Talk:Influenza A virus subtype H1N1

swine vs avian

Why has swine flu been given prominance in this article, when your own https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Avian_influenza page tells us that Influenza A is predominantly avian, with H1N1 in particular being related to ducks? That's not the impression given by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.43.107 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information in 2009 A(H1N1( Pandemic

President Obama declared a national health emergency on April 26, 2009 NOT October 25, 2009. It should be noted that the first vaccine in the US was administered on October 5, 2009. It's in the timeline on the CDC website. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-pandemic-timeline.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnmans (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of date for "2020 G4 EA H1N1"

Since the virus was first discovered in 2011 by China, after which time it has been monitored by the WHO and scientists in the UK, I'm unclear about the relevance of adding the date 2020 to the section. While most or all of the other sections refer to actual outbreaks of flu viruses which started during a given year, this one has not been described as an "outbreak." So why the year? --Light show (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The date was explained by the word you deleted,[1] and I restored;[2] there is no outbreak, no case reported, and the only reason the section exists is because of media hype around one primary source publication. If something else develops, the section heading can be changed accordingly. The publication hype IS the “Notable incident”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that the cited material by the CDC is essentially irrelevant and was based on falling for hype and scaremongering? After all, some might think that an $11 Billion organization with 11,000 medical employees making such an error would be unusual.

So has any reliable source implied that the PNAS was that insignificant, meaning that general and medical news articles reporting its results were essentially just engaging in scaremongering? If so, then nearly all of the sources, including the primary peer-reviewed report, the WHO, and the researcher noted, were also engaging in the hype, since they all felt it was "potentially dangerous" and should be closely watched. --Light show (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of the word "publication"

Only a single mention of the primary source report (publication) is in this 400-word section. The section and topic is about the G4 virus, not about the report. Therefore including the word "publication" in the title is not appropriate and should be removed as it serves no purpose.--Light show (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

EVERY source is responding to the media hype surrounding the paper’s publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As asked earlier, do you have any RS to support what appears to be only your (and maybe some others') personal opinion? And even if you did, this entire section is about a "dangerous" virus, not a publication. --Light show (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

SG, is an RfC necessary? --Light show (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am refraining from repeating the same arguments as in the last discussion, where you also proposed an RFC, and the consensus was overwhelmingly not in your favor. It does not appear that you accept that monitoring of emerging virus strains is common; that the CDC did its job; that the excess publicity was COVID-related; or that coverage was all hype or rebuttals to the hype. I suggest an RFC would yield the same conclusion as the merge discussion, and given that the hype and pageviews have now died down, it is hard to understand the concern over what amounts to one word. I am becoming concerned about cherrypicking of sources to continue the hype, relative to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS. @Graham Beards:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I too am a bit concerned, since you have ignored requests to support with RSs your opinion that the thousands of articles about this virus with pandemic potential are due to "hype" and "fear-mongering." --Light show (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The only thing notable about this strain of influenza virus is the publication and subsequent media hype.Graham Beards (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than post a npov tag on the section, SG, as the word "publication" may be misleading, can we just remove it? There is no source which supports the opinions above or in previous discussions that media attention to this new virus is based on scare-mongering and media hype due to a "publication."--Light show (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with you placing an NPOV tag, because you have introduced that a-plenty! Notice how unbalanced the summary of the source you added today is;[3] yep, that is POV. I wonder why this continues to be such a concern ... even the article you incompletely summarized explains how it is not. The media hype is already stated in the text and in the sources. No need to ping me on an article I watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be simpler if you just provided sources which support your opinion.--Light show (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible confusion in data

A paragraph in the G4 virus section may have confusing information:

According to the study, between 2016 and 2018, 338 swine production workers in China were tested for antibodies of the virus, and 35 (10.4%) had tested positive. Of those workers between the ages of 18 and 35, 20.5% had tested positive.[65][70] Among another 230 people screened who did not work in the swine industry, 10 (4.4%) tested positive for antibodies, indicating prior infection.[64][65] Three cases of infection caused by the G4 virus had been documented as of July 2020, with no confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission.[64]

I'm not sure if any of the editors to this article are experts, but my understanding from the sources given, along with other more general sources, is that the two ways a person will have antibodies to an infection are from "prior infection," as stated by the sources, or from a vaccine. However, the paragraph states that only 3 cases have been documented. Might some be confused by first reading that at least 10% of tested workers in the massive swine industry (with 500 million pigs) likely had a prior infection, but only 3 cases were ever documented? --Light show (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Most infections were asymptomatic. Such infections still invoke the production of antibody. Graham Beards (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Promotional material

After a long history of undue material being added to hype one publication in this article, now promotional material related to one company about a completely common and routine vaccination protocol is being added.[4] This looks like COI. Please review WP:COI, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply remove the name of the vaccine company if that's the only problem. As for COI, I had a flu shot, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, taking a hostile and offensive attitude, along with removing well-cited material, is without support, based on RS guidelines. Please acknowledge that you likewise have no COI, considering the previous edit conflicts. If any of the sources are against the guidelines, please explain. As for the sources deleted, the following are from their websites:

• BioSpace.com is the most comprehensive Life Science industry news and information source. All of the latest breaking news is posted daily, keeping followers and investors up to date on the latest in the biotech, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.
• Medscape is the leading online global destination for physicians and healthcare professionals worldwide, offering the latest medical news and expert perspectives; essential point-of-care drug and disease information; and relevant professional education and CME.
• Dr. Leonard Mermel is a professor of medicine at Brown University and director of the Department of Epidemiology and Infection Control. So why such haste to delete his statement, "We've got to get a universal flu vaccine before this virus, which is locked and loaded and ready to go, spreads from Chinese pig farmers to other parts of Eurasia and other parts of the world." --Light show (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

To avoid repeating the pages you might read above, please gain consensus before adding further UNDUE content and promotional press material to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest an RfC since your rationales don't reflect the topics or sources. --Light show (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)