Talk:G4 EA H1N1

Footnotes

I did a Marie Kondo on the footnote clusters -there's a lot of overlapping information to parse. kencf0618 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature

We should keep a close eye on the nomenclature of this thing: G4 is a genotype, EA = Eurasian avian-like; A/H1N1 is a subtype of the Influenza A virus with the glycoproteins haemagglutinin and neuraminidase (with the number denoting depending the type of H or N antigens they express with metabolic synergy). "G4 EA H1N1" shall be simplified; "the flu" hasn't gone away. kencf0618 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

I've begun https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Timeline_of_G4_EA_H1N1_in_June_2020. Initially began the COVID-19 timeline by splitting it from the main article on 2020-01-23, so I figured that we'd get ahead of the curve. Influenza is no joke. kencf0618 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kencf0618; It’s probably a redirect/merge until more events/discoveries happen related to this virus. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see that was nixed. WP:NOTNEWS ... could we stay more WP:MEDRS focused here, to avoid the Wikipedia COVID debacle? This article was engaging in newsy clickbait scare mongering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia, agreed, I think we’re overreacting and calling it a pandemic too early. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I hope you can all see from my edits how wrong the laypress had it, why we don't use the laypress for biohealth info (see WP:MEDRS), that there was undue emphasis on many aspects in this article, that some information was made up, and that we should cite the actual journal article when we can instead of clickbait laypress headlines. See the journal article citation for how I added a laysummary to serve the average reader, while avoiding citing the laypress wherever possible. There are good reasons for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS, and these core policies and guidelines have been breached throughout the COVID suite of articles-- let's not start it here. Less is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Four years old?

It appears that this new G4 strain has been around for over four years, based on the articles below. (segments included)

SCMP 12/29/2015

“After long-term evolution in pigs, the EAH1N1 SIVs have obtained the traits to cause a human influenza pandemic,” they said. Researchers found that only 3.6 per cent of children aged below 10 and 13.4 per cent of the elderly aged 60 or above had antibodies against one of the two subgroups of the Eurasian avian-like H1N1 lineage. No adults have antibodies against this subgroup.

PNAS 1/12/2016

Importantly, the EAH1N1 SIVs preferentially bound to human-type receptors, and 9 of the 10 tested viruses transmitted in ferrets by respiratory droplet. We found that 3.6% of children (≤10 y old), 0% of adults, and 13.4% of elderly adults (≥60 y old) had neutralization antibodies...Our study shows the potential of EAH1N1 SIVs to transmit efficiently in humans and suggests that immediate action is needed to prevent the efficient transmission of EAH1N1 SIVs to humans.

PNAS 6/29/2020

Here, we report on an influenza virus surveillance of pigs from 2011 to 2018 in China, and identify a recently emerged genotype 4 (G4) reassortant Eurasian avian-like (EA) H1N1 virus, which bears 2009 pandemic (pdm/09) and triple-reassortant (TR)-derived internal genes and has been predominant in swine populations since 2016. ...Controlling the prevailing G4 EA H1N1 viruses in pigs and close monitoring in human populations, especially the workers in swine industry, should be urgently implemented. --Light show (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

And I saw one source referencing a 2009 date; this article is really messed up, and using lay sources when WP:MEDRS sources are available. There is more wrong here than I can fix, and I have asked virus specialist Graham Beards to have a look ... hope he has time. The sensationalistic lay sources are good for clickbait, but not for sourcing medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: For the 6/29/2020 PNAS report's abstract, some details are missing:

• 1. It states that report was to "...identify a recently emerged genotype 4," with no details on how recent.
• 2. It states what "serological surveillance among occupational exposure population showed," without giving when the tests were done. Although it states that the tests show the "virus has acquired increased human infectivity."
• 3. It concludes that the report "raises concerns for the possible generation of pandemic viruses."

Being that this virus has been under surveillance since 2011, without knowing some of the specific dates it's not unreasonable to treat this as potentially very serious newsworthy material, and assume the dates are very "recent." The article therefore presents an implied contradiction: The WHO claims the virus is not new and has been watched closely since 2011, yet the PNAS report describes the G4 variant and its enhanced infectivity as being "recently emerged," IOW, new. --Light show (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

HIV is considered to be "recently emerged". Get some perspective on this. Graham Beards (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Graham, and more. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that reports what secondary sources say-- it is not a news source, and certainly not a tabloid (which is what earlier versions of this article were). When it comes to biomedical health information, we quite specifically avoid the laypress in most instances (WP:MEDRS -- depending on the kind of information being cited) and we most often avoid primary sources entirely.

Meaning-- the fact that we even have this article, which is cited to four laypress sources, means we ARE taking it with due seriousness. That does not mean we should be hyping the clickbait news headlines, or getting ahead of the science and secondary sources. You may notice that most of the laypress got it wrong. The article in its current state is right about where it should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all reasonable. But my comment was only referring to the PNAS report and the WHO's statements, not newspapers. So it still seems a bit risky to cite a "recently emerged" type of virus without more details, as any news source could now create a story about a "recently emerged" virus using medical sources. --Light show (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are saying now. But I'm not clear what wording you want to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we need some actual dates or time frames to put "recently emerged" in context. --Light show (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am obtuse, but we are not repeating the ″recently emerged″ wording, so I still do not understand what you want to change.

Maybe you are wanting mention that in the surveillance of swine flu viruses between 2011 and 2018 in 10 provinces of China with high-density pig populations, while other reassortants declined, the presence of the G4 reassortant sharply increased and has been prominent since 2016? The surveillance of workers was from 2016 to 2018. Does that help? @Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Giving a time period of the surveillance would help. Although the article has been toned down so the newness issue is not as pronounced. Yesterday, there were more sources that all seemed to focus on that. For instance, the cited Science Magazine article's lead refers to it as a "new finding," from a "new study." The BBC lead had "A new strain of flu that has the potential to become a pandemic has been identified in China by scientists," and the NY Times headline read, "Scientists Say New Strain of Swine Flu Virus Is Spreading to Humans in China."

So if it's not actually new, a reader has to make sense of what seems like a contradiction. I've been reviewing the medical reports but don't feel able to explain it clearly, and I actually took a year of genetics. The sentence you wrote about reassortments seemed a bit too complex.--Light show (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

See now ... better? Lots of changes because I read more of the sources and more of what was in the article was just plain wrong ... I am done for a bit if you want to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I like your changes, which do make it all flow better. --Light show (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Whew ... we’ll see what the expert (Graham) says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Carelessness in biohealth articles

Considering that this article got more than 35,000 pageviews while it was in a state of laypress-reported clickbait hysteria, please take greater care to respect WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTNEWS when reporting biomedical/health information on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Not only was this content attempting (unnecessarily) to repeat information already in the article; it was also completely wrong on several counts. Please take more care. Graham removed it entirely, which was the correct move. That inaccurate content stood for about two hours, before Graham could get to it, on a day when the article got almost 10,000 pageviews. Perhaps people will propose their changes on talk if they are unsure of the science? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lay summary is good. kencf0618 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename and leave a redirect?

This is not an appropriate name for the article. As "G4 EA H1N1" is a "code" for a subtype of influenza A virus, I suggest that "Influenza virus A subtype G4 EA H1N1" might be better? Graham Beards (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah, the lede explains it nicely. Acronyms are fine -unless you want to change Radar to Radio Detection and Ranging. kencf0618 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not an acronym. Graham Beards (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agree. More accurate, more in line with our other articles, and those searching for "G4 EA H1N1" will find it anyway via the redirect. Also because eventually the entire article is likely to become a merge/redirect to the main H1N1 article anyway. I would propose a delete/merge/redirect even now, except that the article is getting very high pageviews due to the scare mongering press. If we could get people to stop adding incorrect, scaremongering information, it would be good. But this article is eventually likely to go away, and be merged to H1N1 as just another variant. Loathe to cite the popular press, I just added a newer Bloomberg report because the misperception and scaremongering and inaccuracies added just today is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't agree to expanding name, which reduces clarity for encyclopedic purposes. I know that some scientists and doctors actually use WP in their research, but we shouldn't be writing the article for them. I added a redirect from "G4 swine flu," which is closer to the term the media is using for the general reader. In any case, even the CDC article, which ranks #1 on Google search, has it's story lead as "CDC Takes Action to Prepare Against “G4” Swine Flu Viruses in China with Pandemic Potential".

Other examples: MedicalNewsToday, "...influenza virus called G4," Healthline, "A new flu strain, called the G4 virus", or WebMD, "...scientists who discovered G4 said." Those are medical cites for the general public. BTW, I would prefer not citing Bloomberg for medical issues, as it is paywall protected, over $400/yr, only online, and IMO is becoming a tabloid oriented to sensationalism, as opposed to their original purpose of business and economics. --Light show (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I can probably find a better source for the Bloomberg text ... on it now. But those things needed to be said .., SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, now that we have the CDC source, it should be easier to replace several of the laypress sources ... working on it momentarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where's the clarity in "G4 EA H1N1"? The word "virus" isn't even there, let alone "influenza". The examples you have cited do include the terms. Graham Beards (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Which is why my first edit to this article tried to help, but it was reverted. Maybe it can now be included.--Light show (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And the title? Graham Beards (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer it for the title also. --Light show (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still strongly of the opinion that this thing is going to be a nothing-burger a month from now, and will end up merged to the main H1N1 article. It only became an article because of COVID-related panic and hype. Not sure what that says about what the current name should be. I can be convinced either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If this doesn't get merged/redirected away soon, then I strongly support moving this page to an article title that includes the word influenza. Graham Beards' suggestion in the first comment is a very good one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We have three people in agreement, one who wants to leave it as is, and one who wants G4 swine flu. We need more feedback. Can we call 3-1-1 consensus, when the supporting data, hence strength of argument, is all over the place? Since we quite literally (and surprisingly) have an article built around one primary source publication, we could also call it 2020 G4 EA H1N1 swine flu study. I still prefer Graham’s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

After a quick review of some leading sources, including the PNAS report, CDC site, and the NYT, they all actually use the term "G4 virus" more than any other. Even Science simply refers to it as "G4". So I'd suggest G4 virus as meeting WP naming criteria well. The technical name, G4 EA H1N1, would be in the lead sentence. --Light show (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But others want to see the word influenza ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A Google search gives 235,000 sites using "G4 virus" vs. only 1,380 using "G4 influenza." --Light show (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And, the main article was getting more pageviews than this one: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Speculations

While there's a thin line between expert opinions and speculations, I think the article is too short and the subject too recent to include any. (ie. "Marie Culhane, a University of Minnesota swine veterinarian, stated that there is a chance that "the test picked up immune proteins that recognize another flu virus, not G4", and Bloomberg News reported that the lead author of the study published by PNAS stated that the number of people exposed may be overstated.") So I would stick with hard facts at this point. In any case, once we allow speculations in this article, it could open up a can of worms.--Light show (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, we are likely to get a better source on this info, so for now I will inline comment it out ... I added Culhane to buttress the (paywalled) Bloomberg statement with something similar, but we can address this later. Here's the thing: if you read the study, you can see why the lead author said this, per the method uses to detect antibodies. But if it's significant, someone else will report it soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good for now with the changes I made? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reads well. And we can always add a Notes section for more details. BTW, is the PNAS report considered a primary source? --Light show (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The only reason we have ended up with this content is that it has received notable mention in multiple secondary sources, most of which are not MEDRS (except the CDC)-- and that is what makes the use of the primary source somewhat acceptable. It's an exception to the MEDRS guideline at this point (guidelines are guidelines), and we have to take care to use these sources accordingly. Most of what is sourced to the primary source is confirmed by secondary news coverage, but the most important facts should be CDC confirmed, which is where we are now (so on less shaky ground). What should have happened here is that a small mention should have been added to the main H1N1 article to begin with since we normally should not be creating an article around a primary source and hyped laypress. But we are where we are, and the article is serviceable now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue

This content is UNDUE laypress reporting; what need is there to "nip this virus" in the bud? Emerging flu variants are monitored. And the CDC seems to be expressing confidence that seasonal flu vaccines are adjusted without excess difficulty, and that there is worldwide collaboration. Business as usual. I suggest this content be removed, as it adds to the media clickbait scare mongering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• In 2016 the WHO recommended that China produce "seed strains" to be stockpiled in case a vaccine was ever necessary.[6] As of July 2020, China had not announced any plans to "nip this virus in the bud", according to Bloomberg News.

Date formatting

Shouldn't the article and citations use the m-d-y format, especially as all the secondary sources, like the CDC, use it? --Light show (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that unless there are strong national ties to one format, we should respect the one the article was created with. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates and time)-- it doesn't depend on the sources.) It is possible for us (via consensus) to decide to override that, and switch to mdy (from dmy), but I don't recommend we do that, because Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 also uses dmy, and I suspect this content will eventually end up there. At any rate, if we decide at any time to switch it, I have a script installed that makes it one-click easy. I think we should stick with dmy, for the possibility of an eventual merge, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Redirect to main H1N1 article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Redirect to Influenza A virus subtype H1N1#2020 G4 EA H1N1 publication

• Support, Wikipedia should not be engaging in media hype and scaremongering. A primary study was hyped by (and even grossly misreported by) the media, and we ended up with an article that breaches WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS, and what we are mostly updating now is a series of rebuttals from more responsible reporting. This is about a primary source study of a variant that got undue attention in the media because of COVID fear, and the content should be part of the main H1N1 article. The redirects will lead those searching for G4 to the content in the correct place. Regarding the Reuters report, even if Chinese officials lie, we have multiple credible US and WHO officials saying similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, based solely on a primary study, the main conclusions of which are yet to be independently confirmed, this strain of influenza A virus is not significant enough to justify its own article. It has certainly gained undue attention because a completely unrelated virus is pandemic. It is worthy of paragraph or two in the H1N1 article. No more. Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, It's way too soon to consider relocating and downplaying the article to a "paragraph or two," as it is clearly notable based on countless neutral RSs, including the CDC, WHO, NYT, BBC, WaPo, and a long list of neutral and independent science publications from around the world. In fact I'm not even sure it's proper to propose this based on the personal opinions of editors, (ie. "I am still strongly of the opinion that this thing is going to be a nothing-burger," "It only became an article because of COVID-related panic and hype," "a primary study was hyped," "got undue attention in the media because of COVID fear," "has certainly gained undue attention because a completely unrelated virus." Nor does the inclusion of the new Reuters news agency story affect that, since it simply quoted the personal opinion of a Chinese minister saying their 11-year long study has been exaggerated. It's not for us neutral editors to decide. If anything, the fact that the Reuters article was even published implies the virus's current notability.--Light show (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Citing personal opinions is a red herring. It was an editor's personal opinion that an article was justified. Others disagree. This is not a deletion proposal. In can be argued that by having a separate entry, Wikipedia is aiding and abetting scaremongering. Now that contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Beards (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as SandyGeorgia and Graham Beards. If this virus becomes more important then it can get an article, but it doesn't seem particularly important at the moment. I don't think any harm is done if it is mentioned on H1N1 for the time being. 2020 China hantavirus outbreak is another one of these articles that should probably be deleted or redirected. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'd suggest an RFC. Some might consider readership a factor in deciding whether an article about a new virus is notable enough to keep. In comparison to the hundreds of virus articles on WP, many of which Velayinosu has edited, a sampling of those shows that they receive from 0 to 3 views per day, while this article is still averaging about 2,500. It's no doubt partly because even the CDC considers it important enough to write 730 words about it on their "spotlight" section: CDC Takes Action to Prepare Against “G4” Swine Flu Viruses in China with Pandemic Potential. That seems to go against the proposal here to shrink and bury the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light show (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Addendum: The CDC states that if needed, they would create a G4 virus vaccine, as they did for the 2009 Swine Flu, although, ("...had the vaccination program started two weeks earlier, close to 60% more cases could have been prevented.") --Light show (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Light show: If "some" consider popularity to be a factor, "some" are wrong, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Pageview stats. It's not necessary to seek the opinions of "some" when it's known they're wrong ab initio. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Light show, rather than an RFC, the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers is the designated process for potentially controversial/contested proposed mergers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now. I don't think an RFC is necessary. Just notify related WikiProjects (this is not canvassing per WP:APPNOTE) or the WP:VP if you think it will tip the scales. A formal RFC will only serve to needlessly slow this down. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Slow what down? Why such haste to shrink and bury a medical article of such high notability? IOW, what difference does it make if it remains a separate article? With hundreds of articles about viruses unknown by the general public, most which receive little of no visits, why the implied urgency to get rid of this one? Oddly enough, of the four editors who support the proposal, only one of them has actually edited the article, so why the sudden attention by others to this proposal? --Light show (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  You need to recheck the article history. The information will not be buried, it will be retained but in a better context.Graham Beards (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Light show: Excuse me? I've edited the article. Graham Beards has edited the article. SandyGeorgia has edited the article. That's three out of four voting for their own work to be deleted. But in any case, contributions are not required for editors to weigh in on matters. Please retract your false statement. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I struck out the sentence, since I only looked at the Authorship section of page stats. BTW, while you support the proposal, you gave no reasons. Do you have any? At least SandyGeorgia and Graham Beards explained their main concern was that in their opinion the virus was hyped by the media, including the CDC, so an article about this relatively new virus with pandemic potential is undue. --Light show (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am in no particular hurry to redirect this, and am watching the pageviews, but when the media hype dies down, the correct route to what you call an RFC is a formal merge proposal. The content merge to the correct articles has already been done, so all that is left is the redirect. PS: I don't think the CDC hyped it; I think the CDC was forced to issue a response (in spite of business as usual) because of the media hype. They did their job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Re your opinion that the CDC "did their job," it seems nearly the opposite at this point, since according to them, their job has just begun:

  "However, like all flu viruses with pandemic potential, CDC is taking a number of actions to monitor and prepare against this emerging public health threat, including: Coordinating with public health partners in China, including requesting a virus sample; Assessing the risk of the virus causing a pandemic using CDC’s Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT); Evaluating whether an existing candidate vaccine virus (CVV) against a closely related flu virus (called “G5”) would protect against this virus, If needed, creating a new CVV specific to G4 viruses; and Studying whether existing flu antiviral drugs offer protection against this group of viruses." (italics added)

  Light show (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Like all flu viruses", followed by doing what they always do. There has been nothing new reported for several days now, and more responsible reporting and headlines have emerged. All a result of the initial irresponsible scare-mongering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Re your comment that the CDC is "doing what they always do," that may be questionable in this case. While the virus has been studied and closely monitored since 2011 by China, the WHO, and researchers at Nottingham University, the CDC has only just learned about it. Which is why they are only now requesting a sample of the virus. So if anything, they seem to have been unable to do what they always do.

Consider: In 2003, when the SARS epidemic was disclosed by China, the WHO enlisted the support of public health services from the US, UK, Germany, France, and other nations. More than 60 teams of medical experts came to assist in SARS-affected areas. They included 84 personnel from the U.S. CDC, and ultimately, more than 800 U.S. CDC employees were involved in the response to SARS.

Yet, for the current Coronavirus pandemic, despite numerous requests by our CDC to send experts, beginning back in early January, they have rebuffed all offers to send any CDC experts, and soon after expelled all journalists from the leading U.S. media, including the WSJ, WP, and NYT.

For this newly disclosed G4 virus, the CDC has merely summarized a peer-reviewed report, which for obvious reasons (pandemic fear,) countless reliable sources have likewise tried to report the news. So although the British expert (in your linked article) who has been researching the virus, warns that "we must not lose sight of potentially dangerous new viruses and... we should not ignore it," in your opinion mention of the danger is "scaremongering," and we should simply ignore the NY Times, CDC and the rest of the media. --Light show (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support A slight twist on the same basic thing, like Lotus 107B and Lotus 107C belonging to Lotus 107 (I am aware flus are otherwise quite different from cars). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now. If there is a legitimate outbreak happens, then this article could be recreated. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is infection data missing an explanation?

The CDC article, using the PNAS study, states: "Regular households also were sampled, and about 4% of the 230 people from the general population had antibodies to G4 viruses. These data suggest that these viruses may have acquired increased capability of infecting humans."

Since we seem to have some viral experts on board here, can someone try to expand on that? Especially the phrases, "data suggest" and "increased capability." There is no mention I can see even speculating on how people in the "general population" could have been infected. The CDC article simply concludes that "evidence of prior infection with G4 viruses, suggesting that human infection is more common than previously thought." And according to the NYT article, the Chinese study actually warns that this virus should be "urgently" controlled to avoid another pandemic.

Does the PNAS study or CDC attempt to explain or even guess how those 4% of the general population got the antibodies and therefore had apparently been infected at some point? The CDC states they "requested" samples of the virus. Although the virus has been "under surveillance" by the WHO since 2011. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't try to guess, because the methodology used can do no more than suggest. We cannot extend beyond what a primary source says, we really shouldn't be using it all, and we shouldn't be trying to analyze it ourselves. We do not even know for sure people have been infected; multiple sources have stated that the methodology could have been detecting something else. Please stop falling for media hype, even if from the New York Times. The "urgently controlled" wording might sound important, but they already are monitoring the virus, according to sources. For now, and until/unless a secondary MEDRS-compliant review gives us more to go on, our work is done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ALso curious about this edit; medical accuracy is important, nasal swabs are mentioned in most sources, and piping "testing" to nasal swabs is an unnecessary link and click for readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think some readers are curious to know exactly how the pigs got tested, they can click to learn how. --Light show (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't usually require readers to click on an Easter Egg link to learn something that is standard (and in this case, covered in almost every source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)