Talk:Disease surveillance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WHO reporting lag (moved from Talk:Global spread of H5N1)

I've noticed that WHO's reporting on cases[1] seems to lag behind what's reported in the news by quite a bit. Currently, for example, there are cases reported in both China and Indonesia that are not yet reported on the WHO site. Is there an official reason for the lag? Is it worth mentioning this in the article? Waitak 07:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a delay. The delay exists for two reasons. One reason is that WHO only reports what happens in a country WITH that country's permission in order to maintain a useful relationship. You will note this article's comment about Ethiopia in the list of countries in the intro. You will note a comment about China in the earlier years of the spread. We note what is encyclopedic and verifyable. You can bet there is a lot going on behind the scenes. The second reason is part of a larger problem I'll get to in a minute, but is simply that it is really really difficult to be sure whether of not a human had an H5N1 infection or not - and if they did if it was an infection with Asian lineage HPAI A(H5N1) or something else (for example, there in a low pathogenic H5N1 strain in wild birds in North America that a human could conceivably have antibodies against - but apparently no human so far is known to be like that - but it is so costly and difficult to check that no one has really looked). Which brings us to the larger problem that I mentioned earlier which is that there is an enormous amount of missing data we despirately need to make rational decisions about battling H5N1 that is currently being slowly acquired, and a lot of data we wish we could have (like if/when it will mutate) that is as impossible to know as what the next roll of the die will yield. We could fill whole articles with what scientists don't know that they are trying to find out; from surveilence in wild birds to trying to grow H5N1 in cell cultures. WAS 4.250 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very cogent response (as I've come to expect from you!). How about sprucing up that last paragraph and adding it to the article? Waitak 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm lazy? I'd have to go dig up the sources? Care to help? I beg everywhere I can for help, and I get people asking me to do even more. Sheesh. I'm trying to be retired, not create some new ....... I'm complaining too much aren't I? Oh, well.. WAS 4.250 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Whine, whine, whine... :-D Okay, how's this - I'll take a crack at writing an article, sometime in the next week or so, based on what you've said. Maybe we could entitle it Reporting disease cases? What'll happen is, you'll read it, and go, "no, no, no..." and turn it into something that's a lot closer to true. Deal? (And if you're trying to be retired, you and I are closer to the same age than I thought we were...) Waitak 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Deal. Working with someone nice like you turns it from a chore to a pleasure. WAS 4.250 13:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, draft is done. Feel free to slash and burn at will. Waitak 04:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, to start with, exactly what is intended to be covered (and thereby we discover the best article name). *(current or do we include historical)
  • (humans or all animals)
  • (viral, communicable diseases or all diseases including genetic)
  • (cases meaning symptoms like coughing or agents like H5N1)
  • (reporting meaning surveillance or something else)
  • Current Viral Surveillance in humans (see Flu vaccine)
  • Current Viral Surveillance
  • Viral Surveillance in humans
  • Viral Surveillance WAS 4.250 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've pretty much extended as far as I can, given my level of knowledge (knowledge_level(Waitak,'Disease spread') <= ε)... Happy to continue collaborating on the article, if it's useful, but even more happy for you to make all of the calls on content. Happy to rent a clue, if you've any available. Waitak 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
given my level of knowledge I can supply on line sources.
make all of the calls on content I start with good sources, extract good quotes, add quotes with reference, modify as needed for copyright needs, merge/link with other material in whatever articles makes sense (example: H5N1 clinical trials that I just today created). But that's just me. Some others write what they think is probably true without regard to references. Most are somewhere inbetween.
Happy to rent a clue How about you sketch out in broad terms what data you lack that you want to put in the article and I see what I can do to come up with online sources? Or else, you see the point of view I'm coming at you with, and you counter-offer. WAS 4.250 14:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great job!

Just wanted to compliment you on a wonderful job. You've take a framework and turned it into a really first rate article. Chapeaux! Waitak 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're too kind. I know how to gather data, but it takes someone like User talk:Silence to really spiff it up. Glad you like it, tho! WAS 4.250 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I am, but it's still good work. :-) One of these days we need to meet up for a beer when we're in the same hemisphere. My son and parents in law both live in Jersey City, so it's not altogether unlikely... Waitak 11:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced questionable content

The following unsourced questionable content was moved from the article to here:

Most of the time, Disease surveillance is the domain of spatial epidemiology. Disease informatics is an important tool in spatial epidemiology. Disease surveillance is crafted by practicing ongoing systematic collection of health data, defining the diseases, drawing and analysis of Disease Causal Chains, and formulation of Health Strategy. Apart of infectious agent, genetic make up of an individual, lifestyle, culture, and environment of human individuals have relevance in human health and disease. Disparities in these aspects form component causes of most of the diseases. Some of the component causes work together to form mechanisms for sufficient causes of the diseases. Spatiality of disease occurence depends on which component causes combine.

-- WAS 4.250 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep to topic

Please do not focus too much on using a single disease as an example. It is distracting to the topic of the article.

My deletion may be perhaps overzealous, and I will not interfere with a gradual re-inclusion of rewritten (tone, copyvio and encyclopedic concerns must be addressed) material from the H5N1 section. It is entirely preserved in wikipedia archives, feel free to view it here.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A little history: This article started as a paragraph in one of the H5N1 articles - the only place in WP that this topic was of sufficient interest to actually bother writing about.. It seemed that it had enough meat to stand on its own as an article. It was a bit of a shock to hear that what used to be most of the article's content and focus is now no longer on the topic of the article! There's a lot in the section that you deleted that (1) merits inclusion in WP and (2) doesn't occur anywhere else. For these reasons I've reverted the deletions. Please feel free to copyedit or otherwise improve the quality of the section! Alternately, if you really feel that what the article has become has outgrown the focus that led to its creation, perhaps you'd like to hive off a child article on just H5N1? Waitak 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please use an argument for its inclusion on this page. Material that merits inclusion on Wikipedia that is in an innapropriate namespace warrants deletion.--ZayZayEM 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Original article is very good. No specific focus on any single disease - mentioning WHO actions involving TB, HIV, SARS and H5N1. H5N1 is a very recent development, it should not be the focus of any article such as this which has at least 2,000 years of history in its subject matter, its distracting and provides undue weight to a topic.--ZayZayEM 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
WAS when disagreeing with non-vandalism edits, I would suggest that discussing them on the talk page, and addressing concerns brought by other editors involved, rather than systematic reversion with a "you're ignorant" attitude. The Nabarro list is totally unencyclopedic, and removing it is copyediting. All we need to do is say what nabarro feels, not a personal list style summary that has no actual content. Please also consider rewording the extensive quote section I have deleted if you really feel it needs to be included. Quote block with plenty of elipses (...) should be avoided with extreme prejudice.--ZayZayEM 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


WAS please discuss contested reversions. Just because material is sourced doesn't mean it is appropriate for the article. Just because material is arguably appropriate but written badly, doesn't mean we should include over exclude, material really shouldn't be in articles if it is not up to article standard.--ZayZayEM 01:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Move → Disease surveillance

It appears surveillance and reporting are being discussed as one entity (which I can understand, sort of). To me this seems a more appropriate broader term than the specific "reporting", especially if all aspects of surveillance are to be covered.

Anyone object--ZayZayEM 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Waitak 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Done--ZayZayEM 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)