User talk:FHessel

• References as usual placed by the referenced number. Additionally one column for the reporting authority (=> easier access to new reports + does not have to be updated)
  
• A/H1N1 ./. ILI rate seems to become the new indicator. It could be used for ordering the table (where to order countries, which do not give that rate?)
  
• Confirmed cases should remain, because in thoses cases, where still an extensive testing is done it is worth to have this number. Besides, it gives some hints as to the relation between confirmed cases/hospitalized cases/deaths, the moment in the epidemic evolution, when the first death cases appear, ... But it should clearly state, which status the number has. Maybe it should also state, whether at all and at what time this country has shifted from testing everybody to testing only the severely ill.
  
• Hospitalized and ICU cases give an impression, how actual the disease is, they should be included in any case, even if not all countries do provide these numbers.
  
• 'Data status' is different from 'Publication date', in many cases there is a gap between the two.
  

Feel free to add your comments!

I think this is a great idea! i'd certainlly support this although the width is probably a bit too long. Also, i don't think hospitalized cases should be reported. As for some countries, all cases are hospitilized. for example, China. We could also include "current nomber of H1n1 cases" in the table.Sampsonkwan (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Hi, I know thanks. Somebody kindly made a topic in the talk page of the article which I replied to immediately after. I do not need posts on my talk page telling me what I already know. At the time of me changing it, and still on the BBC site, they had this: "It comes as the number of new cases hit 55,000 last week and the NHS has seen a surge in calls and consultations." Now to me that sounds like it is confirmed and not an estimate. That figure was mentioned on the HPA site and was the only figure mentioned at the time. Thenthornthing (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, initially, it did not mention anything about estimation. They added and updated their reports after I obtained the source Thenthornthing (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you're on line, want to talk for a little bit about making a really good article Cool Nerd (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure; just this morning there was an article (http://www.staffnurse.com/nursing-news-articles/swine-flu-rates-double-3656.html) referring to case rates per 100K, and I've seen others.

I believe that some here are balking at providing 'estimates' because they hear that word and think it means the same as 'wild guess'. It doesn't, of course; 'estimate' in this context means simply a scientifically-accurate though not necessarily exact counting of cases. Epidemiologists, virologists, physicians, mathematicians--all of them work together observing, comparing what they see with what they know, and extrapolating their findings. It's very much analogous to measuring the distance to, say, the sun. It's estimated distance is 93,000,000 miles, but that's obviously not exact; it's a rounding off of theire best measurements.

Anyway, they should really be included in the table. Perhaps not now, but sooner or later... Sqlman (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about a "new name poll" ( see talk page) would be helpful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd seen that message. I had already reset the Brazil number when I read that, and quickly double-checked the remaining nations you listed--US, Australia, Mexico, etc.. The only one that appeared out of whack at that time was Canada. I set the number to what was shown on the Wikipedia page, but am double checking the provincial numbers now, and will reset them if need be.

Thansk for fixing that. I'm looking at it, and can't understand why I would have updated the deaths without updating the reference; I try to be very careful about both the sources I use and updating and Wikipedia page. Again, thanks.

On a related note: you may have noticed that I update/correct the totals of confirmed cases and deaths several times a day. I'm a software developer, so I wrote a very small utility that scrapes the screen and removes the extraneous stuff, then lists just the pertinent info--country, confirmed cases, deaths--while totalling everything. The entire process takes maybe 30 seconds, so the numbers I use are definitely accurate and up-to-date; if/when you see me overwrite yours or anyone else's totals, you can rest assured they're right. Sqlman (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not discounting your edit of the Chilean H1N1 death figures, if you think you can back it up with proper references. Right now 116 deaths + 11 unconfirmed deaths posted on the table. That equals to 127 deaths if the 11 are confirmed. The news article states that there are 128 deaths: So which is right? Roman888 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't instead of creating another column to differentiate the officially and unofficially confirmed A(H1N1) cases in the table template, just add a note to any of the figures? Unless your creating a column for estimations of the number of A(H1N1) cases, then another column on the table is required. Otherwise its just making extra work. Anyways what has happened to the discussion of adding population figures next to the number of deaths? Are we heading in that direction? Roman888 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I added an entry for swine flu to the table in 2009_flu_pandemic#Historical_context, and in order so share data with Template:2009 flu pandemic menu, I split out the worldwide total into Template:Swine-flu-deaths so it can be shared between the 2 tables. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FHessel, just want your opinion whether we can use some of the figures from this website and incorporate them into the H1N1 pandemic table. The website is updated quite frequently and there are some confirmed cases that are much higher compare to our current pandemic table: Swine Flu Count Let me know what you think. Roman888 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for keeping the table in the lead seems at this point seems to be you. I will leave it were it is however until further people join the discussion. Cybercobra however did remove it from the lead once as well so currently the consensus does seem to be against having it in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to locate any formal guidance on it, but in my recollection I've never come across an infobox not placed at the beginning of an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We're still discussing the placement of this table. As I'm sure you're well aware by now I am concerned about the table being misinterpreted by the lay reader. Essentially I want it to be clear that the table is of reported deaths not total deaths and that this distinction might be significant. Other context for the table would be useful but is a little less important. I can see that you don't wish for the table to be moved from its current prominent position. Perhaps we can clear up this one major and regular misinterpretation by adding a footnote into the table. I would like to add the following footnote to "Confirmed deaths" in this table:

The fraction of deaths which are later confirmed is unknown. See data reporting and accuracy for more detail.

I'm asking you because you say on the associated talk page that you have an automated program to update this table. Perhaps it would be easier for you to include this footnote yourself?

Clearly the data reporting and accuracy section needs some detail added to it. It did use to have more detail but it appears to have been trimmed somewhere along the way! I'll get on to that part immediately.

Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think this prefix is a reasonable compromise. Thank you for making this modification. Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if the note on the table might be rephrased a bit (no substantive changes) and moved to the bottom (while important, it doesn't need to precede and dominate the table) as in this revision. Thought I'd ask you so as to not disrupt your script. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with your just making the textual change at your next update and not messing with the placement. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)