Template talk:2009 US swine flu outbreak table/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 They are based on hearsay, original research, and unpublished information (even though they might be mentioned in a popular press posting to a website).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) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I posted at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak/Archive 4#Sensationalism, I partially agree. While suspected cases are verifiable, I believe it is unnecessary and cluttering to list all states which have "suspected" cases in one form or another. If we keep this table to only CDC-verified cases/deaths, relegating verifiable possible cases to the article text, it will make the article much more readable IMHO.-RunningOnBrains 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Anyone can go anywhere and find only confirmed cases and confirmed deaths. Wikipedia's got more information than any other website on this. Plus all the hard work people have been putting in to find suspected, probable, and unconfirmed deaths. 66.67.117.33 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Mat Morris.

I agree that they belong. RS are reporting the info; users want to know the info; we should continue to collect the info into an easy to read table.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorting

Probable cases and Suspected cases aren't sorting any more. I don't know how to fix it. --Elliskev 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I seem to remember someone saying it would be sortable. What happened to that? I'm fine with the alpha consensus since it was a group decision and all, but I personally find the original sort order easier to comprehend overall, though it was easier to find results for my particular state. Generally in reporting sorting by a central data element proves to be cleaner than an alpha sort. All the extra zeroes in different places proves to be a bit distracting. Anyway, I'm too late for the prior discussion, but my point was I'd like sortability again. aremisasling (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to narrow the table

Right now the table is very wide (about 50% of an 800x600 window). It would be nice if it could be narrowed some. I suggest changing all the states to their two letter postal abbreviations. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Using only the two character postal codes may create some confusion, for example: the abbreviations for Maine, Minnesota, and Montana may not be known to some since their fully spelled names are quite similar. This may be especially problematic for non-U.S. residents. --Navy II (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Navy. Additionaly 'table width' not a big deal. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction - it isn't an issue to you (or me), but very well might be an issue to a large chunk of the people trying to read the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support I know the frustration that many people have: a lot of public computers are set to small screen resolutions with larger text size. This makes the top of many articles almost unreadable. The non-US crowd could understandably be a bit confused with short abbreviations, but then again, they are official, standardized abbreviations, and thats why we have internal links.-RunningOnBrains 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

rules for using sortable tables!

• you can only have one header row. Change the current headers with care!
• sortable tables don't handle rowspans and colspans well. Don't use them without consulting with me!
• any new rows need to to have 'class="sortbottom"' added after the row separator (see the wikitext). This will screw things up if you forget, so careful!
• if you use any text other than numbers in a cell (particularly if you add a '+' sign, as in '17+') add this text - {{smn}} - after the text. this will keep the sortable table healthy. Striking: it appears this is not necessary, so long as the 'totals' row only uses integers.
• don't add rows to the table unless you intend for them to be sorted! add non-sorting data outside the sortable table.
• only use integers in the 'totals' row (using '+' signs or other text will cause the table to sort alphabetically rather than numerically)

please respect these rules, because if you don't, it means I have to fix it, and that will make me unhappy. . leave a note on my talk page if you are confused. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

P.s. - I've added a more-or-less invisible containing table to hold the navbar for this template. if you want to add notes which are visible on the transclusion page, you can add rows and cells to this outer table to put them in. --Ludwigs2 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC has released updated numbers

CDC has released updated numbers: please update the confirmed cases to use the CDC source if the numbers are less than or equal to CDC. Also note the CDC changed the URL of their page to H1N1flu--PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll be a problem now CDC is dispatching test kits to the states. For one, California numbers differ CDC's latest.[1]--Nutriveg (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We can update these using the most recent source: NewYork and Califonia have kits now. Others come monday. It might be a pain in the ass but positives should be rare. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDC itself said during it's daily briefing either yesterday or Wed. that their numbers were outdated almost as soon as they were announced. When more up to date reliable sources can be found, they should be used. I did notice last night that several state health departments now have a table on their websites similar to the CDC. Wine Guy Talk 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"contraction within state" column

With apologies, I deleted this newly added column. The table is already very wide and this new column took up a ton of additional room to handle information that is better treated in the text of the article anyway. We shouldn't be trying to cram every little bit of info into the table, but instead should keep to a reasonable size. Thank you --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Has CDC or any medical authority classified, defined or talked about the category "Confirmed contraction within the state" ? If so, that can mentioned in a single sentence in the article text ("california, Texas have confirmed cases of swine flu contracted within the state"), and this binary data doesn't need a column of its own. If CDC etc haven't defined the term, it should be regarded as OR and kept out of the article too. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I do like the ability to show that the majority of these are due to travel abroad I don;t think we can do that unless we have a single source or a consistant way to verify multiple sources. If you must, mention the most noteworthy information in the text (NewYork schools, Texas Death, Califonia?) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, it's info that is not necessary in the table, and at the this point much of it seems like WP:OR. Wine Guy Talk 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

All the information is sourced by reliable sources, the wide now is the same.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutriveg, the problem is not with the individual entries in the table, but the definition, relevance and prominence of the category itself. I can surely add reliably sourced data about number of patients in counties with names starting with letter "c", or (hypothetically) correlate it with their sun signs; that does not mean that the information should be included in the table or in the article. Wikipedian's should be very wary of such WP:OR. See Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Some_statistics for another instance where I think we (with best intentions) are getting carried away by our enthusiasm. PS: Even if the relavence of the category can be established, binary data is best included in the text instead of the table. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"binary data is best included in the text instead of the table". No, it's not, it's just a modifier to the already present data. It doesn't increase table width.--16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)~

Your reference for Colorado, the first one I checked, does not confirm anything of the sort.

"The female, who recently returned from a cruise," and "Public health officials were still investigating where and when the man got sick." This is OR. Wine Guy Talk 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I missed that part. That item previously had another source: [2]"The case from DIA is a reminder that there are potential exposures in public places." but I agree it doesn't confirm.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If your only showing the 'yes'es, I'm a little more supportive (since we're not by default claiming so many 'no's) although I would just '‡' the state name and put a legend at the bottom of the table. Let me review the sources and get back to you on the OR issue. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A marker is OKOK.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One method of proof of in-state transmision is a confirmed infected person that is known to have not traveled out of state. These sources neither mention nor exclude that travel. Without that fact we do not have verification. I have to be against the marker for these sources.

1. CA - no mention of any travel, no exclusion of travel CO - man was a baggage handler but again no mention of travel/lack of travel DE - students traveled to NJ for spring break TX - mentions no travel to mexico, mentions travel in state, but does not specifically exclude travel out of state --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, although some of current sources (CA, TX) say they didn't travel to Mexico, or traveled within state, they don't explicitly say they didn't travel elsewhere. So I agree to remove it for now.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we address the question of whether the data entries are verifiable, or how to display them - can we see some evidence that this category is well-defined, meaningful or relevant ? Without that collating and displaying such data is certainly a violation of WP:OR. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a story from today's Detroit Free Press. 2nd confirmed case didn't involve travel, raises worry --Elliskev 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

long load time ......gggggaahhhhhh --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again while it says she hasen't traveled to 'affected regions' (not defining what that was at the time she contracted the disease) it doesn't state she didn't travel to Ohio or Windsor. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It's best to wait to see if and how the CDC records cases and then follow that lead, rather than try to come up with a new and original categorization. --Elliskev 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDCs threats all regions with confirmed cases the same way, no matter that confirmed case was of someone who traveled to Mexico or have no idea how he got it. It's clearly spreading beetween residents in CA, TX, NY and not it others. Maybe, for now, we should add a mark if all confirmed cases in a state traveled to Mexico, but there are confirmed cases in other states from people which just traveled to a confirmed area (like CA), so I'm unsure if it would be useful the same way.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the California ref begins with the sentence "Doctors tracking swine flu in this state are investigating a new theory:...", a theory is something which by definition is not proven. I don't believe this made-up category has any business in the table. Wine Guy Talk 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That theory is "it didn't originate in Mexico" and the point was "it has cases contracted within the state".--Nutriveg (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It all seems just too muddy to try to put in a table. It would probably be best handled as main body text. --Elliskev 19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with states with no cases?

By my count, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming are excluded from the list. I take this to mean there are no confirmed or suspected cases in these states, and so they are not listed. If that's the case, why are Arkansas and Mississippi included on the list, but listed as having zero cases? I believe some consistency is in order.-RunningOnBrains 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Arkansas 'had' a probable case as stated by State Health adminsitrators that has since tested negative. We cite it as being '0'. This confirms to the reader that the information he may have read elsewhere is incorrect and prevents us from readding a probable case if someone gives us an old news story. Alaska has had no notices of any possible cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I remove Mississippi? Or were they the same sort of deal (in which case someone should add a source)?-RunningOnBrains 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they had a suspected case and someone just dumped it. Let me do a google. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing on any 'negative' or suspected cases. As such I'm ok with removing Mississippi. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the ref that had been used to add 10 "suspected" cases. It did not meet the definition, it only said "Thompson says the state Department of Health is in the process of testing 10 specimens taken from patients, and if any are believed to be swine flu, they'll be sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for confirmation." There's nothing else reported in Miss. Wine Guy Talk 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, just read this after having re-added Mississippi (done in the process of cleaning up the map image, which erroneously had Mississippi still on it). I think it's OK to have states where there are actually sources reporting such a status, though considering I made a mistake in the map at one point because of Arkansas, it might be a good idea to shade the all-zero states differently or italicize their names. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky v. Georgia

Ok, this one is a bit tricky. The same person is listed as a confirmed case in both Kentucky and Georgia. This is the woman who went to Mexico, got sick, returned home to Kentucky still sick; two days later she traveled to Georgia, went shopping, attended a wedding, got more sick and was taken to hospital in Georgia. Her case is listed by the CDC and the KY health department [3] as a Kentucky case, even though the positive sample was submitted by Georgia, and GA media has reported it as the first confirmed case there.

I'm thinking that we should list this only under KY, per the CDC, and include article text for Georgia explaining the situation. Wine Guy Talk 18:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article text for Georgia is already there. It would just need to be revised to explain why the case is not in the table. Wine Guy Talk 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to argue with the CDC table, now that I know she went from Mexico to KY to GA. I don't want to list it twice and we're not seeing that she infected anyone else while in GA, so I'm willing to blame the sex-jelly-state for this one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it makes sense to place her wherever she is during recovery. I presume that's KY. My logic is based on the precident set with the single US fatality who was a Mexican citizen only temporarily (or at least that was the plan) in the US. aremisasling (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume the CDC made some kind of evaluation with regard to reporing that case. I don't know if recovery was their priority or where she was during the incubation period. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, the precedent with the fatality was that the CDC reported it as a US case, so we did as well. The CDC is reporting this as a KY case, even though she she remains hospitalized in GA. I agree with PigFlu's logic on this, the CDC is in a better position to make the determination. Wine Guy Talk 19:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait I have logic? When the hell did that happen? :) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've zeroed Georgia and added a link to the Georgia section of the article which explains the situation with references. Does that work for everyone? BTW, if anyone happens to find a single source which explains this whole situation that would be better than using 3 different sources for one case, IMHO. Wine Guy Talk 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The CDC table now contains a *note for the Kentuky case. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida

Gov Crist confirms CDC says 2 cases positive here --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the two were confirmed, that makes the 8 probable now 6 probable as stated here: http://www.miamiherald.com/1484/story/1027957.html --Ducassi (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

It seems that ABC jumped the gun on reporint CDC confirmed cases for Maine: This is the Main DOH report as of Thursday, April 30, 2009, 4 PM (No report for friday as of yet) This is the source we currently use for 3 Maine cases. This mornings CDC report didn't include any numbers for Maine. If I don't see any objections in the next 30 minutes I'm going to move the 3 confirmations back into the suspected column using the DOH source.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree they should not be in the confirmed column, but according to the PDF you linked to they are probable. Wine Guy Talk 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct I meant to say probable --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

States' official H1N1 pages

Below is the start of a list of State Health Department H1N1 pages. Maybe it will be useful as a quick resource list. --Elliskev 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alabama Page has timestamped count of possible and confirmed cases.
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii - main page 4 now
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts Also Mass Public Health Blog
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada -- main page is flu page, for now
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

• Washington (Not a State) DC

That's going to be very useful, Thanks! Also I added a link for Georgia and Kentucky above. Wine Guy Talk 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I put a few there. The state Department of Health pages can be found here. Most have a link to Swine Flu on the main page, But Nevada's was hard to find. BOO Nevada! --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm not having any luck with Hawaii, Nevada, or Virginia. Check out North Dakota's set up! No cases, but that's how to do it! --Elliskev 23:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah some of these pages are really good with daily reports and tables. Others (I'm looking at your DC) just tell you to wash your hands. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Column Auto Sums

Did anyone while studying how to do tables learn any way to do an Auto-Sum on a column? I'm going to start reading up on it but any help would be appreciated. Also if anyone knows a way to link vaules between templates (from here to the World table for example) that would be appreciated as well. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I responded to this several hours ago, must have hit the wrong button... Anyway, I did look into it, and from I what I can gather there are two "possibilities"-

1. It's not possible.

2. It's possible, but would be very difficult to do, and very easy to screw-up.

I could be wrong, but I think WP:NOT_EXCEL is the operative guideline here. Ludwigs2 may or may not have a different opinion, he's probably the person to ask. Wine Guy Talk 08:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As if keeping up with numbers wasn't already hard enough...

... the CDC is now making "clerical errors". [4] Wasn't someone saying that we should only use CDC numbers and disregard media reports? ;-) Wine Guy Talk 06:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know I do remember someone saying that, I believe 'unverifiable', 'unpublished', and non medical experts were some of the language used. Oh and right now (16 hours after the mistake) the CDC page still says 16 If only Wikipedia hadn't abandoned its standard for citing reputable sources, howl! howl! --PigFlu Oink (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This information would be more useful in Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. At least the CDC admits that they have made a mistake and is tasked to correct them. I would doubt the dozens of news outlets that arrive at these numbers have such a mandate. Nice reference joke though, I laughed :P Flipper9 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Trans-State Cases

How should we address the trans-state cases?

• 1 Kentucky resident is sick in Georgia; the CDC, map, and table show it under Kentucky.
• 5 Mexican citizens are/were sick in Texas, including the child who died; the CDC, table, and map show them under Texas.

Is there a qualifier that we should do for Texas? Should we switch the Georgia one? CB...(ö) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering how few and complicated these cases are, mentions can more easily be done in the text of the article. Per the Georgia case the CDC puts it into the Kentucky column with a note at the bottom fo the table. This may be due to her travel from Mexico to Kentucky to Georgia, Kentucky reports she was feeling ill on the return from Mexcio. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

After further thinking, we should put the Georgia case under Georgia; the international table lists country of confirmation, not country of origin (otherwise, there would be more cases in Mexico and fewer elsewhere, such as Hong Kong). If there is concurrence, or a lack of dissent soon, I'll make the switch myself. CB...(ö) 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll dissent if no one else does. While we record the Texas Death, it was because the Death was an internationally notable event. This case is diffrent, and as noted above (in Kentucky vs Georgia) the CDC may have good reasons for listing the case as Kentucky. The CDC is better at evaulating where she should be listed and why, we just try to use the most authotative numbers, which in this case (since they do the testing) is the CDC's. Regardless, this change will proabably keep flipping back and forth, at least until both states have 1 confirmation they can call their own. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It should probably stay the way the CDC classifies it, if for no other reason, then to avoid confusion/many editors reentering the info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the CDC has told Texas to classify the cases, except for the death, as non-Texas (aka Mexico) cases (see Texas ref). 129.62.103.82 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since the article is getting too larger, i was thinking that maybe you guys can put the map at the top of the table, like the one i put in the Spanish article, you can see it HERE, i think it looks better. If you're interested, you can see the code over there by clicking on "editar", (is in English).--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 04:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A fine suggestion. Anyone else agree? 'Estados Unidos'? I think I had that with rice once. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; looks like a nice visual start to the article. CB...(ö) 05:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we condiser the other English pages ( I usually don't but as soon as we change it the naggers will show up) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they liked the idea too, and they put the map in the top of the table (of the main [Spanish] article), but a little bit different than the one i put in the US article. here, IMO i preffer the one of the US article, with the background transparent. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 05:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

i updated

i updated the MI prob # but there was a prob with source if someone could look at it and tell me what i did it would be great (source is still working though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0xrandomx0 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you whoever fixed it 0xrandomx0 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected cases column

I suggest the removal of the "Suspected cases" column since it in general lacks official data.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well someone has now deleted the column. I am rather neutral on this change, but it would have at least been nice if it could have been debated before just being removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed unilaterally by Nutriveg here with no edit summary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now restored, pending further discussion (note, however, most of the data in the column had been removed prior to the column being blanked, so the restoration only reflects the state of the column at the time of blanking.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If it can be reported, it should stay. However as not all states DOH report suspected and media can't report things without reputable sources (given as they kind of went overboard regarding NY schools); we can expect imperfect information. I'm fine with that as I expect we're closer to the end of this than the begining. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana map

Louisiana should be in red, they confirmed 7 cases. --Vrysxy ¡Californication! 23:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at main template

Please see Template talk:2009-2010 flu pandemic table/Archive 3#Synthesis, where a discussion is in progress to completely rework the structure and sourcing used on that template and similar ones (i.e., this template). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Just got off the phone with Maine state CDC; they stated as yet they have no confirmed cases. I've asked them to include a statement in todays Press Release expected at 4PM ET. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

State table should have the states alphabetized

(Moved from Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_in_the_United_States)

I think that the state table at the top of the article should have the states alphabetized. Readers can then very simply check to see which states are having reported and/or suspected cases. I'm afraid that I might mess it up if I did it but someone really ought to. --Navy II (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Its more efficient if its organized by severity like we decided it would be for its parent article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.84.2 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Severity is a relative term. Texas is huge both geographically and by population, but Rhode Island is tiny. Hypothetically speaking, if 2 days from now Texas has 30 confirmed cases and Rhode Island has 10, is it really more severe in Texas, of course not. Alphabetization, or a table that can be sorted with a click, are the ways to go. --Navy II (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Parent article is a worldwide report where 90% of the cases are in the top 3 countries. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this changes as well. The extra states (with no cases) add nothign to the chart and take up a ton of extra room. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, previous consensus on the main chart was to sort by "severity" - that is deaths, then confirmed cases, then suspected cases, then alphabetical in case of a tie. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous Consensus was on a table that had sort by buttons and was at a time when there were fewer states. Under the argument of navigation and information for the masses; I support Alphabetization of all states including '-' for no-cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "severity" sorting...it keeps the table from being fairly unreadable and/or bloated. CB...(ö) 21:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's a shame to resort back to the previous order. The sort order provides no meaning other than to the few people attempting to preserve the old sort order. As this unfolds, outbreaks will begin occuring throughout the nation, making a "severity" sort difficult if not impossible to maintain. Having all states alphebetical provides clear guidance to other contributers on where to place their information and is the simpelist way for people to zero in on the state they are interested in.128.138.82.193 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The table has been reverted by ThaddeusB and now borders on being worthless. --Navy II (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The table would be sortable if we got rid of the daily totals (which ideally should be in another table). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it wouldn't unless all the headers were 1 row in size - in other words it would have to be "confirmed cases" as one line "suspect cases" as one line, etc. This would have the chart very wide (and the sort icon would add more width) and isn't practical. (tables with multiple line headers improperly) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can get around that by using <br /> tags... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't have any header span more than one column, so each would have to be written out: "labratory confirmed cases", "suspected cases", etc. The writing wouldn't have to be on one line, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, without reading the detailed discussion, there is no indication on why a state like Texas, with only 1/4 of the number of cases as a place like New York, appears first on the list. And it provide absolutely no guidance to others as they update the table on if/when they should move states around the list. The old sort order has outlived its usefulness. Even if states with 0 outbreak at this time are removed, to keep the table clean, the remaining infections should be listed in alphabetical order to keep the table useful and meaningful.128.138.82.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

You reverted my edits, make it a template and play with it when I go to sleep.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I could of sworn I saw them alphebetied!?!?--Parker1297 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They were. I had added all states and alphabetized them. ThaddeusB reverted about an hour later and asked that we reach consensus here before making the change.128.138.82.193 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's certainly a consensus that it should not be sorted by an invented severity heuristic. Put it by severity when the CDC publishes a list, which they may. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for currently version doesn't equate with consensus for change. Be patient, perhaps one will form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it should be alphabetized. As I stated in a previous discussion on this topic, the article text is alpha, so that detailed info on a particular state may be found quickly and easily. The way the table is currently set up it imparts information at a glance, look at the table... boom, you immediately know where the most seriously affected areas are. In this case, an alpha listing serves no purpose other than being alpha. Also, since this is a sub-article, and the table is a similar element, consistency with the parent article should be considered. Wine Guy Talk 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2c: Both the current and alphabetized table have advantages: the current table (as WineGuy notes) shows which states are most affected most easily; while an alphabetized table will be most useful to a reader looking for information about their state. I prefer the alphabetized table since it is easier to maintain (since we don't need to repeatedly update the order), doesn't involve coming up with our own ranking scheme, and because CDC takes that approach. Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see the determination of relative severity here as being non-trivial, and therefore potentially original research. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The CDC does not attempt to judge severity. They present their data in alphabetical order (see http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/). Why does this table continue using a subjective, ambiguous sort order that has no meaning to anyone other than the handful attempting to maintain the sort order? What constitutes severity: the severity of consequences, indicating a by death rate sort order, or perhaps severity of public health threat, in which case deaths don't matter as much as infection rate. There clearly is not a "consensus" about severity. If we are truly seeking consensus before making a change, then present the information in an unbiased format (i.e. alphabetical order, or by proven infection discovery order) until "consensus" can be reached on severity.128.138.112.248 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this is how Wikipedia works. We had previous consensus on this sort order (albeit in a slightly different context [worldwide chart]) and we shouldn't change until we have some sort of consensus that another order is superior. If everyone just changed it because they felt it was better one way or the other it would just keep getting changed around indefinitely. Just be patient - with more input it will become clear which version is preferred. Until that happens it should stay as is (and I would say that even if the current version was not a version I liked). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The list should be in alpha order. As it is now, it assigns an artificial ranking. It's supposed to be a quick-glance case-by-State visual, nothing more. --Elliskev 14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB you are incorrect that this is how Wikipedia works. The default setting for lists as per WP:MOS is alphabetical. Since there exists no consensus on THIS LIST as to how states should be listed, then an alphabetical order should be used. --Navy II (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is how Wikipedia works in that consensus should be established for contentious subjects. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my summary on the current status of this issue. The original "consensus" for this article involved a discussion between Wine Guy and PigFlu Oink and a third anonymous person who does not appear to have continued interest in maintaining the article (the discussion has been deleted from this chain, but is archived in history). PigFlu Oink has weighed in and agrees severity order no longer makes sense. So of the original "consensus", 1/2 of the active and at least 1/3 of the total users no longer concurs. In this discussion topic, I count 7 people weighing in on a preference for alphabetical order and 4 people for severity order, and 1 that doesn't indicate a preference but discusses the format of the table. As for an external reference, the CDC does not attempt to maintain any type of severity indication; they organize their information in alphabetical order. At what point does this become enough of a “consensus” to change the table?128.138.82.193 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we're there and that it should be changed to an alphabetical order. --Navy II (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think ThaddeusB needs to weigh back in to ensure the sort order doesn't keep getting changed around indefinitely.128.138.82.193 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I've templatized the table at Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table. It was too much to scroll through to get to the article text (in edit mode). --Elliskev 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" summary: Here is the way I view the opinions expressed so far. Three clearly for alphabetization (Navy II; 128.138.82.193; Mendaliv), four clearly against (76.216.84.2; CB...(ö); Wine Guy; ThaddeusB), one neutral (Abecedare), and four with no clear opinion (PigFlu Oink, Titoxd, Parker1297, Elliskev). As such I do not think consensus has been reached. Thus we need more time for input, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear... I support alphabetization and I thank Elliskev for templating--PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am for alphabetizing the list. --Elliskev 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I counted Parker1297's comment as a vote for alphabetizing (it appeared to question the return to severity order), but you are correct, it is not clear. I believe that leaves the official count at 5 for alphabetization and 4 for severity.128.138.82.193 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 5-4 at this time... I missed Elliskev's comment above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I support alphabetization. Wiggerpedian (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion on this topic was rendered moot because the table was made sortable. However, that was using wikitable as opposed ti the current navbox style, and I don't believe the navbox can be made sortable. If we were able to make this sortable, would that satisfy those who are calling for alpha? Wine Guy Talk 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I believe so. I don't care about the default sort. I just want to people to quickly find how many in their state. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, It will be difficult to make it sort correctly and leave the format looking nice (due to bugs it the sort function). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will support the clickable list if the default setting is alphabetical. To argue that a death makes it more severe is arbitrary and opinion as well as it violates WP:OR. What if New York had 500 cases and Texas had only 26 (but has the only death), does that mean the outbreak is more severe in Texas? I think not. Also the death in Texas was of a Mexican national who didn't even live in Texas and had contracted the flu in Mexico. --Navy II (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Similary the international table now has the US with more lab confirmed cases than Mexico. Now who actually thinks the US has more infections? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with Navy II on that issue, I think the table should be sorted by confirmed cases without regard to number of deaths. I'm going to ask at WP:Village pump (technical) if there is a way to make this sortable without going back to a wikitable. Wine Guy Talk 16:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the table sortable: please feel free to revert if you don't like the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Horray!--PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, done. limitations of this format:

• it will default to the order of the HTML table as written in the wikitext
• you can only have one header row, and sortable tables don't handle rowspans and colspans well (thus my revisions to the first rows).
• any new rows need to to have 'class="sortbottom"' added after the row separator (see the wikitext). this is because the sortable table has an option for having an unsorted bottom row, but not an unsorted top row, so we end up having to scam the system by declaring everything except the totals row as a bottom row.
• every table row will get sorted, so you can't have references in the navbox like the previous version did. if you want to add references, encase the entire navbox in the first cell of an enclosing table, and use the second cell of that outer table for the refs.

--Ludwigs2 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll need to keep thing like "15+" out of the table as counts as they sort incorrectly (not being numbers). --Elliskev 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here--Parker1297 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What doesn't belong where? Wine Guy Talk 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"15+" Parker1297 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the '+' from numbers to fix the sorting problem. I'll see if I can find a more elegant solution. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

alright, if you guys decide you want to use '+' formats in your numbers, what you need to do is place {{smn}} at the end of the visible line: e.g. |14+{{smn}}<ref>...</ref>. this template forces the text to be treated as a number. I'll correct Texas just as an example, but the page is too active for me to go back and remove the plusses I removed before - I keep getting edit conflicts, and people aren't respecting the {{inuse}} tag. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that the table is at least somewhat sortable (sorting by state and confirmed cases work fine, there is a glitch with probable and suspected cases), shall we try to get a consensus on the default sort?

If the default sort is going to be alphabetical, I would prefer it not be sortable at all so we can at least keep the "pretty" table format. I mean, I thought the whole point of adding the sort was to skirt the alphabetical or not issue, but if we are going alphabetical anyway (which I am fine with) I would prefer to keep the old format since it allows: inline citations, a narrow table, and prettier formatting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support default sorting alphabetically by state

1. Wine Guy Talk 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Elliskev 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Navy II (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Parker1297 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
5. PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) for easier updating
6. 128.138.82.193 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.82.193 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Earthsound (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Abecedare (talk)
9. as the current "severity" method violates WP:NOR and possibly WP:NPOV —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done

Hearing no objections, I have gone ahead and alphabetized the list according to state names. It should be easier to maintain now. Abecedare (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to do that. (And probably would have made a mess of it ;-)) Wine Guy Talk 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Who thinks State table should have the states alphabetized should be archived. Parker1297 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In Favor

1. Parker1297 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorting is Broken

The chart can no longer be properly sorted by "Laboratory Confirmed Cases." It can be sorted from fewest to most (but only by sorting, reversing, and re-sorting), but not from most to fewest. I'm not familiar with how these options work, but hopefully someone who is can fix it. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

fixed --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There appears to still be a problem. Now each column cycles through 4 sorts: an incorrect sort, the reverse order of the incorrect sort, a correct greatest-to-least sort, and a correct least-to-greatest sort. It's weird. --DavidK93 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fever Break

Today May 7th, was the first day that Confirmed cases exceeded Probable cases. More importantly it was the first day there was an actual drop in probable cases. While most of this is due to increased testing capacitiy, hopefully it represents a decrease in new cases and a turning point in the outbreak. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this table very carefully. But I just checked the source for Michigan, and I see that MDCH is no longer reporting probable cases, although we show zeroes for suspected and probable cases there. We should either give a source supporting the zero figure, or indicate it is unknown (e.g. show "?" or "N/A"). This applies to all the zeroes in the table (except perhaps the ones for deaths). Several other badly affected states also do not seem to be reporting on probable cases (e.g. Texas, New York, Arizona). This may be part of the explanation for the decrease in the total number of probable cases - people have simply given up on keeping track of them. -- Avenue (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason to have probable or suspected numbers in the table was their notability, i.e. the resulting steps people (authorites, individuals) took when a case was in their state. The article a year from now, will only have confirmed numbers(assuming the virus does not kill us all). Now that states have eliminated the backlog of testing, the importance of these numbers decreases. Without offical numbers our only source would be a media report. If a media report stated a large number of suspected cases in a region (another school for example) it would be notable enough to be listed in the article. At this point, with the rapid testing and both press releases and media reports we should be ontop of new cases with little delay. Given their decreased importance, the quick turn around of testing, and our acceptance of 0 for deaths, we can accept 0 without note for other values that can not be readily verrified. By implicit defintion, it is a table about 'known' cases. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and added the word "known" to the header for clarity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say I find that argument very unconvincing. You're saying we should publish unsourced figures that are probably wrong because they're not important? The "known" fudge doesn't really ring true either; I'm sure they're known to someone. Perhaps "officially reported" would be correct. -- Avenue (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practice not to require a source for zero. If you want to change the title of the table, I certainly don't object. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll change "known" to "reported". Can you please give me a link where I can read more about this "standard practice"? It seems like bad practice to me. Although, to be clear, I'm not objecting to the zeroes in the deaths column, since they can be derived by subtraction from the reported total. -- Avenue (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not an official policy, as far as I know. It is just generally unnecessary (and often impossible) to prove "nothing." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Total cases column

I see someone added a 'total cases' column. I have two questions about this:

1. Is it really necessary? My main concern here is the table width, since renders the text quite difficult to read in smaller window sizes (such as 800x600).
2. Aren't the deaths already included in the confirmed cases? I realize it is only a difference of 2, but precision does matter. :)

--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing probable cases

According to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US has 643 probable cases of swine flu. Our table currently only shows 352. I wouldn't be surprised by a small disparity, but this seems like a big one. Does anyone know what could account for the 291 missing case? -- Avenue (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of probables have been going down all week as states have eliminated their backlog of testing. Minn, Mass, Wisc, and Ill have either confirmed or excluded almost all of their probables (~400 collectively). As the CDC doesn't offically report probables, I don't know where the ECDC is getting their estimates. I'd have to assume they're out of date. (we had as many as 1000 probables early last week) --PigFlu Oink (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The ECDC did say that figure had been updated since their last report, from the previous day, so I don't think it's out of date. They also say they get probable case counts from national health authorities' web sites, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Avenue (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC changes numbers from confirmed to confrimed and probable

Please note when updating the template: The CDC has changed their numbers from just confirmed cases only to confirmed and probable. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created three tables to show how we can account for this change User:PigFlu Oink/table and User:PigFlu Oink/table2, and User:PigFlu Oink/table3. The CDC was our primary source for numbers. Now that they have combined their totals we no longer have a way to easily seperate the columns as some states report confirmed only, some states report both and some states have no reporting. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the template to match User:PigFlu Oink/table2. If I'm too bold, we can revert. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I rather prefer version 1 since more it can't hurt to have more info and two it looks better. I would drop the suspect column though, since it barely has any use anymore. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on principal, and on suspected. The table of state and CDC numbers works well for Alabama and Illinois where the states report all numbers and those numbers add up to the CDC total, however Arizona only reports confirmed cases. Do we sythisize the probable cases (CDC - AZ Confirmed) or do we NR for Not Reported? If we synthsize, what do we do when State Confirmed excedes the CDC count? What do we do about New Jersey that has no state reporting of cases? I have links to all state dept of Health websites on my user page, however I haven't updated the has confirmed/probable stats in some time. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about states, like AR, which report more than what the CDC shows? I see that you edited your comment to include this scenario. Earthsound (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Arkansas 4 of the 5 cases were on an Army base, I guess the CDC is counting them elsewhere like they are with the Alaska cruse passenger case. I wish they noted them on their site somewhere though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Arkansas, all became ill while in Arkansas. Is there any acknowledgment from any source that the CDC is counting them in another state. In AK, that case is not counted b/c she became ill before entering Alaskan waters. Earthsound (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we now calling the number specifically "state reported" a 'NR' or other notation is probably best for states that aren't actually reporting such numbers themselves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See User:PigFlu Oink/table4 not all the numbers are up to date for today, but its a start. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly what I had in mind. Two comments: 1) shouldn't the "cdc total" equal the sum of the states (maybe it does, but the example has two different #s)? If so, there is no longer a need for two separate total lines (well, the death could vary for a few hours, but that really isn't a big deal). 2) it needs a note at the bottom to state what "NR" means. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I screwed up montana. Tables done. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer User:PigFlu Oink/table2. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Table 4. Tables 2 & 3 appear to be in line with CDC and exclude state data (or perhaps they're just ambiguous), though CDC explicitly states that any conflict between CDC and State #s should be resolved in favor of the State #s. Table 1 looks too bulky, and suspected case totals for many a state are hard to come by. Sorry for the late response; I've been suffering from ILI (not kidding) that was just confirmed as A/H1N1 (kidding). CB...(ö) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) as 4 currently has the most support I'm going to do a fly-by-night move to the template. Changinn it now will be easier than a midday fix and if a true consensus goes one way or the other we can always change it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We probably don't need to source every # in column 1 separately since they are form the same source (and always will be); 1 cite for the whole column should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Source

I believe that the primary source for anything regarding cases and deaths should be the CDC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.184.83 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort function problem

The sort function doesn't seem to work properly for the CDC confirmed/probable column. The other columns sort just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.202 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sometimes editors add non-numeric characters to the Total row, which throws off the sorting feature. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

bold states

As almost all states have cases(and those that don't are commented out), I bolded only the states that have deaths. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about having the states without cases being in italics? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are no longer any states without cases.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do about states that aren't issuing any more updates?

I see that a few states have elected not to independently release their numbers anymore. What should we do about these states as far as the 'state confirmed' numbers go? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

'NR'? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Healthy or Unhealthy

Its good to know if those that died were healthy or not. The way the references are combined makes it more difficult to figure that out. Perhaps the deaths column could be separated into healthy and unhealthy prior to the disease. What do you think?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommend getting rid of state reported probable cases column

What do you think? Does anyone care about this column? Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

19 of 50 states have sourced numbers for suspected cases (even if several of those are '0'), however the usefullness of this column is diminishing as more states stop reporting. The next CDC update is on Friday 11:00 EST (really 12:30ish). I'd hold off until then as several states have had massive increases (PA for example). After that I have no objections to removing the column. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts

So Massachusetts has stopped collecting specific swine flu data, but now only reports as if it is regular flu season. Should it be listed as NR? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers are off.

Just got off of the WHO website there have been only 27 deaths in the United states so far. I do not know where the other 30 claimed on this website have come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.170.17 (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WHO is ways off reality. All numbers have to be reported from local health departments -> national health departments -> CDC -> WHO. And CDC has reduced its reporting frequency to a single report a week. Today one could see, how the system works:

• WHO reported at 7:00 GMT, 44 deaths in US (upd 51)
• CDC reported at 11:00 ET (yet presenting data from the previous day 11:00 ET), 87 deaths in US
• At that very moment 103 deaths had been confirmed by local health officials, communicated either by gov sites or press announcements.
• 6 hours later the NYC DOH reported another 7 deaths.

Now until Monday morning the 44 will be the official WHO number and the real 110 will earliest become WHO reality in about 9 days from now.

FHessel (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

3 Wisconsin countys confirmed 2320 2932 cases?! Maybe a solution?

http://www.milwaukee.gov/2009SwineFlu Milwaukee 2098 conf. cases

http://www.publichealthmdc.com/disease/swineFlu/ Dane County 208 conf. cases

http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_1db3ca21fff3/?department=fd7fb6bc484c&subdepartment=5e31fb27c250 Brown County 14 conf. cases 93.131.13.133 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: 2379 conf. cases in Milwaukee

total 2601 in this three countys

93.131.13.133 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: 300 conf. cases in Dane County

total: confirmed cases only in this 3 countys of Wisconsin: 2693

93.131.13.133 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: 2618 conf. cases in Milwaukee

raise the total number of confirmed cases only in this 3 countys of Wisconsin to: 2932

93.131.156.106 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Milwaukee Case Counts

As of June 24, 2009 at 4:30 pm   Confimed H1N1 Cases	3056  Confirmed H1N1 Deaths	3

City of Milwaukee Case Counts

As of June 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm   Confimed H1N1 Cases	3101  Confirmed H1N1 Deaths	3

City of Milwaukee Case Counts

As of July 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm    Confimed H1N1 Cases	3237  Confirmed H1N1 Deaths	3

Nevada death

I agree with ZenCopain, that the Las-Vegas death should be counted in Nevada. But then it must not be counted in New York. Hence I will remove it from the New York toll. And how can we make sure, that it will not be hidden in the anonymous case counts which are reported by NYC DOH? Until now it seems, that this is not the case, since they have reported age ranges of 25-64 resp. 26-64. | 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FHessel (talk • contribs)

South Dakota death?

I haven't been able to find the citation again but I remember South Dakota being listed for quite some time as having a related death. The map in the US article still reflects this, questions have been asked on the discussion page of the main article, perhaps a citation regarding the 0 should be posted if it was later denounced in the news? Could it be a case in limbo like the Las Vegas death? Der.Gray (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The death mentioned on the CDC website was a typo for South Dakota. That's all it was. No deaths. CaninePitDog (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)