Talk:Global spread of H5N1

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 29, 2015, December 29, 2017, and December 29, 2018.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have to take issue with the title, which I feel is just reinforcing the sensationalistic nature of the issue - while individual cases still make headlines, there is no "global spread" of a disease. Perhaps "Global cases of H5N1" ? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus of this article is the "Geographical spread of H5N1", so maybe that would be a good title? Awolf002 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty global to me, spreading over most of asia, now into africa⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttering is also 'global', but we don't talk about the "Global spread of stuttering". H5N1 makes the news for single isolated cases which often aren't able to be traced back to any others, and while they do exist around the world, they're not exactly "global". People who speak Quenya are also all around the world, but again, we'd refer to its geographics, not its "global spread" Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H5N1 makes the news for single isolated cases which often aren't able to be traced back to any others, and while they do exist around the world, they're not exactly "global". is factually in error. WAS 4.250 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to provide evidence that all cases of H5N1 are traced to each other, or that this is a global epidemic, or whatever else. Saying "na-uh, you're wrong" isn't really much of a debate Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the title and opening isn't really NPOV either as per Sherurcij's opening sentence. 85.145.148.191 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is pretty easy to find this evidence, for instance here. So, your comparisons are besides the point, I think. The H5N1 clade is spreading geographically, and that's what this article reports. Awolf002 23:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the evidence necessary exists in the on line sources linked to in the H5N1 article's "Sources" section. The technical section of the "Further reading" section is also quite interesting. Read them, I have. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you (more than the H5N1 article already does). I suggest you begin with the on line book "The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready?" which was written by some of the best experts in the world and funded by the National Academy of Sciences. WAS 4.250 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was there infection in the uk? 129.31.72.190 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to agree with the above question. There was a case when a bird died in quarantine, but because it was in quarantine Britain still has disease free status. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4366302.stm Hellfire83 13:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing about it, but the image shows the UK as having it. Can we delete the picture? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need is a picture that highlights ONLY the countries named in the paragraph listing outbreak countries (which is almost right next to the image in question). If someone wants to delete the existing inaccurate image I won't revert such a deletion. WAS 4.250 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image for the moment, not just because of the UK issue, but also because it's a bit misleading: having half the map show up as "infected" gives the impression that it is a giant epidemic, while there aren't that many known cases yet. Wouldn't it be better to represent every known infection with a little dot? -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a misconception. H5N1 has low pathogenic varieties endemic in birds in North America. H5N1 has a highly pathogenic variety that is endemic in dozens of species of birds thoughout south asia and is threatening to become endemic in birds in west asia and africa. It is very hard for humans to catch it so few human s have caught it. The presense of highly pathogenic (deadly) H5N1 around the world in both birds in the wild (swans, magpies, ducks, geese, pigeons, etc.) and in chickens and turkeys on farms has been demonstated in millions of cases. The locations on the maps where H5N1 exists does NOT correlate with locations on the map where humans have caught it. Where humans have caught it is a tiny tiny subset of the places it exists. Coloring in whole countries that have had a major outbreak of highly pathogenic H5N1 in birds makes sense. Dots where humans have caught it does not make sense as it doesn't show the spread of H5N1, it only shows where people acted improperly around infected birds. WAS 4.250 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there is a difference between human and bird infections, but I would still say the image was misleading. Clearing up the caption could remedy it a bit (currently: Bird Flu Spread on October 26th, 2005). Many people (including me ;)) would take that as Bird Flu Spread in humans at first glance. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 11:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Avain Flu has now come to England and was detected in some birds on a poultry farm in Suffolk on the 3rd February 2007.

The world map] highlightning countries that was removed from this article, is shown on the H5N1 article still. I agree with several comments made that it is too broad and can cause misconceptions. I have attempted an illustration on the spread in Thailand with this map. Something like this can be constructed for each country perhaps. I am not sure how you would display it on a global basis properly. Mceder 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think something needs to be done with the first sentence of this article. It could be a paragraph; the information is bungled and confusing, the main point peppered with several parenthetical digressions. The information inside the parenthesis is necessary, but the way it is presented now makes the sentence itself loaded and difficult to follow.216.7.248.254 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the map, Iraq has only has poultry cases of H5N1, but according to the chart, Iraq has had one human case. 24.91.9.206 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which country is Iraq on that map? Make sure you're looking at the right country.--Thegriffin 06:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tens of millions of birds have died of H5N1 influenza and hundreds of millions of birds have been slaughtered and disposed of to limit the spread of H5N1. Countries that have reported one or more major H5N1 outbreaks in birds are (in order of first outbreak occurrence): Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey, Romania, Croatia, Ukraine, Cyprus, Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt, India. H5N1 has been found in birds in the wild in numerous other countries such as Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Kuwait, Slovenia. There have been, so far, no outbreaks in any non-bird species."

I am confused as of the basis for the two groups. Maybe to clarify a bit better criteria for countries with "a major outbreak" and the rest?

Major outbreak equal lots (like thousands to hundeds of millions of birds) dead from H5N1 or culling. A dead wild bird here or there is not in the same league. Egypt is in the middle, but since they only have known dead poultry who had to catch it from wild birds, undoubtedly there are many more dead birds in Egypt than the official count. It's a rough attempt to seperate major versus minor. WAS 4.250 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly a clear criteria. A clear criteria might be to list those in which a major cull has occured (okay "major" cull) is still not clear.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"H5N1 in China and Hong Kong in this and later periods is less than fully reported. For example WHO records an H5N1 death in Hong Kong in 2003 but inconsistently. "An outbreak of atypical pneumonia occurred between November 2002 and February 2003 in Guandong province, China. Health authorities in China investigated the outbreak and identified Chlamydia pneumoniae as the causitive agent. The Ministry of Health in Beijing has informed WHO that the outbreak in Guandong is over and that there is no evidence of a link between the outbreak in Guandong and the H5N1 cases in Hong Kong SAR." [7] "

This part regarding the 2002/2003 case in China/Hong Kong is inaccurate. First, the victim was a boy returning to Hong Kong after visiting the Fujian province in mainland China, not the Guangdong province as suggested by the article. The quoted Guangdong cases were more likely referring to Sars, a new virus that was identified a few months later, not H5N1, so there is something mixed up in here. Finally, the claim that the case was not reported is not true either: it was reported by Hong Kong, which is a separate WHO member on her own.

I removed that part for these reason.

Reference http://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_07_04/en/

Influenza A(H5N1) in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China – Update 2

27 February 2003

Disease Outbreak Reported

As of 27 February no further cases of human influenza A(H5N1) have been reported in Hong Kong SAR (see previous report). To date the current outbreak of influenza A(H5N1) in Hong Kong SAR has been limited to two cases, one of whom has died. Both cases were members of the same family who returned to their home in Hong Kong SAR on 8 February after travelling to Fujian province, China. The mother and children were in mainland China for 14 days; the father for 9 days.

The father of the family (a 33 year old man) developed respiratory symptoms on 7 February whilst in Fujian Province, China. He was admitted to hospital in Hong Kong SAR on 11 February with pneumonia but died on 17 February. Influenza A (H5N1) was isolated from post-mortum specimens on 20 February. The man´s 9 year old son also became unwell whilst in Fujian province. He was admitted to hospital in Hong Kong SAR on 12 February with pneumonia. Influenza A (H5N1) was isolated from two nasopharageal aspirates taken from the boy on 19 February. The boy is in a stable condition. Additional family members have also had respiratory symptoms. The boy’s 8 year old sister died on 4 February whilst the family was in Fujian Province, China. The cause of her death is under investigation. The mother has now recovered from what was thought to have been a parainfluenza infection.

An outbreak of atypical pneumonia occurred between November 2002 and February 2003 in Guandong province, China. Health authorities in China investigated the outbreak and identified Chlamydia pneumoniae as the causitive agent. The Ministry of Health in Beijing has informed WHO that the outbreak in Guandong is over and that there is no evidence of a link between the outbreak in Guandong and the H5N1 cases in Hong Kong SAR.

The Department of Health in Hong Kong SAR has intensified its surveillance for influenza among patients with influenza-like symptoms or atypical pneumonia. No unusual increase in influenza activity has been detected over the past few weeks.

WHO is continuing to work closely with health authorities in Beijing, China and Hong Kong SAR. Reagents for laboratory diagnosis of influenza A(H5N1) have been made available to the Ministry of Health in Beijing, the National Influenza Centres and to other members of the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance Network. [1] WAS 4.250 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==> Is there a better place to discuss this?

==> Anyway, PLEASE READ http://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_07_04/en/, it is quite clear that the Guangdong cases are NOT H5N1 from this report, and the father and son case in Feb 2003 WAS reported. (BTW, The report you quoted was in Feb 2003. At that time the real cause of the Guangdong cases was still unknown).

Hi. You can talk on my talk page User talk:WAS 4.250 or you can talk via e-mail to someone who has listed his email (I haven't). Anything else you want me to read? WAS 4.250 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(content of message on my talk page was:)

Hi,

Should we discuss here instead of messing up the main page?

The WHO July 2003 report I quoted actually included the same events that you quoted in the earlier Feb 2003 report. In summary, it says:

1) From Dec 2002 to Feb 2003. Some "Pneumonia cases" in Guangdong, China (i.e, the "suspicious" reports you quoted, that the Chinese claimed to be "not connected to the father and son H5N1 case in HK" and was "under control"). The Guangdong cases was identified a few months later to be Sars, NOT H5N1 (July Report)

2) The Feb 2003 (father and son) case: a family developed h5n1 in HK after visiting Fujian, China. It was reported to WHO (July Report). FYI: Fujian and Guangdong are different provinces in China

3) The Guandgong pneumonia later spread to HK, then to the rest of the world, which was then known as Sars. - See "July Report".

4) There is no "discrepancy" between the July and the Feb reports. Both described the father and son case as H5N1, PLEASE READ MORE CAREFULLY.

(BTW. I was in HK at that time. As I remember, there was some disagreement between HK and mainland China regarding the source of the Feb 20003 cases. (HK claimed the victim got it in mainland, mainland claimed that they got it after returning to HK.), but it was reported to WHO by HK nevertheless. (unsigned comment by User:Sorgwa)

H5N1 in China and Hong Kong in this and later periods is less than fully reported. Blogs have reported many discrepancies between official China government anouncements concerning H5N1 and what people in China see with their own eyes. Many reports of total H5N1 cases exclude China due to widespread disbelief in China's official numbers.

YOU WROTE>>>

• WHO changes its story on deaths from H5N1 in China:

 WHO records an H5N1 death Hong Kong in 2003 but later omits it. 
 WHO recorded on February 27, 2003 that:  (Skipped)
 A later WHO report says: (Skipped) <<<

MY REPLY==> There is nothing "omitted" from the later July 2003 WHO report. The next sentence following the one you quoted (event on 19 Feb) immediately suggested that the poor boy had H5N1. So you are either not reading carefully or quoting it out of context.

YOU WROTE

• An outbreak of atypical pneumonia occurred between November 2002 and February 2003 in Guandong province, China. Health authorities in China investigated the outbreak and identified Chlamydia pneumoniae as the causitive agent. The SAR."

MY REPLY==>

What you are quoting here referred to a series of pneunonia cases in Guangdong, China betweeen Nov 2002 and Feb 2003. Please read the July 2003 WHO report again. This is a detailed event log about the Sars outbreak in 2003, but happens to mention the father and son h5n1 case in Feb that happens at approximately at the same time as well. The same set of events (that you quoted) were described in chronolical order but in much more detail. If you have read the whole July report , it should be clear that those Guangdong cases between Nov 2002 and Feb 2003 were in fact Sars, not h5n1. (See the events between between 16 Nov 2002 and 14 Feb 2003 in July report for detail).

Some background knowledge may help here. First: Sars was a type of atypical pneumonia. And before the name Sars was officially coined in April 2003, it was simply known as a "atypical pneumonia outbreak". The same term atypical pneumonia was used in the July report (e.g, the very first event logged on the "July report": the 16 November 2002 event).

Some local politcal knowledge may help: Hong Kong is still maintaining its own WHO membership even after it returns to China. So the cases in Hong Kong and China are counted and reported separately. From the July report, it was clear that the father and son case WAS reported to WHO, and there is nothing "omitted" from the July report (see event on Feb 19 2003 in the "July report") as you try to suggest.

Some local geography knowledge may also help. The father and son got the H5N1 after travelling to the Fujian province of China. And the "atypical pneumonia " you quoted was in Guangdong. Guangdong and Fujian are two different provinces (like two different states in the US). Check any world atlas for reference!

So, ironically, the Chinese claim at that time that "The Guangdong cases are not h5n1 and are not connected to the father and son case" was, in fact, correct. (although it wasn't much better either: Sars later turned out to be just as bad).

(I am sorry that I ended up editing your original format a little bit. I tried to quote it directly at first but to to no success. My apology)

Please identify why this was deleted. All it does is quote reputable sources to provide evidence for the preceding paragraph. Do you think the source is not reputable? do you think the quotes are inaccurate? Do you think the quotes are irrelevant to the preceding paragraph? WAS 4.250 19:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clicky

Be bold. If you have a bit of news backed up with evidence, feel free to edit the page. :) Info added. -Peter 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length of this article is of little consequence at the moment (as it is covering a current event), but we will want to make up some plans on how we will be able to shorten up the article in the future. Making the article usable to people will have to come in the future, and planning about it now will make the transition later much easier. Thoughts? Obviously, this should not draw away from the more immediate concern of gathering the information. -Peter 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is possible to make plans for the future of an article with contents whose importance can only be determined in hindsight. Imagine a future where there is no avian flu pandemic - a lot of the detail here will be summarized and the article will simply be the global spread of H5N1 through the bird population and our poultry farming industry article will take up where this article leaves off. Imagine instead that H5N1 spreads throughout the world in migratory birds for the next six months, then in Africa it mutates into a pandemic virus while changing its H protein becoming H7N1. H5N1 continues killing migratory birds, the poultry industry is forever changed by the constant threat from wild birds, and our H7N1 article splits into a dozen articles covering all aspects of the ongoing H7N1 pandemic. Make plans? Impossible. Let's just keep up. WAS 4.250 03:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Predicting a disease is possible, for sure. As long as everyone realizes that editing WILL be necessary in the future, I think that it can be left at that. -Peter 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph is cluttered, I suggest either adding a section with the list, or creating a page entitles List of countries with H5N1. Zreeon 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The list goes with the map which is great eye-candy for a first impression for the article.
2. The list didn't start out clutered; it just wound up that way as H5N1 spread across the globe.
3. As it continues to spread, the whole world be be colored in; game over; map and list can go away, while we wait for the human to human mutation. WAS 4.250 00:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but do you really want to see a list of 243 countries? I realise that the list didn't start out cluttered, but that is why I am suggesting this change. Zreeon 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figure once it reaches at least one country in north and one country in south america, it is global and the list is of historic interest only; so it stops getting top billing;and the list of countries with wild birds only (no major outbreaks or humans dead) gets deleted altogether. What do you think? WAS 4.250 00:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what you're saying is once it spreads to North and South America then it's global? There's still Australia and most of Africa as well that haven't been affected. Perhaps it would be better to make a new article with a list of all the countries which have been affected by the H5N1 virus? -- Sarz 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that was my point. Currently, the article is getting too cluttered in that paragraph to be of any real use. Zreeon 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was updated to include Fife. The map should be updated, too. Keep watching Scotland: two swans have died in a park in Glasgow, possibly from "a virus".

I have a lot of trouble understanding why people are using mortality rates of 1-5% in their projections, when the actual human mortality rates have been in the neighborhood of 50% and higher. If half of us get sick, and half of those die, we lose a quarter of the world's population... Is there a reason why the projected total mortality is so much lower? Is there any basis for expecting that the human mortality rate will drop by 1-2 orders of magnitude in a pandemic? Waitak 05:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows what the mortality rate will be if H5N1 becomes a new strain that can pass easily from human to human. Studies are on going and money is being spent as fast as can usefully be done. Scaring people won't help any. Scientists are scared but hopeful. The powerful are concerned with chaos and loss of control more than loss of life. Get yourself a week to a year's worth of water, food, and medicine if you want to be prepared (and hope it doesn't come to that). Scientists as we speak are creating vaccines that might help make a pandemic strain of H5N1 less deadly. Scientists as we speak are creating pandemic strains so they have something to do research on and create vaccines against. 12 months from now the first batches of pandemic vaccines are expected to be ready in quantities that might help. Right now there are small batches of experimental H5N1 vaccines undergoing human clinical trials. WAS 4.250 16:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of that - creating panic is not helpful to anyone - but it seems to me that we ought to at least be considering how to prepare for a disaster of this magnitude. A simple, blind assertion that the mortality will be 1-5% does much less to reassure people than would a reasoned argument about why authorities expect the mortality to drop so dramatically. Or am I still missing something? Waitak 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your atention to what I said:

• Money is being spent as fast as can usefully be done.
• The powerful are concerned with chaos and loss of control more than loss of life.
• Get yourself a week to a year's worth of water, food, and medicine if you want to be prepared (and hope it doesn't come to that). WAS 4.250 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I draw your attention to H5N1 impact which says: we remain unsure about Tamiflu's real effectiveness. [...] we cannot by any means count on a potential vaccine [...] local response will be more important than national or international response, as every community will have its own resources swamped dealing with its own problems. [...] Self help groups have organized [...] local groups will not be able to rely on the armed forces, widespread infection could occur in days not months, an effective vaccine can not be counted on, and the huge death toll could swamp mortuaries WAS 4.250

Lastly, I draw your attention to Influenza pandemic. Read it. All of it. Twice. WAS 4.250 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you made me do it. I added:

The most extreme maximum has come from perhaps the most nenowned virus expert, Robert Webster, who believes H5N1 has the capacity to mutate into a form that could kill a third of the human population

reference -[2] In 2003 world nenowned virologist Robert Webster published The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population in American Scientist. WAS 4.250 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the above. Truly not trying to take an extreme point of view here, and I have looked at all of the links you pointed me (us) to. Would you mind taking a look at the graphic, below, and offering an opinion? Waitak 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:H5N1SpreadChart.png

I've just made this image with a chart of cases reflecting the WHO data. I'm hesitant to include it in such a public page without running it past the people who are maintaining it. Please feel free to include it if you think it's appropriate. Waitak 08:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting graph. Two comments -- first, make the dates bigger (maybe only show quarterly dates, that is, 1/2004, 4/2004, etc..). Second, the graph shows cumulative cases, which, while interesting, doesn't really tell us much, 'cause the graph is expected to go up over time. What would be more interesting and useful is a graph showing new cases vs time. Much easier that way to see whether the spread is slow & constant, or if it's accelerating. Dschuetz 12:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback (and sorry for the dealing in responding to it). I'll have another look at the dates - good call. I'll leave the chart as cumulative, though. For me, the interesting thing about it is being able to see the first and second derivatives easily - something that's not possible with a chart showing just cases. I want to be able to see if the rate of spreading is increasing, as well as just the number of cases. It's much easier, with such a chart, to make an educated guess about how long it'll be before, say, we reach 200 fatalities (I'd give it 5-6 months, based on the chart). Thanks again for the comments. Waitak 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need an opinion. I've done another version of the case spread graph, with exponential regression added. It makes quite a compelling story, in my opinion, but it is a little more cluttered. Which one does the community prefer? The one that's there now, or the one below?

Waitak 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the right of the table of contents I see "Cumulate Human Cases of and Deaths from H5N1 As of May 5, 2006 Source WHO Confirmed Human Cases of H5N1". I see no graph at all. WAS 4.250 14:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem. The nice folks at #wikipedia-bootcamp suggested refreshing my browser cache with Ctrl-Shift-R, which worked for me. YMMV, as always... Just wondering... are you ever on IRC in any of the obvious places? Waitak 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-Shift-R just now worked for me too. I knew about it, but I never needed it before on Wikipedia.

No, I'm only available at en.wikipedia.org. No mail, no irc. A retired Newark, New Jersey anon with a username.

The regression line equation needs to be available in a footnote so it can be verified if a line based on it is to go in the article. WAS 4.250 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H5N1 Human Mortality is now available, if you think it's worth adding to Global spread of H5N1. Looks like this:

Waitak 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it at Transmission and infection of H5N1. It really oughta be moved to the right. And the section it is in (that was just edited) re-edited. Any volunteers? WAS 4.250 04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is right aligned in the actual template. I inlined it here so it wouldn't mess up the talk page format. What's the relationship between Transmission and infection of H5N1 and Global spread of H5N1? Waitak 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on the articles in the H5N1 and Flu templates. WAS 4.250 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much of a difference is there between this and sars? is there a way to see it on microscope? - unsigned

there is a very very big difference between this and sars. yes, there is a way to see it on microscope. WAS 4.250 12:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I don't know much about either virus but I would assume both are too small to see under an optical microscope, as with most viruses. Obviously they can be visualised under an electron microscope but I would assume unsigned is thinking of an optical microscope Nil Einne 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Talk:Reporting disease cases

On the Michigan government's website there is a mention of a low pathogenic variety found in some swans. You can reach it here. Should I post it? JBogdan 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See H5N1 for data on LPAI H5N1. LPAI H5N1 is not new and is not relevant to the spread of the strain of HPAI H5N1 that this article is concerned with. Avian flu is endemic in water birds all over the Earth and has been for probably as long as birds have existed. WAS 4.250 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am not sure if this is relevant news, but Mexico decided to ban poultry from Michigan anyways: you can reach it here

Its pretty standard to block imports for any tested-for disease. WAS 4.250 13:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been brought up previously. But not fully discussed.

If this article is only about highly pathogenic H5N1 it should say so in the title. (Otherwise low pathogenic cases are perfectly valid for inclusion, albeit possibly in a special section)

"Global" is a misleading term. The spread has not yet gone "global" as in "worldwide", which is probably the most common usage. The word appears to be using the term "global" to mean "across the globe". There are other uses of the term, eg. "holistic", . A clear term to use would be "geographic" (as suggested above) which would explain what this article is about.

"Spread" is an appropriate word to use. It's epidemiologically relevant.

This leads to my preferred pedantic "let's-be-clear-what-we-are-talking-about" title:

• Geographic spread of highly pathogenic H5N1

or less preferred:

• Geographic spread of H5N1

Discuss--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spread" is being used here in present tense; meaning that this article is documenting a current spread as it happens and the current spread threatens to go fully global; but as of now is spread from Indonesia to Nigeria, Russia to Egypt/Sudan. No one knows what it will do in the future. This article is not even about all highly pathogenic H5N1; but is about the current spread of a particular strain of H5N1 that has been called "Genotype Z" and "Asian-linage H5N1". Note that there are daughter articles detailing spread in specific years. Geographic spread of Asian-linage Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 in 2006 might wind up being one of the daughter articles' names. Does not seem optimum. But I am done fighting at Wikipedia. If people insist on fighting, I'll just do something else. At the last place you got into a revert war with me you insisted on a version that claimed H5N1 was a subtype of a disease. You know better than that. Further disambig pages do not contain things that are the same; they contain article links for articles that the reader might be looking for. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know how "spread" is being used. Someone above was disputing it. But it certainly is the appropriate term to use.

My concerns are avoiding predictive guesses about the future (no clairvoyants allowed) and trying to avoid articles that claim to be on-the-ball wire services (no journalism pls thx k bai).--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat flu simptoms most commonly include-

• Indigestion,
• Loss of apititite
• A high tempture,
• Depression,
• A runny nose,
• Some eye disorders, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Coghing and
• Sneezing [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--86.25.53.147 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement below is untrue: "As of the July 25, 2008 FAO Avian Influenza Disease Emergency Situation Update, H5N1 pathogenicity is continuing to gradually rise in wild birds in endemic areas but the avian influenza disease situation in farmed birds is being held in check by vaccination."

The update does not mention wild birds specifically, but instead says that: "HPAI H5N1 pathogenicity (including clades 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 circulating in the Red River basin and presumably imported from China, as well as the clade 1 virus that has prevailed in the Mekong delta since early 2004) seems to be rising gradually."

Note that the report mentions that no new cases of HPAI H5N1 had been found in wild birds by the time of the report, i.e in any case it would have been impossible to determine how the pathogenicity is developing in wild birds.Uad473 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts are convinced it is endemic in wild birds due to a lot of evidence; while other experts believe that if the strain can be wiped out in farmed birds, then it will extinguish itself (burn out) in wild birds. Apparently there is no conclusive proof either way, but preventive measures are being taken assuming it is endemic in wild birds - just in case it is. There is a lot of expert disagreement with regards to H5N1. For example some experts are convinced that no H5 virus strain can become pandemic; others see that this strain has already done things thought to be impossible for a flu strain and so keep an open mind; others say they don't care as the H5 can be replaced by H1 and possibly retain it deadliness while acquiring human to human transmissibility. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per section header - I would change it myself but I realize there are many editors here, and don't want to make such a big change without consensus. -- Scray (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Weapons Program/ Iran: http://thepropheticlight.com/blog/?page_id=975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.240.63 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as it's mostly timeline, should this article be renamed H5N1 Timeline or Timeline of H5N1 Global Spread or some such? kencf0618 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global spread of H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090709194511/http://www.thanhniennews.com/healthy/?catid=8 to http://www.thanhniennews.com/healthy/?catid=8&newsid=48177

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global spread of H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061026174813/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Health/wireStory?id=1691792 to http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1691792

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global spread of H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/Timeline_28_10a.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global spread of H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423065725/http://www.who.int:80/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/en/ to http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/en/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Global spread of H5N1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213164120/http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2006_01_19/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/country/cases_table_2006_01_19/en/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1691792
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125120028/http://content.nejm.org/content/vol355/issue21/images/large/03f1.jpeg to http://content.nejm.org/content/vol355/issue21/images/large/03f1.jpeg

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]