Talk:Pandemic H1N1/09 virus

Hini

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)

Numbering of gene segments

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)

Origin of the virus

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)

Quote above is from article From where did the 2009 'swine-origin' influenza A virus (H1N1) emerge? by Adrian Gibbs, John S Armstrong and Jean C Downie in Virology Journal 2009, 6:207. (another link to article: pdf) where they claimed that pig flu virus is human made and released possibly by the accident. Adrian Gibbs is said to be leader of research which leaded to Tamiflu. News about the Adrian Gibbs claims has been least in the The Age: Swine flu may be a lab error: Aussie researcher and Bloomberg: Swine Flu May Be Human Error; WHO Investigates Claim (Update1 - ) and now at november in Bloomberg: Scientist Repeats Swine Flu Lab-Escape Claim in Published Study

It seems to me that he is notable researcher (no wikipedia article though), he backed up his claims with science and claims have been around about six months so is there some reason why Adrian Gibbs claims arent in the article (some obvious errors or something?). If there isn't should we add it to the article? --Zache (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do feel that this information should be in the article. It has been well-received at the flu forum that I post in. Furthermore, the rumor mills are running wild saying that the drug companies released this virus to make money from the vaccine and the drugs they produce....and of course, that global warming is a hoax. So, best to address it.

• Regarding the removal of the abstract that I posted for "copyvio". This is free access information and I included the authors and the site url. Would that be copyright violation? The article has been printed in full at my flu site. Gandydancer (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was answering to your text when the revert happend so i added also a notice about that your text was removed and copyvio as reason because it was copypaste from another site and seemed to fit as reason. So it wasn't meaned to be against you or your text, but just to be informational --Zache (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Zache. You did a great job of getting the information down. But I still do not understand the copyright problem. I looked at wiki's info and could not figure out why it may have been a problem, especially since this is a working page and not the article. I would like to have an explanation from the editor that deleted it so I will know not to make the same mistake again...if I did. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3

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":

• From 2009 swine flu outbreak: "Deadly new flu virus in U.S. and Mexico may go pandemic". New Scientist. April 28, 2009. Archived from the original on April 28, 2009. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
• From Reassortment: "Deadly new flu virus in US and Mexico may go pandemic". New Scientist. 2009-04-24. Retrieved 2009-04-26.

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)

New source

See doi:10.1126/science.1176225 LeadSongDog come howl 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an authoritative summary of previously published data on 2009's novel swine-origin A/H1N1 strain. No new data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tamiflu resistance in Denmark

First case of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) resistance found.

76.66.193.20 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Influenza prevention

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)

Basic Math

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)

Nice new overview source

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)

Re-infection of the H1N1 Virus

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)

Bad Statistics

"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)

Why Wikipedia must to increase the profit of drug industries?

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)

Does that then explain the responses by Western governments? Also, please visit any intensive care unit in the UK and witness how completely healthy people can be felled by H1N1. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 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 with WP:RS? So far, many of the WP:RSs I have seen have said a number of healthy people under the age of 25 have succumbed via flu-induced hypercytokinemia, not pre-existing complications. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 08:49, 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)

Please stop spouting drivel through the blinkered viewpoint that everything is due to hypotestosteronism - you've been pointed to core policies of WP:AGF, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, WP:MEDRS often enough, reading them in your 2nd block would be worthwhile. To quote from BBC:

"mild for most, but very serious for a small minority... Those at greatest risk of complications are pregnant women and..." and "unlike seasonal flu, which tends to kill the frail elderly, the average age of those who've died from the virus here in the UK is 44. One in five of those who have died had no previous health problems." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/

"only 19% of the under-5s have existing conditions (the jargon term is comorbidity). Only 42% of those aged 5-15 who need hospital treatment have other health problems." see 1st chart of study of 373 hospitalised patients at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2009/10/the_swine_flu_paradox.html David Ruben ^Talk 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mutations section

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)

Considering that a resistance section has been added, do you think we should just delete this from the mutation section--it does not seem very significant, and there is no reference.

On December 2, 2009 the WHO announced that they have been informed of two recent clusters of patients infected with oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 viruses. Both clusters, detected in Wales, UK and North Carolina, USA, occurred in a single ward in a hospital, and both involved patients whose immune systems were severely compromised or suppressed. Transmission of resistant virus from one patient to another is suspected in both outbreaks.

[edit] Resistance

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)

That WHO briefing was: Oseltamivir resistance in immunocompromised hospital patients - Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 briefing note 18 2 December 2009 Geneva: World Health Organization.User:LeadSongDog come howl 01:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title

What does the "09" mean in the title Pandemic H1N1/09 virus ? 76.67.212.226 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is the year. Gandydancer (talk) 10:38, 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):

• A stands for the species of influenza (A, B or C).
• chicken is the species the isolate was found in
• Nakorn-Patom/Thailand is the place this specific virus was isolated
• CU-K2 identifies it from other influenza viruses isolated at the same place
• 04 represents the year 2004
• H5 stands for the fifth of several known types of the protein hemagglutinin.
• N1 stands for the first of several known types of the protein neuraminidase.

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).

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

Severe cases distinguished

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)

This story on the same news says high IL-17 triggers cytokine release and suggest that blocking T helper 17 (Th17) cells would be a candidate theraputic target.LeadSongDog come howl 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stories here and here cite Kelvin DJ et al., "Th1 and Th17 hypercytokinemia as early host response signature in severe pandemic influenza" Journal of Critical Care (December 2009). Does someone have access? LeadSongDog come howl 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative View

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)

New content for evolutionary potential

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)

June 2012 news: actual deaths may have been 15 times higher then older estimates

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:

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/swine-flu-deaths-may-have-been-15-times-higher-than-reported.html
• http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(12)70121-4/abstract
• http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/26/h1n1s-death-toll-15-times-higher-than-previously-thought/

--Gigglesworth (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091022111349/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/20/to-turkey-swine.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/20/to-turkey-swine.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 02:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629053330/http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9138409 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9138409

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)