Open main menu

Talk:Poliomyelitis eradication

WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Viruses (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Polio in Pakistan pageEdit

I'm interested in editing the Polio in Pakistan article for a class assignment so that it expands on pre-2011 factors impacting eradication. (It focuses currently essentially on the CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy.) I would appreciate any suggestions or help! Khanzar (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

polio vaccine myths europeEdit

If you search Google for "polio vaccine myths europe" you find dozens of pages of largely the same text. They make a specific claims about what happened in the 50's and 60's in Europe with the aim of discrediting immunization. They specifically claim that:

"polio declined both in European countries that refused mass vaccination as well as in those that employed it"
"European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it"

This page and the page on polio itself have clear information on what happened in the US. I think it would be very useful to add more solid information about the immunization efforts in the 50's and 60's in Europe.

A clear statement that indicates exactly and unequivocally why there is ZERO polio in all western countries would also be very useful. (Some people can't process lots of information - they need black and white statements. Here are the types of things they can understand and accept at face value - "did we ever really need vaccinations") CraigWyllie 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In Germany, all or close to all children get vaccinated. Its being done at school, and education is compulsory in Germany, homeschooling or unschooling is illegal, i am not sure but i dont think they ask for parents consent for each vaccination, i suspect they just inform parents and get the appropriate signature at that time when parents first send their children to school. Similar policies exist in many european countries. The european union would not tolerate it and would publicly criticize member states that fail to participate in global and vital vaccination campaigns. Having universal healthcare also of course helps to reach babies and children, if it doesnt cost anything its normal to send your children to regular health checkups, you would be a bad parent if you didnt. Are you from the USA? Well, the USA is the only industrialized country that does not have something like universal healthcare, maybe thats why this question even arises. (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New articleEdit

I created a new article, Eradication of infectious diseases, which could use a lot of work if anyone is interested. There is a section on polio. --Ginkgo100talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it even before noticing it here, its awesome, thanks! Its a topic that will grow with time, or at least i very much hope so, i think humanity will soon knock out either poliomyelitis or guinea worm disease, and this will bring a boost of publicity to these eradication campaigns. I applaud you for creating this article! But i dont know what to add, its quite awesome as it is. (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong year in table headerEdit

The table in the 2005 section is headed "Reported Polio Cases in 2012", but this can't be right. Since it's in the 2005 section and the image is for 2005, possibly it should be "Reported Polio Cases in 2005" but the total doesn't match (table total 1,911 while text and other table say 1,979 cases in 2005). Sabik (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


I recommend a separate article on the CIA's fake vax campaign, the one that greatly promoted distrust in the vaccine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations? MWikidgood (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Translate to help eradicationEdit

This article should be translated in the languages spoken in the endemic country (Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan). --Accurimbono (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Could anybody make a table for year 2014?Edit

In this article there are tables, which show polio cases for each country that had polio, for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. But still no table for 2014, though the year has ended. Can you make it, similarly to the previous tables? It would be very useful. (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (will do image later tonight). Been meaning to do this for a while so thanks for the reminder. Tobus (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 TableEdit

The 2015 table needs to be updated when WHO posts this week's "Polio this week" update. I mean it should be updated every week, but this week especially. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 07:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So what are you waiting for? Get to it! Tobus (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Gotta wait a few more days. Also this is pretty much just a note-to-self. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 12:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Polio This Week as referenceEdit

While the Polio This Week page is a great resource for keeping the current year totals up to date, it does, by definition, change every week and so is a poor choice as a reference for anything else. We need to be careful to only use it for statements that we expect to update, remove or find a new source for in the very near future. Tobus (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Poliomyelitis eradication. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

2012 is no more the smallest year for polio casesEdit

The article says that 2012 is the smallest year of any time by recorded cases of poliomyelitis. But 2015 has ended and it recorded only 106 cases. So 2015 may be the candidate. And 2016 had even less cases (38). Also I think there is a contradiction between table for 2015 and the main text. The table says 54 wild polio cases were in Pakistan in 2015 while the section says there were 53. I didn't want to edit it myself but decided to ask for edition by smb. else. (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Tobus (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Cases per year plotEdit

'Number of poliovirus cases by year, 1975–2015' needs to be updated to 2016, but I would suggest that, when done, an inset be made to show 2000-2016 at a more informative scale, to make recent further improvements evident. (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the figure: . Let me know if there are further suggestions for improvement. Riceissa (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 new suspected polio caseEdit

A new suspected polio case in a 14-month old child has been reported in major national dailies. The child lives in the Thore Valley of District Diamer, Giglit-Baltistan, which has been declared a polio-free region in the past.

The boy’s father told the local reporters that he has vaccinated his child against polio regularly. He has said that an arm and a leg of the child are not functional, and that he has taken his son to hospitals in Chilas, Gilgit and Abbottabad, where doctors have given him medicines for two months. The child’s father has claimed that his son’s condition has improved due to the medicines. The child’s father told the reporters that none of the doctors he consulted has told him about the presence of polio virus in his son.

I do not see evidence that this is polio. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

New half-decade bracket?Edit

It may be a little soon to do this, but as time progresses we lose the immediacy of the detailed descriptions of the early 2010s, and at some point it is probably appropriate to consider condensing these years into a 2011-2015 5-year block like with 2006-2010. The most recent years are always worth tracking, but as these events get farther in the past, the blow-by-blow of the annual reports becomes excessive and it is more useful to discuss trends and landmarks over longer periods of time than to bury these in loads of detail. (Of course, this would impact all those pretty tables and maps.) Agricolae (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is, as of yet, too soon to do this. I also agree that it needs to be done eventually (even if polio were eradicated next year, i.e. 2018, we'd want to condense that portion). I say wait until next year or the year after that (2018 or 2019), depending on developments in the near future. TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with waiting until 2018, but just thought I would get the editors thinking about it. That being said, a good start would be to pare back 2012 and 2013 to something more akin to 2014 and 2015. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not do it, as that is possibly the last full half decade with cases.Jmv2009 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I would respond to this two different ways. First, we say that now, but they would have said the same thing five years ago. We can't base editorial decisions on wishful thinking. Second, the whole year-by-year summary is temporary. An article about an ongoing struggle has a different perspective than that of a fait accompli, and the precise details of 2012 will become trivial excessive detail. All the annual updates should be viewed as temporary, and perhaps even the five-year ones. Agricolae (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's 2018. Is there any particular reason to put it off until later or shall we get to it? TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say the only reasons to put it off are technical - inertia, and the need for a consensus on how best to present the information that is now in the annual tables. At one point I experimented with a combined set of tables but couldn't come up with anything that wasn't overly 'busy'. I think a slideshow for the maps would work, but they need to have the year added to the images for that. Agricolae (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Until we can figure out a better solution, I just collapsed the tables. TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a try, but I am not in love with it if anyone wants to come up with something better. Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm really not a fan, to be honest. It clashes a lot with the other tables. I changed it back to collapsible tables, but in gallery layout. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That is what I tried first, and couldn't get it to work. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually wanted it to be a slideshow gallery, but I'm not sure if that's possible with tables (which requires entirely different markup than images). I haven't been able to use a table as an image's caption. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Importance of Environmental SamplingEdit

This new material seems inappropriate for the annual update. These observations apply generally, and so may have a place higher up in the article, perhaps where other challenges are discussed, but there is nothing that makes the understanding provided by environmental sampling unique to 2017. I have left it for the time being, but want to go on record as viewing its inclusion, at least in the 2017 section, disfavorably. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I know I said I was going to leave it, but if efforts will continue to be made to insert synthesis, then we need to talk about it.
While monitoring paralyses cases is the gold standard for tracking polio,[1] for every paralyses case, over a hundred undetected infections occur as the paralyses rate is below a percent.[2] Furthermore, infected people shed virus for several weeks[2], so for one paralyses case detected every several weeks on average one paralyses victim is actively shedding virus, and over a hundred other infected people as well. As the time between paralyses cases worldwide is currently regularly exceeding several weeks, environmental surveillance is gaining in importance to localize, and detect low-level continued infection.[3][4]


  1. ^ "GPEI-Surveillance Indicators". Retrieved 2017-05-11.
  2. ^ a b "Polio Disease and Polio Vaccine Information". Retrieved 2017-05-11.
  3. ^ "GPEI-A finer sieve". Retrieved 2017-05-11.
  4. ^ "GPEI-Nigeria". Retrieved 2017-05-11.
As I see it, everything here after "shed virus for several weeks" is not found in the cited sources. Further, the first part was also true in 2016 and 2015 - it does not belong in the annual updates, but in the body of the article. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposed section (with synthesis) is especially relevant from 2017 forward with the dwindling or even disappearance in the number of actual paralyses cases. The motivation is to give an honest impression in the article on question like "Has polio already died out?" "Why environmental surveillance if paralyses cases are the gold standard?" "Does environmental surveillance catch all infections?" I like to give explain information in terms of numbers, to which there seems to be some resistance here as well as elsewhere as "synthesis", which could result in platitudes like "no detection for a couple of years" which in turn does not take into account of e.g. the intensity of environmental surveillance in the assessment. I actually would not qualify the statements as "synthesis" but as "routine calculation" which appears permitted.Jmv2009 (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that as editors, it is not our job to anticipate questions and answer them, that is the role of journalists, health care professionals and scientists - our role is to summarize whatever they have chosen to answer. Likewise, our preferences for the way we like to explain things should not be our guide, because we shouldn't be explaining things de novo, we should be summarizing what reliable sources have described and explained. As to it being particularly relevant to 2017, there was a scholarly paper published in 2015 that addressed the relative likelihood that polio had been eradicated in a country based on the frequency of detection of cases and environmental samples, and it correctly predicted a cVDPV case that occurred within weeks of its publication, so it was just as relevant a question then. As uncomfortable as it makes you, "there has been no case detected in X years" is a fact that can be documented - we can cite a source that says the last reported case was in 20XX. Your speculation about how many infected people might be out there can never be documented, because it is only your speculation. And yes, it is synthesis to reach a conclusion that the sources do not reach, and that is what you are doing through your calculation. Agricolae (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:No original research, performing a routine calculation is permitted. You seem to imply that I am doing more that than (without further arguments).Jmv2009 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You are doing more than that - a 'routine calculation' would be to take the fact that 1/200 WPV1 infections results in paralysis and rephrase it as 99.5% of cases show no paralysis. What you are doing is far from routine - combining two different frequency approximations from different sources to come up with a completely novel conclusion regarding the number of undiagnosed carriers. That is synthesis, not just routine calculation. Agricolae (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Eradication likelyhoodEdit

Some detailed background info:

Cases in last six months: 16DEC: Bermal, Afghanistan 22DEC: Kabdulah, Pakistan 13JAN: Kandahar, Afghanistan 21JAN: Nahr-e-Sarah, Afghanistan 28JAN: Lodrhan, Pakistan 13FEB: Diamar, Pakistan 21FEB: Dasht-E-Archi, Afghanistan

Less and less of the cases occur in the typical corridors between Afghanistan and Pakistan, except near Kandahar/Quetta.

It has now been 85 days between the last reported paralyses case and the last weekly report, and 93 days since the last case in Pakistan. In 2014 in Nigeria, after 91 days 2 cases surfaced. In 2016 in Nigeria 4 cases surfaced related to strain detected only 5 years earlier. In 2012 in Chad, after 118 days 2 cases surfaced. Based on these numbers, a reasonable current estimate seems we will see 2 more WPV cases in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. Moveover also last year there were periods in individual countries with close to 90 days without cases as defined above, but currently the case rate is much lower in those countries. However, Pakistan and Afghanistan are seen as a single epidemiological block. This does not take into account environmental surveillance results and intensity.

In these last six month, about 8 times more environmental samples than paralyses cases have been found.

With no recent paralyses cases, in the last month there are many positive environmental samples from Sindh. Other positive samples are from Khyber Pakhtun, Bolochistan/Kandahar/Quetta, and Islamabad. Jmv2009 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But we need a source that draws the conclusions you want to draw. We can report that there are positive environmental samples, but the implications from these data are not for us to determine. (There is also a technical issue - we can cite PolioThisWeek for a given set of environmentals, but that citation will be invalid a week later.) Likewise, deducing what is 'a reasonable current estimate" is not something Wikipedia editors should be doing, nor should we be predicting future cases (WP:CRYSTAL). Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Do you actually have a reference to the 2015 paper you mentioned above? I'm interested.Jmv2009 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going from memory from when I read it, but I must have my chronology off because I can't find it on PubMed. I remember it using frequency of detection of cases and time between known cases to produce probability plots with one axis being 'months since last known case' and the other 'probability that the virus was eradicated'. I distinctly remember observing at the time that it predicted it was unlikely Nigeria had seen its last case, and that by the time the paper had gone through the drawn out review process and been published, there had already been one, as the author(s) had predicted. That being said, I may have the precise details wrong - maybe it was early 2016 instead? Back to your issue, I think the following would represent a reliable source for the problem of surveillance under diminishing viral circulation,[1] but I still think it ought to go up in the Obsticles section (where we could also discuss the difficulties of surveillance in conflict zones, for which I see several potential references, such as [2], and perhaps more soon given that there are reports filtering up, hopefully false, of cVDPV in ISIS-held Syria). Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This article: [3] appears to shows that when you have 130 to 200 days (depending on the circumstances) without AFP WPV1 cases, the chance that WPV1 has been eradicated exceeds 50%. Not sure whether this period takes the roughly four weeks into account between onset and reporting.Jmv2009 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another that is trying to model elimination in Nigeria [4]. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that in Pakistan just before July 11 2017 the last reported case was Feb 13 2017, 147 days earlier. Since then there have been 9 cases there. We are now (for the second time I believe) getting over the 100 day mark. Besides that there is a lot of positive sewage, and Afganistan is very problematic at this point. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

2014 ChinaEdit

Last month an editor added a line about a research study reporting cases of cVDPV3 in China in 2014. At the time I reverted it because it had not been formally published, being a pre-publication release. I did this in part so we could put off dealing with the conflict, as it has yet to be incorporated into the formal narrative and statistical accounting of the WHO & GPEI. Well, now it has been formally published: (paywalled). So, what do we do with it now? Put it in the text? put it in the table and map? decide that as WP:PRIMARY we can ignore it for the time being? Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait, per WP:MEDRS:  Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

GPEI table errorEdit

I reverted the recent edit even though the numbers given come from the GPEI website. The reason is that the tables suddenly doubled the number of cases in each location, while the accompanying text retains the original numbers (e.g. the Afghanistan text still says 10, though the table says 20, the Middle East section says Syria has 63, the table says 126). As such, we should wait to incorporate these numbers until it is clear they are real (which they certainly aren't or every number would not have precisely doubled - this is obviously some sort of data entry error). Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The GEPI webiste is here

The numbers are per week. If there is a difference between the text and the current numbers I would suggest that the text is now out of date.Virion123 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to favor the tables over the text, since all things being equal it is just as likely someone would make an error with one as with the other - they do sometimes have a short delay when the two are updated, with the tables changing first and the text sometimes as much as several hours later, but this updating takes place [usually] on a Thursday and by the end of the day both are almost always in sync. In this case, though, they were in sync immediately after the update, but then on Saturday every number for year-to-date cases in 2017 in the table was doubled - every single one. This is not a simple difference in updating one vs the other, but a data error - just think about it, what are the chances that with four numbers for four countries, each with different regimes for monitoring and reporting, that every one of them would precisely double at the same time? Only Syria had been reporting large weekly numbers, with the other places averaging fewer than one a month, then to suddenly have 88 new cases all the same week, each one doubling the previous number? And to have this massive increase in cases happen without the GPEI taking any formal notice of it, when news of the Syria outbreak trickled out weeks before the numbers were formally reported, and a few years back the Nigeria reemergence was reported via press release immediately? It just isn't credible. That this is was an error is seemingly borne out by the fact that when I looked at it Monday and again right now the numbers have returned to their lower values. I don't know what you are looking at, maybe you need to refresh your cache, but the numbers right now that I see on the GPEI site are Afgh:10, DRC:10, Pak:5, Syr:63, not the doubled numbers from the weekend that you maintain are right.
This brings up something that has been a bit of a concern with this page. The whole approach that has been SOP here for years borders on WP:NOTNEWS - we are so enthusiastic about supplying the most up to date information that we sometimes report what turn out to be false positives (like the South Sudan situation of a few years ago) or data entry errors (which have happened before), only to have to revert a short time later when the errors are corrected. I would suggest it is more important to not report wrong information at the cost of a slight delay in updating, but that is a separate discussion. Agricolae (talk)
We have another discrepancy between the tables and the text on the GPEI site. The tables give Afghanistan 2 cases for 2018, the text gives three. Having been watching it I can confirm that the text is the correct number. With the new year transition, the tables were not created the first week and thus did not record the 1 Jan case. When the tables were created, they only reported two newer cases and not this older one. Until this discrepancy gets resolved, the text should be used as in preference to the table. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
And again, this time with Somalia. For the time being, I am going with the text, which provides an explicit accounting of the cases, rather than the table (which may have accidentally double-counted the 2/3 case). Agricolae (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to amplify this, the cited source currently gives two different numbers for Somalia. In the table it says 5. In the text it lists 4 cases. This is not a situation of one being updated faster than the other, as the two have been in sync, with a one-case difference, since they reported 2 vs 3 cases (both numbers increasing, or both remaining constant in any given week). In our text we can be vague about the precise count, but our own table requires us to report a specific number and thus we as editors have to decide which of the two, 4 vs 5, GPEI text vs table, is the more appropriate number to use. Given that necessity, we have no context at all for the number in the table - it is just a number. However in the text, each individual case is given a specified location and viral strain typing. Likewise, there is what seems to me to be a likely explanation for the table's miscount, that one of the cases was infected with both strains, making it potentially subject to double-counting. The combination of the detailed accounting in the text and a reasonable explanation why the table might be in error makes the text number far preferable to that of the table. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the revert (was about to bug you your talk page). According the "Horn Of Africa" section on the GPEI page "Somalia is reporting a total of four cases (with a total of 5 viruses) in 2018: one cVDPV type 2, two cVDPV type 3 and one case with both cVDPV type 2 & type 3". This is probably the reason for the discrepancy, at least in this case. Tobus (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately, such discrepancies are rare. Unfortunately, when they happen they tend to persist, there apparently being different persons responsible for the tables and the text, with no comparison between the two. In both the Afghani case at the beginning of the year and this Somali case now, the disparity has rolled over for many weeks without being noticed and resolved. With the WPV cases, we have the Wild Polio case count table to serve as a tie-breaker, but with cVDPV, the Polio This Week web page is our only source (until MMWR publishes one of its periodic detailed summary reports), forcing us to divine the 'correct' situation. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
And the table chaos continues. Last week they seemingly corrected the Somalia problem, bringing the two into register, but this week they added another case to Somalia in the table without there being a new case reported in the text, but they also increase PNG by one, when there were two new PNG cases. I am going to continue basing our table on the GPEI text, not their table. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Estimated vs. recorded casesEdit

The sentence Due to the large increase in the number of vaccinators and field workers since 1998, the number of estimated cases is thought to be reasonably close to the actual reported number of cases in recent years. dates back to September 2006 (before this article was split off Poliomyelitis), and the same source was used back then. Problem is that as far as I can tell, the source doesn't actually state this, or anything even close to it.

The question of how close to the actual number of cases the reported number of cases is estimated to be is however one we should strive to provide an answer to, if at all possible. I found this by Ochmann & Roser which cites this by Tebbens et al. What do you think, could we use either of these? TompaDompa (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The possibility of surveillance was just discuss in an essay on the Pakistan conundrum. There is more here we might want to incorporate in the 2017 summary:
Agricolae (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy between 2017 figures in poliomyelitis article and poliomyelitis eradication articleEdit

Issue 1:

Poliomyelitis article has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 20 wild cases (12 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases. Poliomyelitis eradication article says "There were 21 reported WPV1 polio cases with onset of paralysis in 2017" and has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 21 wild cases (13 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases.

Don't know whether 20 and 12 or 21 and 13 are the correct figures. says 20 and 12. says 21 and 13.

If possible, find out which is correct and fix the other article. If not possible to determine correct figures, then put both sets of figures ("20 or 21" for global total; "12 or 13" for Afghanistan) in both article and tag them with a note saying that there is a discrepancy between WHO and the other source.

Issue 2:

Article lead gives figures for 2016 but not for 2017. After determining correct figures to use for 2017, please update article lead to include them. (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue 1:   Done. The Poliomyelitis article has been updated.
Issue 2:   Not done yet. The figures are still subject to change because of the delay in reporting. TompaDompa (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems I jumped the gun when I updated from 2016 to 2017, another case snuck in on 28th December. Chris Jefferies (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This is pretty standard - there is always a delay in detecting and reporting cases. The recent 'new' Congo cVDPV cases are still from November. There is no need to rush this, only to create yet another line of text that will need to be updated if a new case comes in. About mid-February, when all of the new reported cases have an onset of January or later, is early enough to put a pin in 2017, particularly given that we have a whole section for the year. Agricolae (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Virus typesEdit

I appreciate what is trying to be done here, but I am not sure the summary matches the data. For the Northern corridor, the cited source shows, in the 6 months of July 2017 to Jan 2018 that would fall roughly within the 'past year', two R4B5C5 cases, and one R4B1C1, and The Nation article suggests the new KP case is also R4B1C1. In the Southern corridor it shows two R4B5C4 and one R4B5C3. Thus it seems oversimplification to focus in on one in each corridor as 'the major' one. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the information doesn't add anything on its own. To the average reader, the types just look like a random collection of letters and numbers. I think we should either cite a source that discusses the significance of this or remove it entirely. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) I tend to agree - maybe something a bit less specific. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The MMWR report states that there are only two clusters in Afghanistan (with >95% match). Pretty sure its R4B5C5 in the north and R4B5C4 in the south, based on continuation of the epidemic as specified in the IMB report. But let's just leave it like it was just proposed, to be sure. My feeling is that it's good to specify strains, as it makes patently clear, despite the obscurity of the letters, that the clusters are clearly individually specified, and that there is more of a North/South cluster than an Afghanistan/Pakistan cluster.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Anything that begins with 'Pretty sure' looks too much like WP:OR for my taste. As you were posting this I tried a version retaining the concept of different viral subtypes without getting into the alphabet soup. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
You are probably right with regard to Afghanistan, but both of the KP cases on the Pakistani side of the northern corridor within the past 13 months have been R4B1C1 - given we have different types on the two sides of the border, is this even a corridor any longer? In Pakistan-south, I haven't found typing for the three cases this year (this may be in the The Nation piece, but I am not familiar enough with Pakistani geography to recognize the locations he is referring to) but they all fall within a single localized cluster and may not represent the scale of what is happening with the more widespread environmental positives anyhow. That means all we have to go on really is the raw data from 2017, from which we are forced to draw our own conclusions - a no-no. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually the weekly AFP report [5] of Pakistan as referenced shows the type as R4B5C4(D), the same strain as all the kandahar and Sindh cases at the end of last year. Only Bolochistan (in between Sindh and Kandahar) had R4B5C3 at the end of last year. From the AFP report we'll know soon what the new KP case is. I agree we need to be very careful with the phrasing here.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that now regarding south Pakistan cases, but as I said, the cases themselves are really not the whole story in Pakistan given how widespread the positive environmental samples are. Certainly in the north, the Afghani ones from last year (and I assume this year) vs the two KP ones are different strains (if I am reading it right The Nation cite is telling us the new KP one is the same as last year's R4B1C1, not the R4B5C5 that was at least last year's Afghani ones). Particularly with case numbers so small, we need to be careful in drawing our own conclusions regarding what represent the 'major' strains worth relating and which represent the 'minor' strains. As Tompa says, we really need to have a WP:RS doing this analysis and summarizing what is going on on the sub-type level, rather than us drawing it from the raw data, if we are to report it with this level of detail. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So the new KP case [1] is R4B5C5(B2), indicating it is similar to the AFP cases late last year in North-East Afghanistan. Together with the statement that only two clusters have been AFP-active (MMWR report), it's pretty safe to say that North-East Afghanistan is R4B5C5 and south Afghanistan is R4B5C4 in the south, the same types as have been found as AFP cases in Pakistan. Jmv2009 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

'Pretty safe' is not the standard of Wikipedia. We really need a WP:RS that not just reports the types, but makes the analysis and draws the conclusions you want to draw. (For that matter, 'strains causing cases' is a deceptive measure of the situation. The important factor is strains being detected, whether in cases or in environmental sampling - if it is still known to be around it is still a factor, even if it hasn't resulted in a detected case in a while, though I don't even know if they do strain-level typing of environmental positives.) At its heart, though, I just think you are pushing the envelope too far. While I have gone along with it, I am not entirely comfortable with our weekly updates, that themselves represent extraction of raw data in a manner not entirely consistent with policy, but to dig into the raw data and extract strain information, then draw big picture conclusions from it, definitely seems too far to me. Agricolae (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)



It seems a bit odd that we give a plot of cVDPV cases in the main body of the article, but only plot the wild virus when we get down to the timeline section. I am thinking we might want to move the latter plot up (perhaps stacking the two plots at about the position the cVDPV plot now occupies), or move the cVDPV plot down. Thoughts anyone? Agricolae (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this one way or the other. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I juxtaposed the two plots a while back, but want to make a request for anyone who updates them in the future - make the WPV cases the same color in both plots, with the cVDPV cases being a different color. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please clean up duplicate referencesEdit

For example,

Government of Nigeria reports 2 wild polio cases, first since July 2014". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2018-08-25.

is listed twice, identically, and

"WHO | WHO Removes Nigeria from Polio-Endemic List".

is listed twice, but with different retrieved dates. (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You know, you could clean them up. Agricolae (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done TompaDompa (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Poliomyelitis eradication" page.