Talk:Epidemic

message: Suggesting that Bill Gates is making these statements and not just repeating the primary source that should be cited is ludicrous. Bill Gates is a billionaire best known for his for being for taking intellectual property from Xerox and re-marketing it as his own product (the irony of then later taking the credit for other scientists and re marketing it as his own to improve his public image as a pirate and a thief is really mind-bending), then taking the profit from that to hire engineers to build new other products.
Bill Gates is not and has never been a scientist, he is certainly not an epidemiologist, and perhaps most importantly has no formal training or education on any biological sciences. His name being on a charity does not provide him with super powers, or special knowledge. If anything, it is widely understood by historians that when billionaires (or the equivalent throughout history) open up charities later in their careers are primary used to avoid taxes, grant them the ability to wield some political power, and most importantly: white-wash their public image.
Crediting him for statements he said on NPR, that were clearly made by actual epidemiologist (in fact, as a Biologist I absolutely have heard these statements made many times, also citing epidemiologists is to willfully pretend that he was involved in epidemiological research in any way.
To pretend that he is an somehow an expert in epidemiology, or that these statements are his when he is clearly repeating lines he was told or he read in an abstract of an actual peer-reviewed paper on epidemiology is not just so absurd that it reeks of a PR consultant using this article and articles like it to enhance his public image, but **most importantly it violates Wikipedia's guideline**. The fact that I have to even say this is really suspect. This is obvious to anyone has is even somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. 
There are rules about using primary sources, and I have a hard time believing anyone in good faith honestly thought that national public radio, is a primary source for epidemiological facts instead one of the many epidemiological peer-reviewed journals. 
The problem in this article is so bad that there is more direct quotes from Bill Gates as previously stated "he is clearly repeating lines he was told by an epidemiologist or he read in an abstract of an actual peer-reviewed paper on epidemiology" than actual quotes from epidemiologists or even quotes from sources that are from peer-reviewed epidemiological journals.** 
Citing his statements in an interview on NPR, when we all know hes not an epidemiologist, and has never written a peer reviewed scientific article means he is second hand source, and that using this source violating Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements. And I have a really hard time believe anyone in good faith honestly thought otherwise. 
This article should have been quoting and citing scientific articles, and why do I even need to says this? An article on a scientific topic where "npr.org" used many times? This should have been a red flag for every editor who has read this. When everyone knows NPR is not even science focused, and it is certainly NOT a primary source for anything science related, and not epidemiology. 
In fact, if anything, scientists I talk to know NPR regularly fails to properly report things on the topic of science. They are a very poor resource even simple science related coverage. They regularly misreport the rise in Heroine deaths in the United States as a "Heroine Epidemic", which is not just in accurate in the scientific sense, its inaccurate in every sense from definition to the fact that is the numbers being reported for Heroine overdose would have qualified car deaths as an epidemic for the last 50 years running, but you will absolutely never find any reference to car deaths being an epidemic. Whoever authored that section appear to be involved in public relations, obviously there is no real way to prove it but the blatant violation of Wikipedia Guidelines make it appear at least surface to be a public relations related.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraday-mage (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates is not a primary source 

message: Epidemic is used, generally, to refer to the spread of pathogens in a population. Demos is greek for 'upon the population' and as such is technically able to be (and is in scientific literature) used instead of the needlessly more complicated epizootic or epiphytotic. Epidemiologists can refer to those who study epidemics in humans, plants and animals. I'm forwarding the idea that this whole page needs a re-write in terms of epidemics as it is generally used with sections for humans, animals and plants.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.155.96.6 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: When you mention "non-biological" uses, I think you mean "non-infectious-disease".  Surely everyone agrees that obesity, drug addiction, and mental illness are biological!  I would suggest changing this to read "other" uses.  
Perhaps a true non-biological "epidemic" would be something like a video game or clothing fashion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.8.103 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-biological is not accurate - should be "other" biological uses. 

message: What does the line "Epidemics lead to death of people" in the non-biological section mean? It's completely inappropriate and out of the blue! Well, that's my opinion anyway.
--24.46.164.83 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of people?!?

message: I introduced more text. Please make internal links at important words on the text.
KVDP (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add some more links 

message: There is a call to merge Pandemic#Pandemics and notable epidemics through history (which is a full description) into Epidemic#Notable epidemics through history (which is a stub-and-pointer).
*Reject. The text in Pandemic#Pandemics and notable epidemics through history is quite OK where it is.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Perhaps healthmap (http://www.healthmap.org/en/ ) should be mentioned as a pre-emptive measure ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.223.239 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthmap

message: The link included  only references a PDF entitled “Report of the WHO/FAO/OIE joint consultation on emerging zoonotic diseases.” It doesn’t tell us anything about what WHO nor anyone else is doing to pre-empt new epidemics. (It’s not that I doubt they are doing something, but some clue as to what would help.)174.25.121.131 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''“Pre-emptive measures”'' ¿Such As?

message: The main paragraph in the Causes section has the names of certain diseases in capital letters, for no apparent reason. Unless this is usually for disease names (which I'm fairly sure it isn't), then my only guess is that it's vandalism or was an inexperienced editor's attempt to create links. Does anyone object to me replacing them with non-caps words and making some of them into links? 150.203.192.134 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: West Nile is capitalized because it's the name of a river. Disease names with proper nouns are capitalized (St. Louis encephalitis, Weil disease) but the eponymic form is discouraged now (Weil's disease). JuanTamad (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random all-caps words? 

message: As ref #1 (the CDC text on Fundamentals of Epidemiology) and other sources note, epidemics need neither involve large numbers of people, be rapid, nor even be transmissible - yet those are the clear messages in the lead. Any increase (sudden or not) of any disease (communicable or not) above its baseline incidence (high or low) in a population is considered an epidemic. A subsequent section does note that the epidemic might be something non-transmissible like obesity, and the last sentence of the lead does acknowledge that high rates are not a requirement for "epidemic" status, but the lead sentence should not be so restrictive - it's all many readers will see.  I am reluctant to boldly change that lead sentence without discussion, because (i) it might not be understood by active editors here, and (ii) a major change in the focus of the article is the subtext - the second paragraph, for example, might be out of place if the focus weren't so squarely on communicable disease. — soupvector (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the first sentence could be better written, but the use of the term in infectious disease is  original and well defined, with specific definitions. There should be brief mention of use of the term in non-infectious diseases  like obesity but note that it's use in that sense is less formal. I think, sort of borrowed from infectious disease. JuanTamad (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If one refers to the glossary of (freely-available) ref #1 (as cited currently, it's the CDC's Fundamentals of Epidemiology text), it defines:  The Introduction of that text, on page 1-73, uses language we could consider:  — soupvector (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the quoted CDC definition to the article section Definition; it should help to clarify some of the points raised here, supports the lede, and it leads nicely into the note on 'epidemic' vs 'outbreak'. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede sentence (and much of the article) over-emphasizes rapidity, scope, and infectious disease 

message: I was searching for a information about what defines an obesity epidemic and ended up here. The definition here seems to imply an epidemic must be the rapid spread of an infectious disease. But since obesity is not infectious, perhaps a broader definition would be more appropriate. How about making the definition closer to the Merriam-Webster definition; something like: "An epidemic is a disease or medical disorder that affects a large proportion of a population at a particular time." Following that, it could be mentioned that epidemics typically involve the rapid spread of an infectious disease, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.165.233.4 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in previous section (immediately above). Agree this should be addressed. — soupvector (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition too specific? not all epidemics involve infectious disease, such as the obesity epidemic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323082628/http://www.epidemiology.ch/history/betaversion.htm to http://www.epidemiology.ch/history/betaversion.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In the "Causes" section, it's stated that an epidemic is not required to be contagious, and it's pointed out that the term is applied by the WHO to the "obesity epidemic." Given that obesity is not an infectious disease, it seems this contradiction should be resolved by deleting the word "infectious" in the first sentence in the lead. I'll be doing this if nobody has any objections. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, just noticed this was already brought up two years ago! The WHO's use of the term is clear. I'll be deleting "infectious." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Good catch. I've also added the CDC's very broad definition to the Definition section, which supports this. Please be careful, though, of the word contagious; it's not an exact synonym for infectious, it's more restrictive, but the definition is somewhat fuzzy and has changed with time. It literally means 'spread by touch', i.e. direct contact, but it has been broadened to include contact with infected fluids. One used to be able to say, 'crabs is contagious, but influenza is infectious'; but even that distinction has now become blurred. 'Contagious' used to include the STDs which are spread by direct contact, but STDs have now been given their own class. I would avoid using the word altogether unless the context absolutely requires the distinction.  I did start to change the word 'contagious' in the article to 'infectious', or 'contagious or infectious', but realized I was opening a can of worms (e.g. is Nile Fever contagious or infectious?) and would have to recast the whole sentence. I think the average reader will understand it in context, so I let it be. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemic restricted to "infectious disease"? 

message: Vulnerability of the topic 103.171.194.54 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemic 

message: A few comments:
# I add the note that epidemics has specific area, or initial area. To this initial area can be added also other areas within a country bouderies or sometimes to cross these borders and for example spread to boundering country, and if the epidemic continues to spread with months or years it may go on some countries in a given region, or even in pandemic cross continents. \this note explains article eddits done by me\ 
# Changes in ecology has to be significant compared to usual to cause epidemic, or in other way conditions to worsen that to be noticed in nature ecology. 
# Added internal link for vector species for anyone who wants to quickly check the meaning of it. 
# Added "unexpected" to genetic change because most genetic changes are due to adapting not causing diseases. 
# Which is first, the introduction to patogen, later may some unexpected change to appear. I made it clear because it is possible that different people added this information at different time and couldn't make it to arrange it well in a logical sentence. 
# Using words like generally does not comply with one source only for the worldwide read Engish Wikipedia, I think you need to have 2 or 3 sources to make logical that something "generally" occurs. Especially you cannot use single dictionary or dictionary pages to make conclusions on "genreally", you need serious medical and current sources for it. Not to mention I don't see literary no relation of the reference source to the stated sentence. In this page is not discussed "novel pathogens". So I added short description of what this dictionary page says about epidemiology and moved to reference to this explanation because the stated seems without real reference within this quoted literature on epidemiology. Maybe someone can find a real reference source on it but I don't see grounds for such claims.
# Announcing an epidemiological levels of disease is not the same as "declaration", that has some emotional connotations in law.  
# Epidemics does not derive from Homer, I'm sorry, there is no Greek studies prove to show that Homer was a scientist in the epidemic medicine. Epi is not the same as epos. Epic epidemic sounds funny but I don't think it truth. Its just cool to joke like this but I will change the origins of the word explained. 
# In fact, according to early sources, it was Hippocrates who first noticed that some diseases have epidemic type but called it differently. The term epidemic seems to be first noticed in Thucydides who wrote during the time of Hippocrates on Peloponnesian wars. --Medupdate3 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The locations or areas 

message: So the editor above was blocked for being a sockpuppet, but his terrible edits are still here. I have no idea why he wasn't immediately reverted. The lead is now largely incomprehensible and even incompetent, and the body has suffered too. Reverting by hand would take a very long time so I'm reverting to the last state before he made those edits. Since then the only edits have been people fixing some of his many spelling mistakes and some other minor changes anyway. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting awful edits made by Medupdate3 (see section above) 

message: Што мешает в кассовые аппараты встроить излучатели ультрафиолета ? Если даже полупроводниковые. Да ничего. 85.140.11.44 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ulytrafiolet". 

message: I've just removed an IP-sourced para about waves. I haven't found a reliable secondary source to substantiate it. WP:NOR and WP:SECONDARY apply. Bob (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waves