC hat one or two more US cases than the latest WHO report. But it doesn't matter now we use still another source.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now used Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table as a source, as suggested by Daveonwiki. (I hope that the figures in that template are updated more often than the WHO data.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Today one can see, that the WHO numbers regarding the U.S. are confirmed+probable cases together, quite contrary to the statement in the header of their bulletin (WHO 2009-06-08: 13217 cases; Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table 02:16 UTC: probable 521, confirmed 12701, sum = 13217 cases) BTW, I would recommend to make that very clear in a footnote. Today I was wondering myself, why the WHO had a greater number than WP. It was only then, that I found out (by comparison with the US table), that the number here is confirmed cases only. I was assuming, that it is confirmed+probable, since the CDC had announced not to publish numbers on confirmed cases any more. |FHessel (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is WP:OR. It's a strong claim that the WHO "lies" in its report, so it needs to be sourced before a footnote being added. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Followup: What if CDC has more updated figures?

As we can see in the table now, the CDC reports more cases than the sum of each state ministries. The CDC figures also include Puerto Rico now. I think we can quote CDC numbers now, and if the states reported a higher number of cases after the release of CDC bulletin, we can use figure of the total reported cases for all states. - Xavier Fung (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If one adds the State Health Departments' confirmed and probable totals, they exceed the CDC's confirmed and probable total. The major reason why the State totals are used is because the CDC number reflects probable cases as well as confirmed; the table states that the column is confirmed cases only. Right now, most sources (including ECDC, AP, etc.) are referring to the CDC's confirmed & probable total as "cases" of H1N1, making no distinction between confirmed and probable. CB...(ö) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the current situation is quite a mess for different US states. So the state confirmed may be lagging, or being more advanced than the CDC reported numbers. If we check each state number to update the figures, I'm afraid that it would be something in Original Research. I agree to keep things like this now but it is cleared that there would be something needs to be done in the future. - Xavier Fung (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding numbers is not considered original research, even if it's fifty numbers. And unless you have any evidence that some US states data are wrong ("lagging" does not count, since Wikipedia is not a news ticker), there is no reason not to use them. CDC are unsuitable since they do not distinguish between confirmed and probable cases. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested update on Australian case numbers

As I am unfamiliar with editing the main confirmed cases table, could someone please increase the totatl confirmed cases in Australia to 639.

Source: Australian Government: Department of Health and Ageing.222.154.97.72 (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Updated using latest bulletin from the Department. - Xavier Fung (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks. Would it also be possible to make changes to the table on the main '2009 Swine Flu Outbreak' page, as no changes have currently been made on that table.222.154.97.72 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, this template is transcluded on that page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

== What happened to Nicaragua? ==

There was an entry two days ago (02.06.09 23:30 GMT) confirming one case in Nicaragua. What happened with that? I dont have the time to investigate that right now. FHessel (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)FHessel (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update of New Zealand cases

Please could somebody update the number of confirmed New Zealand cases to 14.

Source: TVNZ News222.154.96.9 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

- Please could someone update the table to show that New Zealand now has 23 confirmed cases. NZ Ministry of Health222.154.97.189 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Google-translated article as reference

I've noticed that some of the references (especially Latin American ones) in the table use Google Translate to the original non-English article or news reports and claiming it as English (using language=English as the attribute value). It would be more favorable to quote it as of the language it presents, and mark with the correct language attribute. - Xavier Fung (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WHO Update 46

This has been updated to 46 dated today but I am unable to access the page - [12] - "This page is not available in English."

Is this just me? |→ Spaully^₪† 20:11, 10 June 2009 (GMT)

Sorted, link was incorrect - needed to add an "a" after the date. |→ Spaully^₪† 22:51, 10 June 2009 (GMT)

Outbreak now a pandemic, request name change

According to the WHO this is now a pandemic, not just an outbreak ([13], no WHO source just yet) I suggest this template is moved to Template:2009 influenza pandemic table.

We need an admin to move it and there is no rush so it would be good to get a consensus before moving. The benefits of the name suggested are that it is unambiguous and avoids the debate over using "swine", "H1N1", etc. What do people think? |→ Spaully^₪† 15:50, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

I think this is a question to be decided on the main article - there is no point changing just the table name (and the table name doesn't really even matter since it is seen only by editors) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I imagine the article will go that way but we can wait and see. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:06, 11 June 2009 (GMT)

where can i edit the template now??? I have to update some new cases i've founded :( For example this: http://www.minuto59.com/en-venezuela/28-casos-de-gripe-a-confirmados-en-el-pais/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geografisica (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

Revert edits done by somebody expressing that the Philippines has 103 cases. His/her source even claimed that it was not included in the official list of DOH. See here.http://www.gmanews.tv/story/164799/DOH-Flu-pandemic-no-reason-to-panic-A(H1N1)-mild-compared-to-other-viruses.

Paragraph number five:

“ On Friday, Nueva Ecija provincial health officer Dr. Benjamin Lopez reported that 11 students from Hilera Elementary School in Jaen town have tested positive for the virus. The figure is not included in the 92 cases previously reported by DOH on Thursday. ”

I will just add a parenthesis under that, since the additional 11 (RP has originally 92 cases by June 11) has confirmed by Provincial health office, but isn't the official one given by Department of Health thru news and press conferences.--The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. For UK, the Scotland health ministry reports at a later time than the official HPA report, and for US different states have different reporting time. We can simply tally the above together and give both references to show that these makes up the total number of cases happened. Once the regular official bulletin is made available, we can then replace with the official source.

I will tally up the number in the table again. - Xavier Fung (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

New updates

Please update the table and the information it contains, because since june 14th Great-Brittain has 1 confirmed death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5535075/First-UK-swine-flu-death-confirmed-in-Scotland.html).

One person has now died in the UK from the virus, here:

[14]--86.25.54.17 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Beloruss update

The victim was an ex-pat living in Italy [[15]].--86.25.54.17 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Increase limit?

Maybe we should increase the limit of the number of cases in a country that defines wheather the country is listened in the first table or not. How about 200 or even 500 cases? -- FGö 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently it is 200. If things get worsen will up to 500 for the cutoff. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

The Croatian case has been falsified later, see: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/16/content_11550306.htm | FHessel (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Totals

The totals on this template do not appear to be automatic sums of the individual numbers. Is this the case? Currently the total number of cases is 113 less than the sum of the numbers. This appears to be because the number for Thailand was increased by 113 but not the total.Hullexile (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case. Every time you change a number, you should also change the total (and also 'other' if appropriate). Yet these numbers have to be corrected lateron every once in a while, because not everybody does the change. | FHessel (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

israel

swine flu cases in israel go up to 152 [16] (in hebrew) ATIAS (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

swine flu cases in israel go up to 271 [17] (in hebrew)

ATIAS (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Separation between countries with confirmed deaths and countries without deaths?

At this moment, the table separation seems weird. There are only three countries with over 500 cases and no deaths. I propose a simpler separation between countries with confirmed deaths and countries with no confirmed deaths. Currently, the only difference would be that Thailand, Japan and Spain would be hidden by default, which seems to be a fair trade-off for the simpler table. Pmbarros (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea, that should be good as a discriminator for some time. |→ Spaully ^τ 15:41, 23 June 2009 (GMT)

 Done |→ Spaully ^τ 16:39, 23 June 2009 (GMT)

Australia

3rd reported death [18] - cyclosarin (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Xavier Fung (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How shall we treat the first Australian death? According to recent news [19], the Australian health officials contradict the statement that the man from Western Australia has died of the flu. Allegedly he has had the flu, but "predominant factors leading to his death were his other health issues". Furthermore they say, that no autopsy has been performed. Shall we still count the case or not? FHessel (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest bulletin would answer this :-) - Xavier Fung (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

24 june - 3 more cases. All 5 cases, not 8--Daniel sf (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the source so that we could correct that? - Xavier Fung (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented out disclaimers

Some U.S. authorities have stopped testing all but seriously ill patients,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi]-ap-il-swineflu-illinois,0,3135647.story |title=A look at Illinois swine flu cases |date=2009-05-11 |agency=Associated Press |publisher=Chicago Tribune |accessdate=2009-05-13}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed. |- style="font-size:85%; text-align:left; line-height:1.2" |AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF NATIONS ARE EITHER LABORATORY TESTING FEWER CASES AND/OR REPORTING FEWER OF THEM, THIS NOTE SEEMS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY ^## The Victorian Department of Human Services have decided to only test for swine flu if serious,<ref>{{cite news |url=[http://www.theage.com.au/ http://www.theage.com.au]/national/widespread-testing-of-swine-flu-dropped-as-cases-soar-20090603-bvm0.html |title=Widespread testing of swine flu dropped as cases soar |date=2009-06-04 |agency=The Age |publisher=The Age |accessdate=2009-06-04}}</ref> so many cases may not be confirmed On June 16, 2009, New York City health department estimated 500,000 in the city infected.<ref> {{cite web |url=[http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009 http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009]-06-16_city_reports_another_7_deaths_due_to_swine_flu_another_died_in_long_island.html |title=City reports another 7 deaths due to swine flu; raises total dead to 23 |publisher=New York Daily News |date=2009-06-16 |accessdate=2009-06-17}}</ref> On May 15, 2009, the CDC's Jan Jernigan estimated that there were "probably upwards of maybe 100,000" cases in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t090515.htm |title=CDC Telebriefing on Investigation of Human Cases of H1N1 Flu May 15, 2009 |date=2009-05-15 |publisher=U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |accessdate=2009-05-21}}</ref> <div id="template-underestimate-note">^† On May 29, 2009, Dr. Gregory Poland, director of Mayo Clinic's Vaccine Research Group, said that these numbers are probably a "gross underestimate," because many countries don't test and those that do miss many people with the virus.<ref>{{cite web |url=[http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/120752]/ |title=Vaccine research expert discusses the swine flu in Grand Forks |date=2009-05-29 |publisher=Grand Forks Herald |accessdate=2009-05-30}}</ref>

---

Cleaned up the "disclaimer" section at the bottom of the table. All of this was commented out so have removed it to here in case it is needed in the future. |→ Spaully ^τ 19:17, 26 June 2009 (GMT)

NEW UPDATE REQUESTS PLEASE TYPE HERE

NEW UPDATE REQUESTS:

There are still no cases in Croatia. Someone has been repeatedly listing Croatia, without a shred of evidence. ECDC does not report it. Please read the discussion page! Croatia should not be listed yet! Remove it!

Please update the table and the info, because since june 18 2009, there are 8 cases confirmed in Morocco: http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/box2/eight_cases_of_a_h1n/view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.202.37 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Egypt reports 40th A/H1N1 case Xinhua

Cyprus confirms three A/H1N1 flu cases in British tourists Xinhua

77.182.156.27 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tunisia reports first cases of H1N1 flu Reuters 77.182.156.27 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

spain +15 http://es.noticias.yahoo.com/5/20090622/tes-un-total-de-15-nuevos-casos-confirma-c5455be.html 77.182.156.27 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru - Swine Flu - 225 Cases 77.182.156.27 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Second UK death reported (unconfirmed) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8122910.stm --GroundhogUK (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Colombia has now 101 comfirmed cases http://www.eltiempo.com/vidadehoy/salud/nuevagripa/confirman-8-nuevos-casos-de-gripa-a-h1n1-ya-son-101-los-afectados-en-colombia-_5573121-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeafcr (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

World wide updates!

World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others [[20]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [[21]] / [[22]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [[23]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)--86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Scots update

A SCOTS BLOKE HASD JUST DEID IN PAISLEY!!!--86.25.12.235 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Croatia update 1

Croatia is flu free [[24]]!--86.25.4.169 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, yes it has [[25]]! --86.25.0.22 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See this to- [[26]]--86.25.1.16 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia source

Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [27]! --86.25.5.79 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia/Mongolia update

Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [28]/ [29]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated.

--86.25.5.79 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sudan update

Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [30]/[31]/[32]/[33]--86.25.5.79 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Welsh update

13 Taffys now have swine flue[34].--86.25.12.173 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish update

A Scots bloke has now died of it [35]! --86.25.12.235 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

China update

China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage.http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The UK

A Geordie is ill [[36]] / [[37]] and a Londoner dies [[38]]. A help line and advice [[39]] / [[40]] / [[41]] / [[42]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia

A Aborigine guy is dead now [[43]]! --86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada

The Inuit are riddled with it [[44]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhutan and Tonga

Bhutan is still flu free [[45]] and Tonga prepares for the worst [[46]]--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) !

Croatia update 3

Croatia has now got it [[47]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sudan updae 2

Sudan has 3 cases now [[48]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Palau

Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [[49]] / [[50]]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

Palestine has 30 victims [Bank Gaza Strip]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Israel has 577 victims [[51]]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles

Aruba has 3 cases [[52]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [[53]]. Martinique has 2 victims [[54]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The source for the current count for this country includes 5 in Aruba, Aruba is also listed, with 13 cases. if NLA which includes Aruba is listed, is it right to have Aruba too? (the source for NLA (WHO)refers to NLA (with 20 cases) including Aruba (5 cases), the source for Aruba (ECDC) has NLA (with 16 cases) excluding Aruba (with 13 cases). PAHO has the best info atm. Also, Martinique is not part of NLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.227.49 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Iraq

Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [[55]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia

Bosnia has 1 case [and Hezegovina]. --86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

PNG

PNG has 1 infected person [New Guinea]. --86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has 18 ill [Rico]! --86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Islands

The US virgin Is has 1 case [Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [Virgin Islands]! [Islands] The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

French Polynesia

The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [Polynesia]!

Panama

Panama has 417 infected people [[56]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Guatemala

245 Guatemalans are ill [[57]] and 2 are dead [[58]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The USA

California has 1985 [[59]] victims and 21 dead [[60]]! Iowa has 92 sick [[61]] , but luckily no [[62]] dead!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Syria

Syria has just announced the first confirmed case in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.219.101 (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No Swine flu in Croatia, not yet, not yesterday

I love this page of yours (and many others). Congratulations! Once, you put one confirmed Croatian case, and removed it. No such flu case in Croatia yet, not confirmed. This time, it's been there for a day or two... No Croatian TV reported it, and it's not even mentioned in your ECDC reference (#2). Keep your information accurate. Congratulations again! Julian (julian@thenetthing.com) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.20 (talk)

Croatia is flu free [[63]]!--86.25.4.169 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes it has [[64]]! - --86.25.0.22 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) See this to- [[65]]--86.25.1.16 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Oh yes it has" is no argument, and the sources listed by you are highly unreliable. As of June 27, there are no cases in Croatia, and the reference on the page does not mention it. I can explain why your source is wrong, I can also tell you that an infected person passed through Croatia, or that one survivor of the flu came to Croatia from Chile, but it's all irrelevant. What's relevant is that somebody put Croatia on the list, twice, giving the false reference. Julian (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) The CBC is usually a reliable source. 70.83.220.148 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, CBC is reliable, so is ECBC, but they never mentioned Croatia, and somebody referenced them as source even if they weren't. Hence, that was a case of deliberate misinformation. Julian (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Croatia has now got it [[66]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

World updates

Ethiopia source

Read this, it's gripping stuff!- [67]! - --86.25.5.79 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia/Mongolia update

Swine and bird flu are not in Mongolia, but some more cases of both are reported in Inner Mongolia [68]/ [69]. They are apparently not connected and the local chickens are now being inoculated. --86.25.5.79 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand update

Another case in NZ [[70]]! - No Maoris have fallen ill or died so far- only Anglos and Polynesians appear to get it! -86.25.0.22 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.8.152 (talk) Chime?!--86.25.8.152 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I haven't seen genetic differences being discussed when it comes to getting the flu, but the idea came to my mind when I was watching the map few days ago. Julian (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian update

1 person may have it [71]! --86.25.15.120 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the former Yugoslavia, only Kosovo and Croatia (?) have 0 cases so far--86.25.15.120 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

UK updates

Welsh update

13 Taffys now have swine flue[72].--86.25.12.173 (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish update

A Scots bloke has now died of it [73]! - --86.25.12.235 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham, UK update

A Brummie is now dead of it [74]--86.25.8.152 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A girl is dead [75]--86.25.4.217 (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The same one as above. The UK has had 3 deaths to date. |→ Spaully ^τ 09:20, 1 July 2009 (GMT)

Deaths are all inaccurate and unsourced

For one thing 18,000 people haven't died of this flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.11.3 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) -

Everything in this article is cited by reliable sources. Just because it isn't taking over your city/area does not mean it isn't widespread in other countries. hmwithτ 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, Euronews and CNN are trustworthy sources!--86.25.5.68 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC) -

Where did you get 18,000 deaths? There are only 434 reported deaths according to the article at this moment in time. I can only assume that was a mistake which has since been altered -- m0tive (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

World update

World reaction including Gabon banning pork imports amongst others - [[76]]. Mexico is lifting restrictions as the USA fall ill on mass [[77]] / - [[78]]! The USA and China fall ill on mass [[79]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand first 3 deaths

Three die in New Zealand. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/04/2616871.htm Lachy123 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC). The fourth occurred today, if someone wants to add it. ^rossnixon 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The UK

A Geordie is ill [[80]] / [[81]] and a Londoner dies - [[82]]. A help line and advice - [[83]] / [[84]] / - [[85]] / [[86]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia

A Aborigine guy is dead now [[87]]! - --86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada

The Inuit are riddled with it [[88]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhutan

Bhutan is still flu free [[89]]--86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tonga

Tonga prepares for the worst [[90]]--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - !

Sudan update

Neither flu is in Sudan, but it's on guard agaist swine flu coming in via the airports or over the Ethiopian border! [91]/[92]/[93]/[94]--86.25.5.79 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Sudan has 3 cases now [[95]]!--86.25.10.98 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Palau

Palau strikes back after getting it’s 1st victim [[96]] / [[97]]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

Palestine has 30 victims [Bank Gaza Strip]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Israel has 577 victims [[98]]!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles

Aruba has 3 cases [[99]]. Sint Maarten has 7 infected citizens [Maarten]. Curaçao has 8 cases [[100]]. Martinique has 2 victims [[101]]. The territories have total of 20 victims as a whole.--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Iraq

Our friends in Iraq have 11 cases of swine flu [[102]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia

Bosnia has 1 case [and Hezegovina]. - --86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

PNG

PNG has 1 infected person [New Guinea]. - --86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has 18 ill [Rico]! --86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Islands

The US virgin Is has 1 case [Islands] and the British Virgin islands 2 sick as well [Virgin Islands]! The total for the islands as a whole stands at only 3.--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

French Polynesia

The remote and distant French colony of French Polynesia has 2 cases [Polynesia]!

Panama

Panama has 417 infected people [[103]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Guatemala

245 Guatemalans are ill [[104]] and 2 are dead [[105]].--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The USA

California has 1985 [[106]] victims and 21 dead [[107]]! Iowa has 92 sick [[108]] , but luckily no [[109]] dead!--86.25.6.92 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

China update

China's death is not caused by swine flu but by electricity[leakage.http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20090703/aa51216k.htm] Sampsonkwan (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Niue

NZ and the tine atoll of Niue are screening people that fly between the 2 nations on the once weekly flight [[110]]. - --86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Great web site

Here is my awesome new source [[111]]!!! --86.25.6.92 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Soloman Is update

The were no cases [[112]]!--86.25.6.93 (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 2009_flu_pandemic_table from 2009_flu_pandemic

Please notice, that there is a discussion about deleting the table from the main page. | FHessel (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanzania!!!

There are just over 2,000 confirmed cases acording to the BBC [113]!!!--86.25.12.86 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The graphic, shown in the ref is full of errors. As far as I can see, the number belongs to Thailand instead of Tanzania (at least sounding somewhat similiarly, doesn't it?) | FHessel (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. [114].--86.25.8.20 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

UK will no longer report cases daily

According to the latest press release [115], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.

I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UK will no longer report cases daily

According to the latest press release [116], health authority of UK will no longer report daily cases because of the change in policy of testing cases. Only a portion of the cases would be tested, so even if they report the numbers, there would be an underestimation of the real cases found.

I would suggest relying the figures from ECDC (which updates daily) and WHO (I think they are having 2-3 bulletins per week) to remedy this. As soon as the cases shoot up, maybe more health authorities stop reporting cases, we have to decide if we need to switch to WHO (and other continental health agencies) or simply drop the case column. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu in U.S

Experts guess there are 1000000 cases in te U.S. Then shouldn't we list 100000 suspected cases for the U.S?Sampsonkwan (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not definitive, I would suggest keeping this information in the main content rather than cluttering the table. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of countries are not reporting cases or are only testing severe patients. I'm pretty sure the U.S has more cases than the ones reported. I'm pretty sure that Australia's cases are more than the ones reported. With Canada,U.K and so on are also not testing all ill patients. In the future, more and more countries will test all patients. We must change are strategies in counting. So we could use estamates of the number of U.S cases. We could say it's a estimate by using brackets.Sampsonkwan (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are referring not testing all patients. We could not simply use that rough figure as it is only an estimate and this table shows lab-confirmed cases. If estimate numbers are counted, it would mislead readers. If lab-confirmed cases subside due to the lack of testing, start omitting the figures or simply drop the whole column would be the best solution. I would insist that these estimated figures should be mentioned in the context rather than this table. - Xavier Fung (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

More and more countries are using estamates. We can use brackets like we do for suspected deaths. Now Argentina is using estimates. Sampsonkwan (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina Update

The ministry of Health confirmed the 100.000 cases its on every single newspaper and tv station —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.215.124 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000+ cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.210.16.61 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Should show only LABORATORY CONFIRMED cases for Argentina. Not estimated cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.35.49 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's right, but I think we can put it somewhere in the article, of course not in the table, but like a marginal data, soon to be confirmed, and that because the media coverage of the 100,000 swine Argetinians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.19.65 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 100,000 sick in a nation of 40 million? China only has 2,000 sick in a land of 1.1 billion!--86.25.14.16 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And the United States has 1 million with a population of 300. What is the problem?? --201.255.189.27 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina has only had 26 dead and 1,500 sick [117]! - --86.25.6.241 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC) -

69 deaths not 26. --Vrysxy! (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mutation potential

If someone thinks this is worthy of including: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1145616&pid=6781545&toi=6256 The link is in spanish and mentions that the virus might have suffered a mutation and that's the cause for the sharp rise in deaths in Argentina - (42 in 15 days). This is mentioned in the 4th paragraph: Pero hay un dato que tiene preocupados a los epidemiólogos respecto de la evolución de la gripe A: el virus habría sufrido variaciones o mutaciones en la Argentina y ésa sería la causa de un mayor número de cuadros médicos "entre moderados y graves", que provocaron muertes fulminantes de personas sanas e internaciones prolongadas. "But there's something that makes epidemiologists concerned about the evolution of the flu: the virus would suffered mutations or variations in Argentina, and that's the cause for a greater number of moderate or worse cases, that provoke fulminating deaths in healthy people and prolonged hospitalizations" - and sixth: Las posibles variaciones del virus que se estudian en el Instituto Malbrán comenzaron a notarse en las últimas dos semanas y es uno de los factores más temidos por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). La mutación explicaría que el número de fallecimientos supere al registrado en países vecinos también afectados, como Chile, donde murieron 14 pacientes. "Possible mutations of the virus that are being studied in the Malbrán Institute started being noticed in the last too weeks and is one of the most feared possibilities by the WHO. It would explain the number of deaths being greater than in neighbor contries such as Chile, where 14 people have died" It is just mentioned, there is no confirmation, but I think it's worth noting, and keeping an eye on for future developments. 190.17.193.5 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) -

lanacion.com is a biased paper against the Argentinean Government, not a reliable source.

OK--86.25.11.150 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Argentine government, every newspaper is biased against them :-P So, we can compromise and wait until two medias cover the news. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many news coverage for the potential mutation of the virus, Denmark, then Japan, India and Hong Kong. It's quiet normal for virus to mutate and we hope for the best that it may not mutate to a more virulent form. But as long as this page is for discussion of various figures, it may be more suitable to raise this in the main article to see if it is trustworthy to mention. - Xavier Fung (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Argentinian government just needs a cover up for the fact, that they have been grossly negligent with the pandemic, just not to put their elections at risk. So they woud use every justification, as far-fetched as it may be. | FHessel (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actual impact of the disease

For example, there can be a country with dozens of cases reported a month ago. There may have been people who died of the disease (it's all hypothetical), but nobody is ill there at the moment. The illness could be history there (hopefully). Anyway, we do hope that this flu will be contained eventually (normal people should). It would be good to think how to report that, too (instead of going to report it in thousands of cases). There already are countries with no virulent people (listed as countries with cases). At the time we just report how the disease is spreading (like nobody survived it), but most of the reported cases are no longer ill. They are immune too. In some countries with number of cases listed, nobody died, and nobody has the disease any more. It would be nice to have the information about how many people are actually ill at the time, how this flu is spreading, and dying out. Let's try to be positive, and informative! Julian (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. Αny idea which information we could present and where to get that (preferably for world wide comparison)? | FHessel (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Trust ones like this one- [118]! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.2.113 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BiH doesn't have a confirmed case, but suspect. Please fix a list of countries with confirmed infections and put BiH in list of countries that have got suspected case. Results of detailed analysis will be come tomorrow.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

mh, its not yet official.24.132.171.225 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My preference to reliable source is - Country MoH/Dept of Health bulletins > WHO/ECDC/PAHO etc > media reports, but of course the timing of report would also be taken into account. In chaotic cases like that of Argentina now, I would look into more media reports before moving with any changes. - Xavier Fung (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

right order

People should move countries once they update the number of cases, as it is now the numbers are not sorted in the right way.--Avala (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing numbers are easy but not for sorting. We may need to do the sorting and calculation by our own. - Xavier Fung (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Reminder

It is noticed that the changelog for the recent changes include offensive languages from our IP users. It is understandable that the condition in Argentina now is somehow chaotic, and there are conflicting reports which may not show the same figures as of the official bulletin released a few days ago. Please stay cool and do not get emotional when you think that the figures are not correct. Always discuss first and make a compromise before going with your change. If you know more in the Argentina matter, please provide as many sources as possible so that we can get the figures changed. - Xavier Fung (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

South Pacific!

A US sailor has fallen ill and possibly even died [[119]] on a aid trip from US Samoa to Tonga, Kiribati and the Marshal Islands! The Yank either got it of a sick native or did the Seppo really bring it to the territory and cause Samoa's out break? --86.25.12.184 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Romania

51 ill [120]. --86.25.11.252 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Moldova

10 ill [121]--86.25.4.192 (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

severe / hospitalized / ICU cases

Shouldn't we list the number of severe cases as well. That would be good.Sampsonkwan (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this idea. It would be good to have hospitalized and/or ICU patients, since more and more countries/provinces are changing their reporting strategies. Confirmed cases will become less and less available (which is understandable taking into regard the sheer number and the costs of a lab confirmation > 150 Euros). Maybe we should start early to collect the information on hospitalized patients. It gives a good picture of the further development of the pandemic in different countries. If we do so, we should think about a differentiation between cumulative number and number of patients hospitalized at this moment | FHessel (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hospitalized/ICU patient information would be quite difficult to find as reports are quite sketchy. I tend to keep things simple as of now unless major countries switch to report hospitalized/ICU cases as "confirmed" cases. We also cannot judge whether a case is severe or not, and it appears that no government bulletins report severe cases as separate entities. Most of them would only have "confirmed" and "death". We cannot do original research so I would not agree with Sampson's proposal. - Xavier Fung (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of countries are only reporting severe cases. Plus, some countries are reporting the number of hospitalized cases(for example:Canada) We could at least list the number of severe cases for countries that report them.Sampsonkwan (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The information is so sparse and countries will use different methods of counting them that the numbers would not be useful for comparison. They have a place in the text about the nations that report them, but would be of minimal use in the table and would severely clutter it. |→ Spaully ^τ 09:12, 2 July 2009 (GMT)

I certainly don't think the imformation is "sparse" Now Australia are reporting severe cases.Sampsonkwan (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen specific reports on hospitalization figures for certain US states and was going to include then in specific sub-sections of the US article, but I had some sort of computer program, and do not think I ever actually did such. One would have to watch to see if the reports are of cumulative hospitalizations or just current. Also, another question to ask before incorporating this data, especially in any sort of chart, is this: is the data reflecting the number of cases that were so severe the person had to be sent to the hospital or does it also include people who went to the hospital due to over-anxiety about the disease or the fact that you are guaranteed treatment or some other factor and did not really need to do so. Also, if a country has its hospitals overwhelmed due to a high amount of flu cases, will this mean that the rules for hospitalization will change. No figure is perfectly comparable, but before we put it in a chart we need to make sure there is at least semblance of uniformity in what the figure is, and at least know what the figures we are reporting actually are.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Argentina update

Argentina will no longer update their reports (it is said they only do that at the beginning to know what they are treating). Latest estimations given by authorities put infections at around 10,000 only in the Capital Federal district, with 44 confirmed deaths and 55 waiting confirmation (it is not clear if that means 11 on top of the 44 confirmed or another 55 deaths, I am guessing it is the former). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I read one of the news article yesterday and it seems they no longer reports daily. The numbers would rely on media reports from now. - Xavier Fung (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no reason to correct the number from 45 down to 44. Juan Manzur is in complete chaos, as you can see from the news of the last days. And they are missing the case from Formosa, as you can also see, when you study those news, where details are provided. We are not the press agency of Argentinian government and when we have better information, we are going to present that. The 45 cases had all been substantiated with News references. I am going to restore this status. | FHessel (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

La Nacion put the estimation by Manzur at 100,000. As for the deaths, WP:SYN forbids us to compile multiple references and do analysis of them (for example, a = b, b = c then a = c cannot be implied unless we have a reference that says a = c). However, I will let the other editors determine if we should accept the referenced 44 or the assumed 45, don't want to start an edit war. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As it is an "estimated" figure and table is shown with lab-confirmed cases, I would revert Argentina to the latest official figure to avoid misconceptions. - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the 83 we've got today is another example of what NOT to do ( WP:SYN Clarin states 72, but misses this, this and this), though I would trust the figure myself.201.252.88.102 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the table says confirmed cases, and we have a notice on the article that this is a current pandemic with rapid change, people will accept that in cases where deaths have gone above some level (10 or 50 are the two cut offs I would assume) the numbers may start lagging behind what has actually occured. Stick with clearly indicated numbers even if that means we ignore some suspected deaths or report a nation-wide figure that is a few days old because all regional figures have not been correlated. Further details can be put in the Argentina article, where all the complexed factors of why the reported figures may be lower than the actual figures can be discussed.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN does not necessarily forbid to add up numbers, only if it is not agreed between the authors that it is correct to do so. In this case I originally added a footnote to caution about the 72. I thought the case to be borderline, because it takes some deduction, to be able to add up the numbers regarding Buenos Aires province. Sombody else took the footnote, supplied some more additional cases and put all together in the table. I agree, that this number does not confirm with wikipedia policies.
Coming back to an adequate statement I would not necessarily reduce it to the 72. We have another case in the US, where the authorities have not given a summation for a long time, CDC is lagging behind up to a week (or even more) and the only way to provide sensible information is to add up ourselves. Mind you, exponential growth means, that lagging a few days may cause a 100% discrepancy between the numbers.
In the Argentinian case I propose, that it is ok to summarize case subtotals from different provinces, which we have got from different sources. Boldly I change it that way. | FHessel (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if the aggregation of cases can be done directly in the Argentina case table, similar to the US and Canada ones, and we can point the reference to the Argentina table for details. - Xavier Fung (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this. It gives much more possibilities to explain the circumstances. But the Argentina page needs a lot of work to be done (updates, sensible order of topics, aggregation of abounding information of questionable quality, ...). That means, that, unless somebody else will do it, it will take a couple of days, before I will have time for that. In the meantime I try to keep the Argentinian cases on the main page well referenced. | FHessel (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First cases of tamiflu resistance

Is it worth mentioning in the article? So far, it has only been reported in a patient in Denmark. It looks like tamiflu is still effective everywhere else, but this new resistant strain could propagate. Excerpt: «Roche Holding AG confirmed a patient with H1N1 influenza in Denmark showed resistance to the antiviral drug. David Reddy, company executive, said it was not unexpected given that common seasonal flu could do the same. [[122]] I think it is well worth mentioning!It is a single isolated case that already mentioned in the "Timeline" article. If it is worth mentioning in the Timeline article, then maybe it should be mentioned here. Reoprts are also saying about the resistance of tamiflu in Argentina, but it seems that it also happening in Denmark, here is the article saying that the virus has gained some resistance to Tamiflu and elderly people are getting infected as much as young people too. Is in Spanish, sorry [123]. --86.25.11.150 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now happening to a guy in Hong Kong.--86.25.12.184 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Singapore also not reporting cases, so as WHO

According to the latest press release [124] from Singapore MoH, it would no longer produce daily case numbers as WHO informed each country not to report, and claimed that it is no longer useful for management of the disease. Furthermore, it says WHO will stop compiling the case table.

In view of this I think we should start a discussion on how this table to be maintained. Would it be reduced to death cases only? Or we can mark those countries not reporting and add a note to tell readers? - Xavier Fung (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case we should start to collect the data on hospitalisations / ICU asap. As it looks now, this could replace the case count in countries, where the pandemic has become endemic. Is there a way to create a column, which will temporarily not be displayed on the main page in order to collect these data until we have covered a majority of countries? FHessel (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hospitalizations are not always reported per country, and how could we judge how it would become a majority? It's become very complicated indeed per the situation now. - Xavier Fung (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Union

I think should unite China, Hong Kong and Macau.189.51.33.219 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They are reported as separate territories under WHO. 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.208.69 (talk)

Guam and Peuto Rico to the USA and Gernsey, Jersey and Mann to the UK.--86.25.12.113 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if they are reported as seperate countries by WHO? Hong Kong and Macau is part of China! Taiwan should be included too. These places are not even countries and we are only reporting countries! Sampsonkwan (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO reporting guideline published

Finally WHO has published the revised guideline. I think it is a must read for anybody, who wants to develop ideas about the future of this table.
WHO is describing three phases of pandemic evolution and the related reporting necessities: 1) early detection, 2) assessment of early cases, 3) continous monitoring.
Countries being in the first and second phase ("as long as it is feasible for them") are required to report case counts on a weekly basis. Countries in the third phase should at least report on influenza activity. That means reporting the following qualitative aspects with given values (compare Annex 4):

• Geographical spread: no activity / localized / regional / widespread
  
• Trend: increasing / unchanged / decreasing
  
• Intensity: low / moderate / high / very high
  
• Impact: low / moderate / severe
  

Furthermore countries are expected to report on deaths (p. 6)
Countries with established influenza surveillance systems should report on a weekly basis data on ILI and/or SARI
What does this mean for us? I think, we should keep up the death count in any case, it will be reported by WHO also in the future. Secondly the confirmed cases will be reported for countries in the first or second phase. Therefore it makes sense to display these numbers also in the future (for these countries the number of confirmed cases still gives a good picture of the current status). Countries in the third phase (e.g UK or Argentina) will not report confirmed cases any more, so we should stop as well to display these misleading numbers. But we should extend the table by one or more columns, in order to display the qualitative aspects (which? all of them?).
Unfortunately hospitalizations will not be available standardly in the furture. So my recent ideas about a table with hospitalization numbers seem to be doomed.
FHessel (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume, that the majority/most(?) of the countries in the upper table is already in phase 3. But, in contrast, Mexico is still reporting case counts with a date of illness onset for each case! | FHessel (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

UK figure

What's going on here? We shouldn't be mixing estimates with flu surveilance figures. The justification for this table not being original research (as discussed above) depends on it being a (slightly advanced) version of the ECDC numbers and not just a collection of arbitrary numbers using differing methodology. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourced I have cited use the term "are" not "estimated". So I would believe these to be right. :S Thenthornthing (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see such usage in this source. Indeed it says: "HPA estimates that there were 55,000 new cases of swine flu last week (range 30,000 - 85,000)". Note its usage of 'new' as well. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimates have no place at the top of the entry. With a fast-changing current event, we should avoid soft data. If these matters are becoming confused, it is time to remove cases of infection from the table, and use it for the more reliable data set, fatalities.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced by today's updated UK figures, this table IS growing increasingly irrelevant and misleading. One of the four 'Key Points' in today's UK HPA update states "HPA estimates that there were 55,000 new cases of swine flu last week (range 30,000 - 85,000)." Those aren't wild-eyed speculative numbers; those are the scientifically-accurate numbers as gathered from GPs throughout the UK. Simply posting that there were somewhere around 1,000 or so laboratory-confirmed cases presents a thoroughly misleading picture. As has been stated before, many nations are still performing laboratory tests on each possible case, and reporting those numbers. But an increasing number of nations are *not* testing every case, and are instead reporting nothing--such as the Philippines--or they're reporting only laboratory-tested cases--such as Japan--or they're only releasing estimates based on statistical modeling and/or direct reports from regional health authorities, as the UK has started doing. The bottom line is, by every scientific measurement, between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000 people have been infected with A/H1N1 to-date; this table's conjecture that there are only 127,000+ is grossly wrong. I suggest adding columns to show the full picture, or deleting the table in its entirety.Sqlman (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The table is indeed very misleading. But including some estimated numbers in it and not others is much more misleading. We need a source for a table of estimated numbers if we want to provide estimated numbers in a table format. Furthermore the table title is "Laboratory-confirmed human cases by country" so placing estimated numbers in it is inaccurate without a footnote. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we need to reference official and credible sources for any given estimates. But those estimates are available, and increasingly so as nations adopt the WHO advice to stop counting individual cases. Without them, this table is, as I said, increasingly misleading and inaccurate.Sqlman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the desire to communicate estimations of infection numbers, which differ a lot from the numbers we have in the table.
This table is not the right place for these numbers for several reasons:
1. It states in its header: Confirmed cases. Estimations are not confirmed but estimated.
2. The table shows a cumulative number, wheras e.g. the 60,000 for the UK is last week's increase.
3. When we start to fill in estimates for some countries we will be comparing apples with oranges, because the other countries, which are still reporting cases, might in fact have a much higher number of infections, too.
What about creating a new table solely for estimates? It should contain one column for the number and one column for the date of the estimate. If you want, you can copy and modify a draft table, which I have on my talk page. | FHessel (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuuing to update this table violates WP:OR

Some time ago now I submitted this table for deletion as original research. The collation of data from many different countries and their presentation in a table requires a methodology. The argument given in favour of keeping the table was essentially that the WHO was collating these figures (hence it was the WHO that produced the methodology) and that our collation was essentially just a step ahead of the WHO figures. Hence the argument was that because the WHO chose this methodology it didn't constitute original research. Now, however the WHO has abandoned this methodology stating that it is becoming increasingly misleading as the pandemic proceeds and that traditional flu surveilance techniques should be used instead. I accept the earlier argument that this *was* not original research (although I still think the manner of our presentation of the data was misleading and POV). However, the argument (that it was not OR) is no longer valid as the WHO is no longer using this methodology. Collation of these figures now violates WP:OR.

One might argue that simply putting this data into a table is not a methodology (and hence not OR). But this is not the case. Presenting numbers from several data collection methods in the same table represents the methodological assumption that these data collection methods are comparable. Furthermore updating the table over time represents the methodological assumption that the data collection methods are comparable at different points in time.

Both of these are major and dubious assumptions in view of regional and temporal differences not only in the data collection protocols but also in the ability to conform to those protocols. To decide on the validity of these assumptions is a significant piece of original research.

Of course a research organisation might take the view that an imperfect methodology is justified for some particular purpose (flu surveilance rather than estimation for example) or in the absence of a better methodology. That is not for us at Wikipedia to decide, however. The WHO is in a better position to decide that and they have decided not to continue with their earlier methodology.

One might also take the view that this table should be included for public information/health reasons even if it does violate WP:OR. However, inaccurate or misleading data are often worse than no data. Public health authorities should make this call not wikipedia.

So I argue that we must find other ways to present this data that do not violate WP:OR or cease presenting the data at all. Perhaps there is some alternative source of data which we could use. Or perhaps we should present the information in a textual format (where comparisons between data are not implicit).

One option would be to freeze the data as of the last WHO report (and to make the time of this report part of its header). Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

References are provided from where the data comes from. I don't see any original research. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above it is the manner in which these various sources using differing methodologies are presented in the same table that will make this original research. Each figure could be presented separately without violating WP:OR. Presenting them together in a table format implies that the figures on differing rows can be meaningfully compared. Wikipedia is essentially saying that these comparisons are meaningful without any reference to an external source. And furthermore this is a highly dubious claim. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

True, the WHO have stopped to report. But the ECDC has not, they are reporting daily (last report July, 15 17:00 CEST). And they are presenting the data exactly in this table format. So, when you are looking for a reference for the methodology (putting these data together in a table format), here it is. | FHessel (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. In the event that the ECDC stops reporting numbers I shall raise the matter again. Barnaby dawson (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is absurd. We're adding up how many people have died. That's not methodology, that's not research, that's simply consolidation. We're not using statistical analysis to project fatalities, we're not canvassing for data -- we're simply taking the public sources, which vary for each region, and adding up how many they say have died. Taking pieces of information from multiple sources and combining them in one place not only isn't original research, it is PRECISELY what Wikipedia is and does. That's the definition of a good Wikipedia page. A bunch of different facts about a given subject, gathered from the most reliable sources on the Web, properly attributed, and thereby made authoritatively available to the end user. Barnaby, I don't understand why you keep using the "original research" argument when your other posts show that, clearly, your real objection to the table is that some end users have pointed to those numbers as "proof" that the pandemic is mild and/or less of a threat than normal, seasonal flu. We need to correct those misconceptions by providing *more* information, not less. In particular, I would think that a section talking about the difference between the estimated fatalities that WHO attributes to seasonal flu and the number of actual deaths where the cause of death is given as flu each year would be useful. Removing hard data on pandemic flu fatalities does not fix anything. It simply takes away information I, and others, want as this pandemic progresses. Information which has no agenda, as it can't. Fatalities are facts, not opinion. 68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above this table is not original research because its being published by an external source. However, because the table takes data from many countries with *differing methodologies* that makes it a synthesis (that and the ranking by case number). We cannot perform this synthesis ourselves as it qualifies as original research (see OR synthesis). The reason it isn't original research currently is solely on the basis of this external source performing this synthesis.

A similar table where all the figures were clearly using the same methodology would escape being considered original research even without a source that has compiled the table. But that is manifestly not the case here as some countries are testing very few people, others are testing many, some countries are testing only very ill people etc. Furthermore original research matters most where the stakes are high.

I also think the table is highly misleading and that it should be balanced with an explanation of the problems with flu surveilance figures. This is an opinion you appear to share to some degree. The figures you feel should be in the article are present in the data reporting and accuracy section. There is also a passage in the introduction referring to problems with this sort of data (regarding the WHO ceasing to tabulate these numbers).

The table is potentially misleading in that it implies that countries are having worse fatality rates over time, that some countries have much higher fatality rates (e.g Argentina), that some countries have had no infections/deaths (much of Africa), and in implying that the disease hasn't spread very far. But I don't think the table implies that the disease is milder than it actually is. I certainly hope not :). My personal thoughts regarding the severity of the disease are not relevant anyway.

Also I suspect we will be able to replace this table with other reported measures of the progress of the pandemic once health authorities start publishing this information. So in the event that the ECDC stops publishing this table we should expect to be able to replace it with other less misleading and credibly sourced material (even if there is some gap before it becomes available). Barnaby dawson (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief note -- clearly, I'm talking about the confirmed deaths portion of the table, which is at this point the only real purpose of the table. With any semblance of comprehensive testing abandoned by most countries, the number of laboratory confirmed cases is no longer a "current" data set. There's really no reason to keep the confirmed case count in such a prominent location now. The fatality figures are an entirely different matter.68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this table being dropped from all the articles it was used in?

That would be disappointing, because we've put a lot of work into it. It doesn't seem to be in the main H1N1 article (or anywhere else?) anymore. ike9898 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It's a bit like health and safety regulations this place. You can't do f*ck all without someone removing or complaining. Thenthornthing (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing indeed, it's vital information and a total lack of respect for the people that did a lot to keep it updated so far! Cahethel (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The table is (for me) the most important piece of information in the article. The fatality figures need to be at the top of the pandemic flu article, and the infection figures should be placed somewhere that's easy to get to, even if they aren't reliable enough now to get top billing. An expandable box would seem to make sense, along the lines of how the expandable charts are handled. As an aside, I very much appreciate the work that has been done on keeping the table updated. I check the numbers multiple times a day, and find watching the fatalities spread, in particular, as an essential piece of information. I'm sure a lot of work went into it. 68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Has there been discussion in the main article over dropping this table? If not, maybe some user did it on a whim and we can just reinsert it without a fight. (Also, I too check this table a couple times a day; it is a useful way to follow the spread worldwide). ike9898 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted again, unilateral actions like this one aren't vandalism? 189.71.5.165 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there was talk of deleting it I believe but no consensus was made. Someone on their high horse deleting it obviously. Thenthornthing (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Someone on their high horse". Hmmm.....I wonder who that was. Let's see, who has been consistently on these pages repeatedly calling for the deletion of the table for some time now? Who's been on a weeks-long one-man crusade to rid the world of the evil posed by our Original Research that actually consists of nothing more than simple addition? Who's already made large unilateral changes to this page without consulting others, then used borderline offensive language while threatening to invoke various Wikipedia rules to prevent anyone from undoing those changes? Who could this be?! Well, my mind's drawing a blank... :-\ Sqlman (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this comment is not civil. I assume you are referring to WAS 4.250. He is not alone in having significant issues with the table. I also have significant problems with it. Many others that do not want to move it or delete it do still recognize that it is problematic. WAS may have been uncivil in the past and he may have broken some rules. However, this is not reason to be uncivil. Barnaby dawson (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people like to be obvious... Cahethel (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there any way to denounce it? It's becoming more annoying than helpful. Cahethel (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Its very simple. If the person seeks to delete the table without any concensus, you report the person for vandalism. Here are the instructions for reporting people for vandalism in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Vandalism. If the person continues to delete or erase the table, you can report that person for edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Then you wait for that person to get suspended for a few days. Roman888 (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree the table presents an inaccuracy?

1. Some countries stop reporting, such as Mexico.
2. Some countries do more testing than others.

Feel free to add to the above list.

The inaccuracy is that we lead people to believe you can compare the different country totals. We even sort by numbers that have different meaning to make the comparison easier. If you agree that the table presents an inaccuracy(s), then how do we correct this? Options include:

1. Have a header that comparison between different countries isn't valid for above reason. Don't sort by number of confirmed cases.
2. Stop reporting the most inaccurate data
3. Remove totals
4. Split into separate table into deaths, hospitilizations, and confirmed cases. This makes it easier to customize disclaimers for each known inaccuracy

My preference is the last option. What do you think?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that focusing on the death toll is far better than having no table at all, and that the confirmed cases table could be kept on the page (on a different place, though), along with individual "stopped counting on (date)" remarks. See, people come to wikipedia looking for informations, and among these are the numbers. Cahethel (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the death toll should be split from the confirmed cases table. Altering the location of the table in articles referring to it might allow the table to be put into a proper context.

Regarding the four points above the header idea violates WP:No disclaimers. Many people (not myself) want this data around and there is still a source for it (the ECDC) so it can't be removed on OR grounds or on notability grounds and you're unlikely to get people to agree to just removing it. The totals are trivial calculations not involving any OR and people want the data present so you're unlikely to get people to agree to removing them. So really the fourth option is the really practical suggestion here in my opinion. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the numbers can be meaningfully compared is supported implicitely by the fact that the ECDC publishes them (although they do give some cautionary notes). Many people here disagree with this, however the right way to deal with that (given the ECDC is the source of these invitations to comparison) is to find credible sources which criticise this approach and to include accounts of these criticisms in the article. If the ECDC changes its mind and stops publishing this data the situation changes (as discussed above). Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well instead of calling it a disclaimer, then call it a guide for interpretation. This type of guide or disclaimer is not what wp:disclaimer is talking about, so that doesn't apply. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A guide for interpretation is original research unless it comes from an external source. What makes more sense is to have a quote for an external source included in the table (which is neither a disclaimer not a guide for interpretation). We had one for a while but then it got deleted to reduce clutter. We might try reintroducing one. Barnaby dawson (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The table for confirmed cases is also important, one day all countries will HAVE to stop counting cases person by person but, even so, I think that it's data with significant historical value. If it simply vanished, we'd be losing historical data on an event that will be remembered from now on: the first pandemic on the 21st Century. Cahethel (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(This is only an addendum to what I said before). Cahethel (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a little edit war going on. I'm in favor of separate tables for deaths and confirmed cases. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed confirmed cases column, as per consensus reached in main article discussion page

Consensus was reached in the discussion page of the main article on 18 July 2009 Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Pandemic_table_compromise among all contributors there, that the confirmed cases figures need to be removed, and the death figures retained. I have done so. Please don't revert my edits without reaching consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be retained. At the moment there is 100% consensus that the confirmed cases figures should be removed, so you need to reverse that consensus before reverting my edits please. 81.102.157.87 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be polite here: that's BS. There were several comments, but only a very few were in favor of deleting anything. And don't try to claim some high ground; if you unilaterally delete something, prepare to have your work messed with. That's one of the tenets of wikipedia, of course. Too, why not sign in?Sqlman (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IF YOU LIKE A ONLY DEATH TABLE THAN MAKE YOUR OWN TABLE AND DONT DELETE OUR WORK. Any consens about this table must be make here and not on the discussion board of others articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.190.111 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Make a new table and link the main article to the new table. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The information is meaningless, worse, it is misleading. WHO has deemed it so. If you read Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Pandemic_table_compromise, the points are made by all who wrote there. That is the main article, and your template serves it. We understand that you have spent time collating the "confirmed cases" numbers, but your efforts do not justify the inclusion of the numbers in wikipedia. The consensus is that they should be deleted. They don't belong anywhere on wikipedia, perhaps they did once (that is debatable), but certainly not anymore. It is possible that official estimates of number of cases are meaningful and should be included in the table, but that is a different discussion and not one I want to enter into here. Please don't take it personally, it is not a slight on your information-gathering efforts, it is just that the "confirmed cases" numbers have no place on wikipedia, nor in any decent information resource. Please transfer all discussion of this matter to the main article talk page here. 81.102.157.87 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The consensus is that they should be deleted." I ask again whose consensus? I see a tiny smattering of arguments from the same small group of people suggesting deletion, followed by an ill-informed and unilateral decision to do so. Please stop deleting the table until there is a true consensus. And please don't take it personally, it is not a slight on your table-deleting efforts, it is just that illogically and abruptly removing a valuable refernce has no part in a community project such as wikipedia. Sqlman (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the template for 1 day, due to edit warring. I suggest people here start an request for comment on this question. If you need any help setting this up please drop me a note on my talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, before deleting information please put it somewhere else, I understand the position of the removers, though I don´t agree. Why ECDC, or Canadian or Australian authorities go on with their reports, for example. If some data could be misleading then a note should be put: 'cases in different countries are not directly to be compared to each other', etc, or maybe: 'ceased counting as of mmm/dd'. If you continue with this policy the information will be LOST and we don´t want this, do we? This template had originally the cases count column, if you don´t want this in an article, then another template should be created, not mutilate this, it´s common sense I think.Acolombo1 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, the information is still in the template history (see old version). If the RfC below decides not to put this in this template, it can always be moved somewhere else. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh so it's in the history. Then it's fine. Yeah right, it's like deleting 90% of any article and claim how it's OK because hey there is still the article history. But how do you update that?!--Avala (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just great, so many dedicated users spent months on updating something so some IP user would come and click delete. Just great.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no concensus to remove the number of confirmed cases. A number of dedicated users have spent their time and effort to update the number of confirmed cases, and some without a forum ID comes along and deletes the entire column. It should remain as it is until you received an agreement from everyone.Roman888 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Japan's tally of A/H1N1 infections tops 5,000 today. -Ironie ON-To the wikireader's this information must be hide, because we must tread this misleaded users like a children. -Ironie OFF-. This is only an attempt to design the H1N1-Pandemic side "nice". The list of 150 country seems this editors to disturb. Then delete the table from the H1N1 page or make your on table and only link to this table, but dont violate this table. One IP-User delete this table three times and get unedit by three different users. I would like to say, thats violate and without respect. But this IP-guy win for this action a 24h disturbing editfreeze without the confirmed cases. I think we should add somehow the estimates and the hospitalitations too. So its so big, it must be deleted from the main-H1N1-page.93.131.27.246 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

24 hour protection

Would have been better just a protection against anonymous users since the little edit war was happening with this type of user. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reduced the protection level back to what it had been for a long time - semi-protect. I'm not even sure why it gets semi-protect. Page protection is supposed to be used with great restraint. If individual users are can't play by the rules, they should be blocked, without halting every else's encyclopedia work. ike9898 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<After re-examining the log>It looks like the page used to only be move protected due to a consensus decision. So, I left that in place along with a page semi-protect that expires at the time Tim Vickers originally set (ending in a few hours). ike9898 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the 2009 flu pandemic table still exist? And if so, should it include anything other than countries with deaths?

Summary of consensus

People have presented well-reasoned arguments for both keeping and omitting the "confirmed cases" section of the table. The case for keeping them seems to be that the information is useful to our readers and that it has been published, so it is verifiable and we should not make any independent judgment about its accuracy ("Accuracy of the data would not be our concern"). The argument for removing the data seems to be that it has been described as inaccurate and incomplete by reliable sources, so despite it being verifiable, we should not present data that might mislead our readers (we are being "precise but misleading").

The balance of the arguments favors keeping the data. The concerns raised about misleading readers would probably be less of an issue if we can firstly find a way of showing within the table that a particular country has stopped counting cases and secondly add a column of estimated cases. There is clear support for adding such estimates. This would give readers a better idea on if the number of confirmed cases number is anywhere near the true number of cases. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some folks feel that, given WHO's decision to stop counting confirmed cases except in certain countries and/or circumstances, the flu pandemic table should not show anything but confirmed deaths. Others feel listing confirmed cases along with deaths--and perhaps even, eventually, estimated cases per 100,000--has been and will continue to be very helpful to many. Still others feel that the table has become unwieldy, confusing, inconsistent in reported methodologies, and difficult to maintain, and should therefore be done away with entirely. This has led to a recent spate of edit warring and disputed deletions of all or parts of the table. Two questions must be asked: should the 2009 flu pandemic table still exist? And, if so, should it include anything besides countries with deaths? (Thanks, Tim.) Sqlman (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from editors of the table

Keep. The number of confirmed cases should go hand in hand with the number of deaths in the table. Why should we dedicated extra resources by splitting the table just because WHO and some countries have stop counting confirmed cases. We still have many countries that are conducting their own counts of the number of confirmed cases. On top of that we have the European Center of Disease Control that is tabulating the number of cases worldwide. For those who think it is difficult to maintain, leave it to those who want to update the table. For those who question the methods or methodologies, just know that every number that is included has a reference from various newspapers from countries affected and the information from ECDC. Now the person who has protected the page from further editing should revert the table to its original states with both confirmed cases and deaths.Roman888 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Its absolute unacceptable after months of work that this article is freezed for one day without the case counts. Freeze this site with the counts of course. The template is absolutly not missleading, cause it shows the comfirmed cases by country. I dont know but I believe this table was the one with the most edits per day ever. This table holds a lot of information. If anybody says this informations are missleading he is maybe the person who wants to LEAD?!

I stress again this freeze without the case counts is very sad for all the people who worked hard 93.131.162.7 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The numbers are significant, if you feel not, just ingore them. To avoid misleading, notes may be added stating date of reports, or if its current or no longer updated. Acolombo1 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, it's true that WHO has stopped releasing the numbers of confirmed cases. It's also true that different countries are using different methodologies to determine the numbers of H1N1-infected inside their own borders. But until such time as some global convention for relaying case counts or case rates is instituted, it seems to me important to maintain the lists of numbers as gathered. In other words, our numbers are only as inaccurate as a national health authority or press outfit makes them; there's nothing wrong with compiling and reporting those numbers here, so long as Wikipedia's users are made aware of the possibly incomplete data presented.

This table has been, and continues to be, of great value to many around the globe. I personally know of at least one regional news organization that references the table daily as a basis for following the worldwide spread of A/H1N1; I can only imagine this is being repeated elsewhere, and in fact may be happening even more now that WHO is no longer reporting numbers themselves. In other words, though the numbers reflected in the table may not be as exact and complete as we would like, they're certainly more exact and complete than can be found any other place in the world, and based on that alone it should stand. (There also exists anecdotal but unverified evidence that the folks at the ECDC follow the Wikipedia table as one means of staying atop the global situation; as the ECDC doesn't have agents stationed around the world, they out of necessity need to gather data from everywhere, and this table may very well be helping them do just that.)

Many/most of the people who have worked on this table have done so diligently and with the intention of presenting to the users of Wikipedia the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date picture they can. While such diligence alone is not cause for keeping any Wikipedia item, it can't and shouldn't be discounted, either.

Some complain what we're doing is original research. I'd like to put that to bed once and for all: doing simple addition is not OR. It never has been, and never will be.

(I have said often here that at some point we're going to have to make allowances for estimates. Some have balked, but I think that's because they confuse scientific estimates with haphazard guesses. I'm not talking about news outlets throwing darts at a board or pulling numbers from a hat; I'm talking about regional and national health authorities using sophisticated sampling techniques and complex computer modeling to get as clear a picture as possible as to how the disease is affecting any particular country. As such, those estimates will make up a greater and greater part of the data we see, and--in lieu of actual confirmed numbers--will need to be reflected in the tab. For instance, if the UK Health Protection Agency says they estimate 165,000 cases [or whatever], that number should be presented here alongside the numbers of actual confirmed.) Sqlman (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep with case counts. The information is both accurate and relevant. Of course the counts aren't 100% accurate - the only way to do that would be to test every person on the planet - but they are accurate to what our sources say, and the caveats are explained in the table's footnotes. If editors feel they caveats are not accurately explained, that can be fixed simply by making them better. To exclude very good information on the basis that it is not perfect is just nuts in my mind. If this standard was applied wiki-wide we'd have no content left in a hurry. I wouldn't object to a split, but I don't think one is necessary and it would make updating it more time consuming for no real benefit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the case counts were removed unilaterally by an editor claiming consensus where none existed. The long standing consensus is that the cases counts are valid and the information should not be removed without a clear consensus that such a change is beneficial.

Finally, I would like to point out that the "involved/not involved" differentiation is highly arbitrary here, and nothing should be read into it. Most of the "uninvolved" editors have been directly involved with swine flu article for some time, but put themselves in the uninvolved category. Myself, I have made no updates to the table in quite some time but put myself in involved since I have been involved with the swine flu articles for some time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think classifying editors with the label make things better. I propose merging the two groups together to avoid stirring up things. - Xavier Fung (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As long as the case counts are referenced, by no means they can be removed. Accuracy of the data would not be our concern as we are merely stating the figures from the references, and we have already stated the caveats in the footnote of the table. I would be fine if only death cases are shown, but the removal of the case counts need more thoughts and discussion. Moreover, the discussion is made in the main article and we cannot assume that all guys here have the radar to read all talk pages involved. - Xavier Fung (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It is sad how misplaced ideology can remove and freeze important information in a time that it is needed most. --Dion Liddell 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The ECDC is merely the same as WHO in its reporting of the cases. Just because one gives up on counting shouldn't mean that we all give up. A point is [or, was, now that it has been removed (again)] stated that actual cases may vary significantly. With that said, others will know it has its inaccuracies. The template is also useful in seeing newly confirmed countries with this virus. There is no reasonal 'proof' to disclose the case counts as the ECDC is just as reliable as WHO [and usually updated even faster than WHO]. If the ECDC collapses, then, yes, we should resolve this issue by removing the counts. But until then, we need to keep up with the cases. CaninePitDog (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Just because it doesn't come from WHO directly does not mean that our sources are unreliable. The number of confirmed cases should be kept. I have said numerous times that countries HPA equivalent to the UK are still publishing accurate figures, albeit not anywhere as high as the estimated ones, but it still gives the table something to go on and that is what makes it reliable. Thenthornthing (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Even when the number of confirmed cases becomes meaningless in a couple of countries, where the illness is widespread, it still has a significant meaning in all the other countries, where the illness is at the beginning. So, the right way is not to throw the column out, but to replace or supplement the case counts in those countries, where a qualitative measure from influenza surveillance systems becomes available. Messing around with the whole column shows a clear misunderstanding of the characteristics of the pandemic. Countries will evolute through several phases and for some of these phases the case counts are the only means for estimation. Does anyone have the right to say, oh well, the Americas are very far in this evolution and now we take away the case counts for everybody? I hold that doing so is a clear violation of NPOV.

FHessel (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

Remove. While I think tables are important when they're accurate, this one has now been effectively and officially demoted by WHO. The most recent counts didn't even include China, Japan, Russia or India, so is already very misleading, and gives some governments the ability to manipulate published counts to fit their internal policies. Worth considering are articles like the following:

"Swine Flu Migrates to China and Japan";

"Russia's top doctor dismissed the swine flu pandemic as a real threat and said most patients could be treated at home.";

"29 new cases of swine flu push India's tally to 371"

Personally, I love charts and graphs, and even created the one in the "Historical context" section. But someone needs to explain why four of the world's largest countries are apparently opting out. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove Although it doesn't really hurt to keep it and keep updating it, I feel we are no longer going to have reliable estimates of numbers given that diagnosis is now speculation based on circumstances. If they aren't confirming cases anymore, then any number you hear about in news sources are unreliable, unverifiable and pointless to add. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Split into separate tables. Will be less confusing. Also see my comments under section Do_you_agree_the_table_presents_an_inaccuracy? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Omit infections and suspected deaths, but keep confirmed deaths. Now that WHO has stopped reporting, it's too difficult for us to keep balance, and avoid original research. I assume this is actually the main reason that WHO has stopped reporting them - countries that are doing more testing are reporting higher incidences than those doing less reporting - that's about all you can get from those figures. Most countries will be testing for H1N1 when people die with flu-like symptoms, so it's reasonable to assume those figures are more accurate. I wouldn't object to having the infection counts in a separate table, but I don't see any value. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 04:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove. Thiscurrent BBC report is an example of how the table is now misleading. It states official government sources as estimating more than 100,000 cases in the UK, and deaths have been recalcuated at 26 - a significant deviation from the 31 listed in the table. I agree with others that perhaps a different table showing estimated rates per 100,000 would be useful, if sources of estimates can be agreed. --Savlonn (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Split. Countries are giving up testing all cases, but deaths are still being tested effectively. However, the number of confirmed cases, even if increasingly innacurate because of this, is historical data, and may be useful as to see how fast the A/H1N1 spread. Cahethel (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Omit confirmed cases. The editors who want to keep the confirmed cases seem to refuse to acknowledge the difficulties in interpreting the data, prefering to have figures that are precise but misleading, rather than estimates that are more informative. The table would have been improved if the confirmed entry in the table was replaced by "many" (with a footnote explaining the situation) when a country announced that it had ceased testing every suspected case. But now I think effort should go into improving 2009 flu pandemic table where there is more room to explain these complications. JonH (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep at least confirmed deaths (my preference would be to keep all confirmed cases). We need some numerical measure of the spread, and confirmed cases are the best we can all agree on, although an "estimates" column would be ok too. 99of9 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But did you not read that many governments are no longer confirming cases? How can you update the number of confirmed cases if there are no more confirmed cases. Even if some countries continue to confirm cases, it's going to make the table inaccurate because the numbers per country will be off. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep! The comfirmed cases bar is very important! I also agree with the "estimates" column. I would feel very sad if the cases bar is deleted!Sampsonkwan (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep This table is still of use even if the data is questionable. It is the best data set around at the moment. Insert a column for estimates. 202.40.210.130 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reshaping the table for the inclusion of hospitalized patients

WHO is not reporting updates on cases any more. So how do we handle this?
I propose, that we create new columns as follows:
For countries, which are still in containment strategy and which are providing case counts, we should keep up recording this case counts, maybe including the date of the last update.
For countries, which are in mitigation strategy, and which are not reporting case counts any more, we should provide a column for hospitalizations, maybe also another column for ICU cases.
What do we do with countries, which are providing neither case counts nor hospitalization counts?
In any case we should keep up the death counts, because these should remain meaningful for the (near?) future.
Is there a way to create columns, which will temporarily not be shown on the main page, so that we can collect the contents, until we have a sufficient coverage?
FHessel (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we retire the table as it's value is diminished by reporting lag. I propose it should be replaced by a status table, with some non numerical status indicating the progress ( as reported ) for each country. Perhaps a banding or % of population infected / innoculated ? Note I personally found it very useful but now it is in danger of being misleading as the reporting Lag increases.

I don't see how we maintain neutrality by creating a brand-new metric which isn't standardized or being widely reported. How is it an improvement to go from, say, confirmed fatalities to a percentage of population infected when *nobody* knows how many people are truly infected? 68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure of WP policy on a 'mash-up' of numbers from the country entries. I would expect country entries will continue to be updated by wikipedians therefore linking there will allow the reader to delve into the local details.

IMHO of course Seanwong (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As a quick stopgap, can we add a datestamp to each country's info (Yes I know that another column adds 'clutter'), so that one can quickly see how stale each report is? Even a casual visitor would realize that one country's date of, say, June 18, makes a datum less meaningful than another's of July 14. (Oops, I just noticed that FHessel already meantioned the date inclusion!)Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an alternative; Why not eliminate confirmed infections as it has grown so unreliable due to variance in testing rates, and instead have two columns for death. One for total number of deaths, one for deaths within the past seven days. This shows where the greatest number of deaths have occurred, while also showing where current "hotspots" are. 68.111.62.56 (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created a draft table on my talk page. Perhaps you would like to have a look? As far as I am convinced, the difficulty is, that we will not have identical data for all countries any more. So we have to provide several options in terms of which are the data we display. And some countries will publish these data, other countries other data. But perhaps this is a chance? This could give a much more differentiated picture as to where the single country is on its epidemic path. And I do hope, that in the variety of data there will be many factors to make countries comparable. |FHessel (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My take is to add the datestamp column and tell our contributors to update the datestamp. However, most of the references would have its date of report but apparently many contributors failed to update that piece of information, so there would be some redundancy here. - Xavier Fung (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What about estimated cases. that would help reflect the real situation.Sampsonkwan (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@FHessel: Your proposed table is a step in the right direction, but I think that it is too wide! Some of this data could be eliminated. The referring column can be easily handled by a footnote in the country column, like the current table on the main page. The ICU columns, although interesting, may be too specific for the main page. IMHO, this table needs to be trimmed in width and complexity. BTW, the 'international' standard for dates is YYYY.MM.DD Tinfoil666 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! i'd certainlly support this although the width is probably a bit too long. Also, i don't think hospitalized cases should be reported. As for some countries, all cases are hospitilized. For example, China. We could also include "current nomber of H1n1 cases" in the table. Sampsonkwan (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Already we have guys come and delete the number of confirmed cases and left the death column alone. I disagree with this action as firstly we have individual governments conducting their own testing on A(H1N1) and the European Centre for Disease Control is also tabulating the number of official cases even for countries that have stop doing official counts such as Mexico. There have already been hundreds of contributions to the table over the last few weeks and this flu is of a historical item. We shouldn't use flimsy arguments like WHO has stopped official counting of cases, etc. Roman888 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What about having two tables. The first on as a simple table (the one we're using now) and the second as the more detailed table. The detailed table can be at the bottom of the page while the simple one can remain at the top.Sampsonkwan (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New column for qualitative indicators

WHO had published recently a guidance document for the reporting of qualitative indicators. Now PAHO has published a first overview according to these standards. It is pretty sure, that others (e.g. ECDC, perhaps WHO itself) will follow. Therefore I included a new column in the table, named 'Indicators'.
The header and the footnotes still need to be adapted. Plus some more countries added, I just took the first couple of countries as example.
FHessel (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks mostly good. Now, will the other WHO regions--that is, in addition to PAHO--be providing/updating info via the same schema? Also, an increasing number of areas are providing case rates per a standard number of population (usually 100,000); these numbers can be directly translated into 'estimated' case counts for each country that provides such case rates. How do you envision this valuable piece of data being included here? Sqlman (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? So you just add a new column without no consensus whatsoever, or talk here before hand!I don't have a clue what it is about and I'm sure others do not, looks like you're confusing it more! Thenthornthing (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy please :-) I'd think this column is best for the countries within PAHO rather than all over the world. Most of the entries are empty now and I don't think it's useful for countries outside PAHO. Moreover, estimates can be done by adding brackets just like what we have done before, but we will no longer add up the numbers. Ideas? - Xavier Fung (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

<- @Thenthornthing: It was 12 days ago, that I put a 'literature recommendation' on Talk:2009 flu pandemic. Everybody had the chance to get acquainted to the contents, which will be reported by the most affected countries in the future. Then I just acted boldly. Yes, most of the entries are empty at the moment, because I did not have the time to fill in more, but: the rest of them will be filled very soon, PAHO has published many more and ECDC also has published data for the European countries.
But I think the most important point is: now there is a supplement to those case numbers, which have been challenged most in the recent past. Now we can embrace the numbers in a bigger picture, so that they are not misleading anymore. And if countries do not report cases any longer it would be best to freeze the last reported number and add 'NLU' similiarly to the US.
These qualitative data will be the only data we will get regularly for all over the world. Estimations are nice, but they are made for this country or that country once in a while, nothing to compile a table from.
And, just to make the point: This new column is not replacing the case counts, because the case counts are still valid and important for all countries, which are in the early phase. Removing the column would clearly bias the POV towards the most affected countries and is thus violating NPOV. | FHessel (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"These qualitative data will be the only data we will get regularly for all over the world. Estimations are nice, but they are made for this country or that country once in a while, nothing to compile a table from." I have to disagree with you there. First, it won't be the only data we will get regularly; WHO is pushing for its member states to track the rise (and fall) of H1N1 through standard methodologies--that is, methodologies used for regular seasonal flu. Such methodologies consist of releasing case rates per 100,000 population; even though this has become a pandemic, nations still need to track what's going on within their borders, and they will. Second--and I've said this here so many times--estimates of case rates in this context shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. In epidemiology, an "estimate" isn't the same thing as a "guess"; confusing the two belies a lack of understanding of the process. Estimates are simply a way of managing and standardizing science-based numbers that are growing too quickly to be advertised as precise. At best, they're substantially more accurate than the obviously arbitrary three-tier S/T/I/I column that's been implemented here; they will definitely need to be included sooner rather than later. Sqlman (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As the "casual reader" who checks this table once in a while to look at cases/deaths, I think the new column adds more clutter and confuses people. Heck, I don't understand what it's for. It'd be more helpful if you used words instead of symbols, since scrolling down to see what symbols mean is dang annoying. 85.96.36.221 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. It is VERY confusing, I do however still not see it's use. Thenthornthing (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this extremmely confusing!Sampsonkwan (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the 2nd (or latest the 3rd) time you are looking at it, you will not have to look up symbols any more, it is quite self-explaining. I tried it out with full words, but the entries have become much too long. Making it a 2-line entry was much less readable.

Becoming slowly acquainted with the new information myself, I find it increasingly helpful, e.g. while reading an article on any country, I have a quick look, looking: How many deaths? What does the Spread-Trend say? Another example is, that I start thinking about the position of countries on our list, taking into regard the different indicators. This information will become much more worthy during the coming weeks, the countries have to get used to these kinds of reports themselves and the reports surely will become more complete.[125]

Explanations of the indicators can be found in the WHO ref (in the footnote) or alternatively, there is a good explanation here. On top of that I am thinking of explaining the indicators in the text. Would that be helpful? FHessel (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't go for the trend, but I see why you have it. However, I think that it should be somewhere else, NOT in this table. Thenthornthing (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The indicators column has been replaced by an unsourced estimated cases column, is this vandalism or what?Acolombo1 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what happened, but the indicators column should remain until we get a consensus on an estimates column. Right now the estimates column is not properly sourced or reference, so it should be removed until further notice. Roman888 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimates column

First I support the addition of this column if enough real estimate are available (which is debatable). However, it can't be unsourced like it is now. It looks like it was added by a single editor who probably made up most of the numbers. Numbers that aren't sourced soon we be eliminated. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore the estimates should be from a single credible source otherwise the synthesis is OR. I'm all for addition if a single such source exists but not if the estimates are from many different sources. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I will support it if these estimates are properly referenced and sourced. Otherwise its all conjecture and fortune-telling. Otherwise we should get rid of that column and stick with the laboratory confirmed cases and deaths.Roman888 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that any estimates column needs to be sourced and credible. I disagree, however, that they need to be from "a single credible source". As the pandemic progresses, nations will implement different and possibly non-standard methods of reporting the spread of the flu within their respective borders--case rates per 100,000; attack rate/ratio; percentages of overall population; actual confirmed numbers. At such a time it would not be a violation of OR to report any such numbers reported by national health departments/ministries any more than it is to report each nation's numbers from various credible sources the way we're doing now. (As an aside, why was the statistics column deleted without comment?) Sqlman (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a single credible source for the other columns. They are both sourced from the ECDC. 91.125.25.54 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The ECDC has neither the mandate nor the resources to maintain accurate case counts for countries outside of its venue. It's good that we're able to use their published numbers now, but probably shortsighted to believe they alone will be providing accuracy to any degree in the future as the pandemic widens. Sqlman (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, the ECDC has the resources (probably more than WHO has), but that is not the question. Regarding the mandate, their mandate is to protect the health of European citizens. On the other hand WHO has not stopped reporting numbers, only they are doing it now via the WHO regional offices. Obviously they are issuing press statements, too, see bottom of this article. But the main question for us should be, what do we do with the confirmed cases. For quite a few countries they are essentialy meaningful, because they show the spread of the disease during an early phase (and they are still being reported by the WHO regional offices). But for other countries they definitly (have?) become meaningless. Perhaps we could use brackets around these numbers, where countries have declared to give up extensive testing? FHessel (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)