![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from 2009 flu pandemic was copied or moved into Pandemic H1N1/09 virus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Material from 2009 swine flu outbreak was split to Pandemic H1N1/09 virus on 00:00 16 May 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak. |
A summary of this article appears in 2009 swine flu outbreak. |
The swine flu could also unnofficially be called hini (pronounced HI Knee), due to the similarities between H1N1 and HINI in fact google searches for HINI flu bring up h1n1 stuff Atomic1fire (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The numbering of the gene segments in the article figure does not follow the standard notation. Gene segments in Influenza A are numbered according to segment length, and the standard notation is (1) PB2, (2) PB1, (3) PA, (4) HA, (5) NP, (6) NA, (7) MP, (8) NS. The figure is based from a French article. In this article the segments are numbered correctly. It would be nice if the author of the figure could re-do it with the right numbering. 194.80.106.134 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The virus is a reassortant of two swine strains. Six segments (PB2, PB1, PA, HA, NP, NS) come from North American Swine. The other two segments (M and NA) come from Eurasian swine. The North American donor swine strain itself is a triple reassortant that acquired genes from Classical Swine, Human and North American waterfowl. This is the famous H3N2 swine triple-reassortant that appeared in the late nineties. When the CDC stated that the virus had genetic material from North America swine, Eurasian swine, North American avian and Human, they were talking about the general make up of the virus. I believe CDS are well aware that the current strain was itself a reassortant of two swine strains. The only gene segment that can be traced back to humans is PB1. It was introduced into the triple reassortant 10 years ago, and in that time, it has mutated and adapted to swine. The current strain can be confidently considered as of swine origin. In the current scientific literature is being referred to as Swine Origin Influenza Virus (S-OIV) H1N1. 194.80.106.134 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(some content was removed here (copyvio) by Notedgrant: diff] )
source: http://www.virologyj.com/content/6/1/207 Gandydancer (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NewSci-20090424-pandemic":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
See doi:10.1126/science.1176225 LeadSongDog come howl 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
First case of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) resistance found. [1]
76.66.193.20 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
References
This is not really about this article but it is a call for help on a related article, influenza prevention. My hope is to eventually have this article put into the "In the News" section, but it does not yet have appropriate content nor is it of high enough quality. I would like a consensus for this article and experienced editors to improve it. Any helpful edits to this article are greatly beneficial. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "According to WHO, as of September 11, 2009 update, occurred 3,593 deaths in 277,607 confirmed infected, which represents 0,013% of death rate, which is still lower than the normal flu mortality rate (0,1%)." Uh, no. Using the WHO statistics gives a 1.3% death rate, not a 0.013% death rate. This statement needs to be either modified or deleted completely. For now, I'll do the latter, since the sentence's argument becomes false with the correction. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
See Turner, S. J.; Brown, L. E.; Doherty, P. C.; Kelso, A. (2009). "Q&A: What have we found out about the influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic virus?". Journal of biology. 8 (8): 69. doi:10.1186/jbiol179. PMC 2776918. PMID 19769786.((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)LeadSongDog come howl 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the likelihood of a person who has had the H1N1 virus getting it a second time? Does having the virus establish some sort of immunity to this virus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.183.186 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"So far, in the US, 522 people have died of the H1N1 Novel virus, whereas 800 people per week die from the common flu. In fact, the death rate of people hospitalized with common influenza in the US is 18%, while the death rate of diagnosed H1N1 in the US is less than 5%, as seen with the statistics above, making it one third as deadly as the normal flu."
Unless this is a case of poor wording, it's just junk statistics. The 18% death rate for normal flu is for those sick enough to need hospital treatment. It does not appear to include the (vast?) majority who just stay at home. The 5% mortality figure for the new H1N1 strain is for all diagnosed cases, presumably including the mild cases. It's comparing apples and oranges - no useful comparison can be made, especially the conclusion that H1N1 is just one third as lethal.
A PS a week later - I see that somebody has changed it back, deleting the note that the two rates described different things. This is bad science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.246.177 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been someone else touting that the mortality rate for confirmed H1N1 is .02%, when it's nothing like that. They're using estimated figures to come to this conclusion. The death rate for confirmed H1N1 is closer to 1% than it is to .02%, since we'd only be using lab-confirmed deaths and infections. Using an estimate of 22 million cases and calling those confirmed is just asinine. Furthermore, the 3,900 deaths figure is also just an estimate. It might be much higher or lower [well, the lowest would be about 2,300]. 69.206.235.126 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is false and highly allarmistic. Despite of the article the H1N1 is a virus with very low virulence and it causes very mild symtoms. This virus may be dangerous for people with severe diseases only.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
tell that to the hundred and something dead kids... -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The people who died by H1N1 were very sick (diabetes mellitus, organ's transplant, renal failure, heart failure, leukemia...). It is impossible to die with a so mild disease (for nonexcessively sick people). Moreover it seems that the vaccine is more harmful than the flu itself...--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you prove that the young people who died were really healthy? Can you say their levels of cortisol, testosterone and IGF-I? What about their muscle mass, testicular volume, height and so on? Swine flu mortality rates are very low (about 0.1%), it means that the people who die are very sick and/or weak.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Many of those who are closely tracking H1N1 are not satisfied with the WHO's response to the recent announcement of a mutation. See here: http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11280901/WHO_D225G_Vac.html It seems that they both confirm vaccine failure and yet state it is of no concern - which could be true...or not. Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As of March 2010[update], the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 264 out of over 15,000 samples of the prevalent 2009 pandemic H1N1 (swine) flu tested worldwide have shown resistance to oseltamivir (Tamiflu).[32] This is not totally unexpected as 99.6% of the seasonal H1N1 flu strains tested have developed resistance to oseltamivir.[33] No circulating flu has yet shown any resistance to zanamivir (Relenza), the other available anti-viral.[34] Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
What does the "09" mean in the title Pandemic H1N1/09 virus ? 76.67.212.226 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Influenzavirus A isolates are identified like this actual HPAI A(H5N1) example, A/chicken/Nakorn-Patom/Thailand/CU-K2/04(H5N1):
Other examples include: A/duck/Hong Kong/308/78(H5N3), A/avian/NY/01(H5N2), A/chicken/Mexico/31381-3/94(H5N2), and A/shoveler/Egypt/03(H5N2).[1]
Strains are named more generally than isolates. But the 09 distinguishes it from the 1918 H1N1 pandemic virus. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
References
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
According to this December 15 news story, high levels of Interleukin 17 (IL-17) are associated with runaway inflammation. No doubt a WP:MEDRS will turn up in the next day or so. LeadSongDog come howl 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Just putting this here 'cause it didn't get much attention in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ&feature=related Aussiecap (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added new perspective about the prediction of evolutionary trend of H1N1 virus since 1918. See here for its source.Where this material should be located? This article or Influenza A virus subtype H1N1? Cerevisae (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
New estimates for the H1N1 2009 Pandemic are out. Estimates are that actual deaths may have been 15 times higher then older estimates, or approximately 300,000. It would be good to get that information into this article, for those with the time:
--Gigglesworth (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pandemic H1N1/09 virus. 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:
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pandemic H1N1/09 virus. 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:
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)