Talk:Zika virus: Difference between revisions

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose that Zika fever be merged into Zika virus. I think that the content in the Zika fever article can easily be explained in the context of Zika virus, and the Zika fever article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Zika virus will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.Alanl (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded.FeatherPluma (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is reasonable. It does fly rather in the face of what is the normal practice on other medical infectious diseases where the organism gets a page and the disease itself get a page. For poorly studied diseases like Zika I myself dont have a problem with this suggestion but there others who will feel differently about this. For this reason it might be better if both pages were mainatined. DrMicro (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The articles should be kept separate. There are numerous virus articles that are stubs such as Black Creek Canal virus. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2013 (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.

Re: Seeking Clarification

I'm seeking clarification on a statement made under the History section in the 3rd paragraph, 4th Sentence.

The statement

In 2015 there were 2,782 cases compared with 147 in 2014 and 167 in 2013.[7][8]

After searching the sources and reading the New York Times source, I further found an article at: http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2015/dezembro/15/COES-Microcefalias---Informe-Epidemiol--gico---SE-49---15dez2015---10h.pdf

After reading through the article on Google Translate and reading the tables it sounds more as if this statistic is referencing cases of microcephaly

If this is the case, maybe the statement should be edited and also if any one has a source for the number of actual confirmed cases of Zika in Brazil for each of the past 3 years, I would be very interested in it.

Also I have another source at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/zika-virus-americas-association-with-microcephaly-rapid-risk-assessment.pdf

That provides a different number regarding the amount of Microcephaly cases, this source also lists number of possible cases of Zika, but I have had trouble translating the actual sources this page uses for referencing the extremely large number of possible Zika cases

My apologies if I am totally off with this question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakespo (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2016 ‎

It is microcephaly. The sentence is referring to the sentence immediately preceding. I added case "of microcephaly" to make it clear. Those are numbers reported by NYT for the entire years. The other sources may be different time periods. Another good source of info and updates is http://www.promedmail.org/. juanTamad (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

recent lede edits and sloppy sourcing

i've witnessed this recent frenzy of packing latest things and sources into the lede. WP isnt a sketchbook for jotting down notes.

The WP:lede is the extract, containing time-sifted WP:NOTNEWS, most important globally correct "true" facts. the lede shouldnt be changed every day because some newspaper or agency makes a piep !

Most importantly the lede reflects the body and thus requires no refs.

Furthermore the sources that have been added are poorly delineated with a generic link, title and accessdate. neither a publication date ( very important, much more important than teh fricking accessdate just one more click away on teh template, arrgh), the author, publisher, nor page are in it. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

IP vandalism

I consider this reversion by IP 208.54.38.230 from Hernon, VA pushing an irrelevant url vandalism.

looks like someone is hounding me, as teh same happened on Talk:BIA 10-2474 with IP from 66.27.122.63 (from Herndon,VA) whom I welcomed already from Bellevue, WA....--Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to Brazil Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present)

Shouldn't there be a link to the page that is specifically on the outbreak? Seems to me a lot on this page is actually about the outbreak and should be moved there. During the Ebola outbreak, the page that was most often updated was the outbreak page, not the page on the Ebola virus. juanTamad (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's already a link from the lead. More links can easily be added at the start and the end if desired. Also, as mentioned int the Talk Page there, this article is currently an In The News candidate, which may or may not mean that gutting it is not such a good idea just now.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not planning to gut the Zika virus page, just move information on current outbreak to the outbreak page (to be renamed). I added the link in the lede. In the News should probably link to the new outbreak page, which I'll finish in another 12 hours. juanTamad (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

juanTamad I agree with Tlhslobus.

• Re "copied to new outbreak page": without precisely saying which page, what kind of behavior do you want ? Us to look where you contribute? ( thats what I had to do) this is poor editing behavior.
• Re the word "copying": No, you did not move nor copy, you cut = deleted
• Re "not planning to gut ...": You deleted 5000 and I see you added only 500 to the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil (2015 - present) page (or whatever its latest name is after you changed it to Americas and someone else changed it yet again....) Deleting from this page esp such a big change UNILATERALLY without any consensus is a faux pas. I think you should revert yourself.
• As someone who has cared about the Zika Virus page attending with lots of little edits cleaning up thoughtless, sloppy ones with incomplete refs, poor imprecise language, adding sources, and organizing logically (exactly the things missing on the new outbreak page you created) I am asking you to be more collaborative from now on. Discuss big changes, when in doubt ask. And stop marking edits as "minor changes" that could in any way be controversial. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be disruptive. The story of the ongoing outbreak was primarily developing in the history section of the Zika virus page, while the page on the outbreak was out of date and apparently not being maintained. I posted a notice of my intentions on both the Zika virus and the Zika outbreak page with a link on the latter to a draft on a subpage of my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtamad/draft_Zika_virus_outbreak_in_the_Americas_(2015_-_present) ), and left it for comment, but obviously not for long enough. The 3rd or 4th paragraph of the history section was nicely written and seemed like it would be better as the lead for the outbreak page, so I cut and pasted that to the outbreak page to create a new retitled page on the outbreak, deleting it from the virus page since there's no point in duplicating text verbatim (I don't understand your comment about not moving or copying, but cutting. Everything except possibly one sentence [inadvertently] I think was copied over to the new page). Seems to me the page on the outbreak should be updated regularly with new developments, which should then be summarized periodically in the appropriate sections of the Zika virus and Zika fever pages. Also, I think the title of the outbreak page should reflect that the page is about the pandemic spread of this clearly not benign virus in the Western hemisphere, which is the big news (Zika Virus in the Americas — Yet Another Arbovirus Threat). I'll try leaving a message about proposed major changes for a longer period in the future. juanTamad (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to "History" section

Regarding this edit, the phrase that was removed, "advised women to postpone getting pregnant until more was known about the risks", is actually worded better than what was added: "recommended to avoid pregnancy for eight months". If this last phrase is preferred, it should be written, "recommended that women avoid pregnancy for eight months". The additional phrase, "until more is known about the risks" explains why a government or governmental official would advise women to postpone getting pregnant, so adds a bit of clarity, and now it's not there.

There's another problem that was introduced with this edit. Now you have the first half of the sentence being about a person recommending something and the second half of the sentence being about countries issuing warnings, so the sentence now lacks balance. Corinne (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Add a 'Protective Measures' section?

I'm not sure this type of information should be part of a Wikipedia article.

Extracted directly from the PAHO Statement of 24/1/16 (http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11605%3A2016-paho-statement-on-zika-transmission-prevention-&catid=8424%3Acontent&Itemid=0&lang=en):

″To prevent or slow the spread of Zika virus and reduce its impact, PAHO recommends the following:

Mosquito populations should be reduced and controlled by eliminating breeding sites. Containers that can hold even small amounts of water where mosquitoes can breed, such as buckets, flower pots or tires, should be emptied, cleaned or covered to prevent mosquitoes from breeding in them. This will also help to control dengue and chikungunya, which are also transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. Other measures include using larvicide to treat standing waters.

All people living in or visiting areas with Aedes mosquitoes should protect themselves from mosquito bites by using insect repellent; wearing clothes (preferably light-colored) that cover as much of the body as possible; using physical barriers such as screens, closed doors and windows; and sleeping under mosquito nets, especially during the day when Aedes mosquitoes are most active.

Pregnant women should be especially careful to avoid mosquito bites. Although Zika typically causes only mild symptoms, outbreaks in Brazil have coincided with a marked increase in microcephaly—or unusually small head size—in newborns. Women planning to travel to areas where Zika is circulating should consult a healthcare provider before traveling and upon return. Women who believe they have been exposed to Zika virus should consult with their healthcare provider for close monitoring of their pregnancy. Any decision to defer pregnancy is an individual one between a woman, her partner and her healthcare provider.″

Of course, a synopsis of these recommendations needs to be prepared. McortNGHH (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

McortNGHH I think this does not belong here in a big way. sure, vector control should be mentioned in the transmission section. but what you "extracted" above, protections against the disease caused by the virus, belongs on the corresponding clinical page. you should paste this question on the Zika fever page. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. That's exactly where it belongs. I'm going to take a look at the 'fever' page and see what I can do. McortNGHH (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dominican Republic is the fifth country to issue official recommendations regarding postponing pregnancy due to Zika

[1]

This should also correct the info on WP's Main Page "In the news" section.

186.120.31.103 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Zika virus electron micrograph

There's a putative electron micrograph of Zika virus on this page - http://sao247.net/7-438392/ti-m-hie-u-loa-i-virus-zika-an-na-o-nguo-i-da-c-bie-t-nguy-hie-m.sao - for what it's worth. If someone wants follow up on rights etc., please do. I don't think it would add much to the article. BTW, I can't read Vietnamese but the page looks great. McortNGHH (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you , McortNGHH looks liek someone pasted it in. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It turned out Wuerzele (talk that the Vietnamese image was a generic flavivirus pic. The one pasted in is from the CDC and is well documented. I hope that area of the page will now be stable. McortNGHH (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Chikungunya a Flavivirus?

The statement below seems to suggest that Chikungunya virus is a flavivirus. It is infact an alphavirus.

"Work has already begun towards developing a vaccine for Zika virus according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).[34] The researchers at the NIAID Vaccine Research Center have extensive experience from working with vaccines for other Flaviviruses such as West Nile virus, chikungunya virus and dengue fever.[34]"

Please read [2] for some medically important flaviviruses and alphaviruses.

I suggest that the sentence read; "...The researchers at the NIAID Vaccine Research Center have extensive experience from working with vaccines for West Nile virus, Dengue virus and Chikungunya virus." 197.176.16.48 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it is not a flavivirus. I changed that sentence. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

“This outbreak in south and central America is unprecedented and has caught the world unprepared once again, with no vaccine, no drugs and limited anti-mosquito measures.”

Headline-1: Zika outbreak: British travellers told to put off trying for a baby for a month

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12129072/Zika-outbreak-British-travellers-told-to-put-off-trying-for-a-baby-for-a-month.html

QUOTE: "Around half a million people are believed to have travelled to Zika infected countries in the last six months, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics. The virus has already caused nearly 4,000 cases of malformed babies in the Americas and the World Health Organisation warned yesterday that the disease was spreading so quickly that four million people could be infected by the end of the year. Although the virus is mainly transmitted through mosquitoes, PHE said sexual transmission had been recorded in a ‘limited number of cases.’" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Thank you but sexual transmission is in the article already. and WP is WP:NOTNEWS, esp not Daily Telegraph. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Different years.

Different years are cited as when the virus was first isolated from humans. They are quite different under "General" and "History" parts.

Cheers.

79.143.100.252 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Vuk, 30.01.2015.

Causal link to microcephaly not yet conclusive

According to Scientific American and the New York Times within the last two days, a causal link has not been definitively established. The article should reflect this and not make it seem conclusive when it's not. Therefore, i made this edit to include this in the section.

The New York Times source (29 January 2016) says:

The possibility that the Zika virus causes microcephaly – unusually small heads and damaged brains – emerged only in October, when doctors in northern Brazil noticed a surge in babies with the condition. It may be that other factors, such as simultaneous infection with other viruses, are contributing to the rise; investigators may even find that Zika virus is not the main cause, although right now circumstantial evidence suggests that it is.

The Scientific American source (28 January 2016) is titled What Would It Take to Prove the Zika–Microcephaly Link, and is subtitled Public health officials are not yet ready to say the connection is causal and says:

Zika virus has been grabbing headlines because of its links to an alarming birth defect called microcephaly. The data to provide evidence linking the relatively mild mosquito-borne disease and babies born with small heads and potential brain damage, however, are not yet conclusive. World Health Organization and U.S. government officials today discussed this data gap today in a series of public comments and press briefings.

Please discuss. SageRad (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We cannot use popular press sources to say Zika is causally linked to microcephaly or that it's not linked. There are no WP:MEDRES sources which go beyond saying a possible link has been suspected at this point. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)