Talk:Polio eradication

message: I'm interested in editing the Polio in Pakistan article for a class assignment so that it expands on pre-2011 factors impacting eradication. (It focuses currently essentially on the CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy.) I would appreciate any suggestions or help! Khanzar (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polio in Pakistan page 

message: If you search Google for "polio  vaccine myths europe" you find dozens of pages of largely the same text.  They make a specific claims about what happened in the 50's and 60's in Europe with the aim of discrediting immunization.  They specifically claim that:
:"polio declined both in European countries that refused mass vaccination as well as in those that employed it"
:"European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it"
This page and the page on polio itself have clear information on what happened in the US.  I think it would be very useful to add more solid information about the immunization efforts in the 50's and 60's in Europe.  
A clear statement that indicates exactly and unequivocally why there is ZERO polio in all western countries would also be very useful.  (Some people can't process lots of information - they need black and white statements.  Here are the types of things they can understand and accept at face value - "did we ever really need vaccinations")
CraigWyllie 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Germany, all or close to all children get vaccinated. Its being done at school, and education is compulsory in Germany, homeschooling or unschooling is illegal, i am not sure but i dont think they ask for parents consent for each vaccination, i suspect they just inform parents and get the appropriate signature at that time when parents first send their children to school. Similar policies exist in many european countries. The european union would not tolerate it and would publicly criticize member states that fail to participate in global and vital vaccination campaigns. Having universal healthcare also of course helps to reach babies and children, if it doesnt cost anything its normal to send your children to regular health checkups, you would be a bad parent if you didnt. Are you from the USA? Well, the USA is the only industrialized country that does not have something like universal healthcare, maybe thats why this question even arises. 88.64.118.221 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  polio vaccine myths europe 

message: I created a new article, Eradication of infectious diseases, which could use a lot of work if anyone is interested. There is a section on polio. --Ginkgo100talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it even before noticing it here, its awesome, thanks! Its a topic that will grow with time, or at least i very much hope so, i think humanity will soon knock out either poliomyelitis or guinea worm disease, and this will bring a boost of publicity to these eradication campaigns. I applaud you for creating this article! But i dont know what to add, its quite awesome as it is. 88.64.118.221 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: The table in the 2005 section is headed "Reported Polio Cases in 2012", but this can't be right. Since it's in the 2005 section and the image is for 2005, possibly it should be "Reported Polio Cases in 2005" but the total doesn't match (table total 1,911 while text and other table say 1,979 cases in 2005). Sabik (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong year in table header 

message: I recommend a separate article on the CIA's fake vax campaign, the one that greatly promoted distrust in the vaccine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations? MWikidgood (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA 

message: This article should be translated in the languages spoken in the endemic country (Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan). --Accurimbono (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translate to help eradication 

message: In this article there are tables, which show polio cases for each country that had polio, for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. But still no table for 2014, though the year has ended. Can you make it, similarly to the previous tables? It would be very useful.
89.149.102.101 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (will do image later tonight). Been meaning to do this for a while so thanks for the reminder. Tobus (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could anybody make a table for year 2014? 

message: The 2015 table needs to be updated when WHO posts this week's "Polio this week" update. I mean it should be updated every week, but this week especially. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 07:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are you waiting for? Get to it! Tobus (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta wait a few more days. Also this is pretty much just a note-to-self. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 12:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Table 

message: While the Polio This Week page is a great resource for keeping the current year totals up to date, it does, by definition, change every week and so is a poor choice as a reference for anything else. We need to be careful to only use it for statements that we expect to update, remove or find a new source for in the very near future. Tobus (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polio This Week as reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Poliomyelitis eradication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100706172238/http://www.polioeradication.org/content/general/Polio_Evaluation_Report.asp to http://www.polioeradication.org/content/general/Polio_Evaluation_Report.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050922102347/http://www.euro.who.int:80/mediacentre/pr/2001/20011217_3 to http://www.euro.who.int/mediacentre/PR/2001/20011217_3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227134640/http://www.coregroup.org:80/initiatives/polio.cfm to http://www.coregroup.org/initiatives/polio.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110220222008/http://www.rotary.org:80/en/ServiceAndFellowship/Polio/Timeline/Pages/ridefault.aspx to http://www.rotary.org/en/serviceandfellowship/polio/timeline/Pages/ridefault.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that 2012 is the smallest year of any time by recorded cases of poliomyelitis. But 2015 has ended and it recorded only 106 cases. So 2015 may be the candidate. And 2016 had even less cases (38).
Also I think there is a contradiction between table for 2015 and the main text. The table says 54 wild polio cases were in Pakistan in 2015 while the section says there were 53. I didn't want to edit it myself but decided to ask for edition by smb. else.
89.149.124.181 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Tobus (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 is no more the smallest year for polio cases 

message: 'Number of poliovirus cases by year, 1975–2015' needs to be updated to 2016, but I would suggest that, when done, an inset be made to show 2000-2016 at a more informative scale, to make recent further improvements evident. 50.37.111.195 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I updated the figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_of_poliovirus_cases_by_year.svg . Let me know if there are further suggestions for improvement. Riceissa (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cases per year plot 

message: A new suspected polio case in a 14-month old child has been reported in major national dailies. The child lives in the Thore Valley of District Diamer, Giglit-Baltistan, which has been declared a polio-free region in the past.
The boy’s father told the local reporters that he has vaccinated his child against polio regularly. He has said that an arm and a leg of the child are not functional, and that he has taken his son to hospitals in Chilas, Gilgit and Abbottabad, where doctors have given him medicines for two months. The child’s father has claimed that his son’s condition has improved due to the medicines. The child’s father told the reporters that none of the doctors he consulted has told him about the presence of polio virus in his son.
http://pamirtimes.net/2017/03/14/suspected-polio-case-reported-from-thore-valley-diamer/
:I do not see evidence that this is polio. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 new suspected polio case 

message: It may be a little soon to do this, but as time progresses we lose the immediacy of the detailed descriptions of the early 2010s, and at some point it is probably appropriate to consider condensing these years into a 2011-2015 5-year block like with 2006-2010.  The most recent years are always worth tracking, but as these events get farther in the past, the blow-by-blow of the annual reports becomes excessive and it is more useful to discuss trends and landmarks over longer periods of time than to bury these in loads of detail. (Of course, this would impact all those pretty tables and maps.) Agricolae (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is, as of yet, too soon to do this. I also agree that it needs to be done eventually (even if polio were eradicated next year, i.e. 2018, we'd want to condense that portion). I say wait until next year or the year after that (2018 or 2019), depending on developments in the near future. TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can agree with waiting until 2018, but just thought I would get the editors thinking about it.  That being said, a good start would be to pare back 2012 and 2013 to something more akin to 2014 and 2015. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I would respond to this two different ways.  First, we say that now, but they would have said the same thing five years ago. We can't base editorial decisions on wishful thinking.  Second, the whole year-by-year summary is temporary.  An article about an ongoing struggle has a different perspective than that of a fait accompli, and the precise details of 2012 will become trivial excessive detail.  All the annual updates should be viewed as temporary, and perhaps even the five-year ones. Agricolae (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I would say the only reasons to put it off are technical - inertia, and the need for a consensus on how best to present the information that is now in the annual tables.  At one point I experimented with a combined set of tables but couldn't come up with anything that wasn't overly 'busy'.  I think a slideshow for the maps would work, but they need to have the year added to the images for that. Agricolae (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we can figure out a better solution, . TompaDompa (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a try, but I am not in love with it if anyone wants to come up with something better. Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not a fan, to be honest. It clashes a lot with the other tables. . TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I tried first, and couldn't get it to work. Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually wanted it to be a slideshow gallery, but I'm not sure if that's possible with tables (which requires entirely different markup than images). I haven't been able to use a table as an image's caption. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New half-decade bracket? 

message: Some detailed background info:
Cases in last six months:
16DEC: Bermal, Afghanistan
22DEC: Kabdulah, Pakistan
13JAN: Kandahar, Afghanistan
21JAN: Nahr-e-Sarah, Afghanistan
28JAN: Lodrhan, Pakistan
13FEB: Diamar, Pakistan
21FEB: Dasht-E-Archi, Afghanistan
Less and less of the cases occur in the typical corridors between Afghanistan and Pakistan, except near Kandahar/Quetta.
It has now been 85 days between the last reported paralyses case and the last weekly report, and 93 days since the last case in Pakistan. In 2014 in Nigeria, after 91 days 2 cases surfaced. In 2016 in Nigeria 4 cases surfaced related to strain detected only 5 years earlier. In 2012 in Chad, after 118 days 2 cases surfaced. Based on these numbers, a reasonable current estimate seems we will see 2 more WPV cases in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. Moveover also last year there were periods in individual countries with close to 90 days without cases as defined above, but currently the case rate is much lower in those countries. However, Pakistan and Afghanistan are seen as a single epidemiological block. This does not take into account environmental surveillance results and intensity.
In these last six month, about 8 times more environmental samples than paralyses cases have been found.
With no recent paralyses cases, in the last month there are many positive environmental samples from Sindh. Other positive samples are from Khyber Pakhtun, Bolochistan/Kandahar/Quetta, and Islamabad.
Jmv2009 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But we need a source that draws the conclusions you want to draw.  We can report that there are positive environmental samples, but the implications from these data are not for us to determine.  (There is also a technical issue - we can cite PolioThisWeek for a given set of environmentals, but that citation will be invalid a week later.)  Likewise, deducing what is 'a reasonable current estimate" is not something Wikipedia editors should be doing, nor should we be predicting future cases (WP:CRYSTAL). Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I was going from memory from when I read it, but I must have my chronology off because I can't find it on PubMed.  I remember it using frequency of detection of cases and time between known cases to produce probability plots with one axis being 'months since last known case' and the other 'probability that the virus was eradicated'.  I distinctly remember observing at the time that it predicted it was unlikely Nigeria had seen its last case, and that by the time the paper had gone through the drawn out review process and been published, there had already been one, as the author(s) had predicted.  That being said, I may have the precise details wrong - maybe it was early 2016 instead?  Back to your issue, I think the following would represent a reliable source for the problem of surveillance under diminishing viral circulation, but I still think it ought to go up in the Obsticles section (where we could also discuss the difficulties of surveillance in conflict zones, for which I see several potential references, such as , and perhaps more soon given that there are reports filtering up, hopefully false, of cVDPV in ISIS-held Syria).  Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Here is another that is trying to model elimination in Nigeria . Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eradicated? I dont think this word means what you think it means.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CB:C080:2A20:413E:D598:46B1:376A (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eradication likelyhood 

message: Last month an editor added a line about a research study reporting cases of cVDPV3 in China in 2014.  At the time I reverted it because it had not been formally published, being a pre-publication release.  I did this in part so we could put off dealing  with the conflict, as it has yet to be incorporated into the formal narrative and statistical accounting of the WHO & GPEI.  Well, now it has been formally published: (paywalled).  So, what do we do with it now?  Put it in the text?  put it in the table and map?  decide that as WP:PRIMARY we can ignore it for the time being? Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, per WP:MEDRS: . TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 China 

message: Issue 1:
Poliomyelitis article has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 20 wild cases (12 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases.
Poliomyelitis eradication article says "There were 21 reported WPV1 polio cases with onset of paralysis in 2017" and has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 21 wild cases (13 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases.
Don't know whether 20 and 12 or 21 and 13 are the correct figures.  https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx says 20 and 12.  http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-now/this-week/ says 21 and 13.
If possible, find out which is correct and fix the other article.  If not possible to determine correct figures, then put both sets of figures ("20 or 21" for global total; "12 or 13" for Afghanistan) in both article and tag them with a note saying that there is a discrepancy between WHO and the other source.
Issue 2: 
Article lead gives figures for 2016 but not for 2017.  After determining correct figures to use for 2017, please update article lead to include them.
47.139.44.60 (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue 1: . The Poliomyelitis article has been updated.Issue 2:  yet. The figures are still subject to change because of the delay in reporting. TompaDompa (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I jumped the gun when I updated from 2016 to 2017, another case snuck in on 28th December. Chris Jefferies (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty standard - there is always a delay in detecting and reporting cases.  The recent 'new' Congo cVDPV cases are still from November.  There is no need to rush this, only to create yet another line of text that will need to be updated if a new case comes in.  About mid-February, when all of the new reported cases have an onset of January or later, is early enough to put a pin in 2017, particularly given that we have a whole section for the year.  Agricolae (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between 2017 figures in poliomyelitis article and poliomyelitis eradication article 

message: I appreciate what is trying to be done here, but I am not sure the summary matches the data.  For the Northern corridor, the cited source shows, in the 6 months of July 2017 to Jan 2018 that would fall roughly within the 'past year', two R4B5C5 cases, and one R4B1C1, and The Nation article suggests the new KP case is also R4B1C1.  In the Southern corridor it shows two R4B5C4 and one R4B5C3.  Thus it seems oversimplification to focus in on one in each corridor as 'the major' one. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like the information doesn't add anything on its own. To the average reader, the types just look like a random collection of letters and numbers. I think we should either cite a source that discusses the significance of this or remove it entirely. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c) I tend to agree - maybe something a bit less specific. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Anything that begins with 'Pretty sure' looks too much like WP:OR for my taste.  As you were posting this I tried a version retaining the concept of different viral subtypes without getting into the alphabet soup. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: You are probably right with regard to Afghanistan, but both of the KP cases on the Pakistani side of the northern corridor within the past 13 months have been R4B1C1 - given we have different types on the two sides of the border, is this even a corridor any longer?   In Pakistan-south, I haven't found typing for the three cases this year (this may be in the The Nation piece, but I am not familiar enough with Pakistani geography to recognize the locations he is referring to) but they all fall within a single localized cluster and may not represent the scale of what is happening with the more widespread environmental positives anyhow.  That means all we have to go on really is the raw data from 2017, from which we are forced to draw our own conclusions - a no-no. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I see that now regarding south Pakistan cases, but as I said, the cases themselves are really not the whole story in Pakistan given how widespread the positive environmental samples are.  Certainly in the north, the Afghani ones from last year (and I assume this year) vs the two KP ones are different strains (if I am reading it right The Nation cite is telling us the new KP one is the same as last year's R4B1C1, not the R4B5C5 that was at least last year's Afghani ones). Particularly with case numbers so small, we need to be careful in drawing our own conclusions regarding what represent the 'major' strains worth relating and which represent the 'minor' strains.  As Tompa says, we really need to have a WP:RS doing this analysis and summarizing what is going on on the sub-type level, rather than us drawing it from the raw data, if we are to report it with this level of detail. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

text: 'Pretty safe' is not the standard of Wikipedia.  We really need a WP:RS that not just reports the types, but makes the analysis and draws the conclusions you want to draw.  (For that matter, 'strains causing cases' is a deceptive measure of the situation.  The important factor is strains being detected, whether in cases or in environmental sampling - if it is still known to be around it is still a factor, even if it hasn't resulted in a detected case in a while, though I don't even know if they do strain-level typing of environmental positives.)  At its heart, though, I just think you are pushing the envelope too far.  While I have gone along with it, I am not entirely comfortable with our weekly updates, that themselves represent extraction of raw data in a manner not entirely consistent with policy, but to dig into the raw data and extract strain information, then draw big picture conclusions from it, definitely seems too far to me. Agricolae (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree.  TompaDompa (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virus types 

message: It seems a bit odd that we give a plot of cVDPV cases in the main body of the article, but only plot the wild virus when we get down to the timeline section.  I am thinking we might want to move the latter plot up (perhaps stacking the two plots at about the position the cVDPV plot now occupies), or move the cVDPV plot down.  Thoughts anyone? Agricolae (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong feelings about this one way or the other. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I juxtaposed the two plots a while back, but want to make a request for anyone who updates them in the future - make the WPV cases the same color in both plots, with the cVDPV cases being a different color. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plots 

message: For example, 
Government of Nigeria reports 2 wild polio cases, first since July 2014". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2018-08-25.
is listed twice, identically, and
"WHO | WHO Removes Nigeria from Polio-Endemic List". www.who.int.
is listed twice, but with different retrieved dates.
47.139.41.39 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you could clean them up. Agricolae (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clean up duplicate references 

message: I have several problems with this sentence.  First, I don't find the standard error number given anywhere in cited source - this is not the kind of simple calculation we are allowed to do.  Also, the comparisons based on this number are highly misleading for two reasons.  First, they have changed their prioritization of site testing (e.g. infected Lahore is almost twice the proportion of the total tested samples in 2019 as in 2018 or 2017).  Likewise, as with most viruses, polio undergoes seasonal fluctuations, and so comparing samples from one month to those from an entire previous year is sort of apples and oranges.  Short-term figures are also more prone to sampling error.
Setting all that aside, though, the bigger problem is that we really have no business pulling a cell out of a single table in the middle of a 30+ page datadump.  If a secondary source draws attention to this figure, fine, but it is not up to us to dig through that whole document and decide that this is the one number that we should be reporting.  Agricolae (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you switching to a different argument? The original argument was that it is STATISTICALLY not significant. Do you now disagree with your statement "proportion of positive env samples based on too small a dataset to be statistically informative"? Jmv2009 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No switching here.  'Statistically informative' and 'statistically significant' are not the same thing.  37 datapoints drawn from a single month (when there is well-documented seasonal variation), and with sampling skewed toward sites of likely infection, do not provide an informative comparison with whole-year averages of >600 samples representing a much broader seasonal and geographic distribution.  So no, I don't disagree with my original statement.  That being said, now that you mention it, statistical significance is problematic too: one can't really derive an indication of statistical significance by applying a calculation of standard error explicitly predicated on random sampling to a dataset that is decidedly non-random.  These are not data that lend themselves to statistical hypothesis testing.  Agricolae (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When doing a measurement, typically a "systematic" error/"bias" and a "statistical" error are distinguished. The "statistical" error is usually assigned with the noise of the measurement, and gets smaller with more data. With 37 datapoints and around 50%, the standard error is the 8% (~0.5/sqrt(37)), which I consider the "statistical" or "sampling" error. You appear to be sweeping all errors under "statistical", which may our misunderstanding. In my view, this discussion is kind of moot anyway, because this very figure is quoted in every pamphlet-style monthly polio update at . and  and widely referred to. So this figure represents much more than just a cell in a table out of a 30+ page datadump. And yes, the sites are skewed, there is seasonal variation, which is why it said "year-to-date", which in principle may cause biased, e.g. higher results. However, I have not found any indication in reviewing all the data why it should be especially biased early year. Also late last year the year-to-date numbers increased dramatically, indicating an uncharacteristic high momentary incidence of positive sites. E.g. of the last 176 samples from last year, 28% +- 3% statistical standard error were positive. The year before, this was not the case.  For comparison, last year, in early February, there were 21% +- 7% positive samples, much lower than the 51% +- 8% positve samples at the same time period this year. Moreover, there are already 4 positive Pakistan cases as of yesterday this year. Without trying to paint an unfair or alarming picture or getting into original research, one could show a very basic comparison between numbers. Jmv2009 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in discussing statistical semantics: I don't think those data provide an informative comparison to full-year totals of prior years, and any attempt to compare it to individual months of previous years is clearly WP:OR.  Though obviously you think it is an informative number, I don't.  This difference of opinion underlies why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, to let the broader community decide what is important and noteworthy.  Last year, it was I who added the percent positive environmental samples in Pakistan, not because it was in the Pakistani government report, but because a commentary in a mainstream international media source specifically addressed the apparent disparity between no actual polio cases in Pakistan but widespread environmental presence, and which reported the precise percentage at the time.  I would suggest that once the Pakistani numbers spiked to a level more consistent with environmental sampling, that figure was perhaps no longer worth reporting, but there is an inertia whereby once it gets in there, it tends to stay.  Anyhow, the closer we get to the primary data reports, deciding ourselves what is important, the farther we get from what we should be doing. I have repeatedly expressed my concerns that this page is too driven by the weekly reports (that hasn't stopped me from doing updates - if it is going to have that level of data, it needs to be kept up to date), and the same applies to doing deep data dives into governmental primary reports, whether it be to mine a table for one data cell reporting fraction of positive samples three weeks into the year or to provide an analysis of specific viral strains.  If someone in the mainstream media reports, OMG!, half of the environmental samples collected in Pakistan so far are positive, then yes, by all means, it should be in the article.  If it is just us (or the Pakistani government) deciding that is a worthwhile number, perhaps not so much. Agricolae (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to suggest only sensationalist media is valid sourcing, which I am sure you are not meaning. By comparing months, I was just disputing your assertion that seasonal variation may be the source of the high values seen. I am not sure why the environmental sampling would give a much earlier signal than the case number; A couple of weeks at most. The other effect is that of the order of 10x more positive samples are found with environmental sampling, so the relative shot/poisson noise is about sqrt(10) times lower. Anyway, I added the pamphlet of January and 2018 to the env. data references. Jmv2009 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ever said anything about sensationalism (well, other than you)?  Secondary sources are preferred.  Full stop.  And what I said about statistical semantics also applied to poisson noise and square roots, which clearly do not fall under the umbrella of simple calculations that Wikipedia editors are allowed to do without it being WP:OR. Agricolae (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pk environmental 

message: Maybe having three images of vaccine being delivered, but two of them from the same year and same (current) country lacks a certain diversity.  Perhaps one or the other, but not both.  Preferences? Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be really nice would be a free image representing one of the currently endemic countries, especially presenting a more typical local vaccinator; something like the images in  or . Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite.  A recent image of local vaccinators delivering OPV in endemic countries (or other at-risk, e.g. Somalia, DRC, even Syria or Papua) who have been doing the critical work on the bleeding edge (sometimes literally).  If we have this, it might be good to contrast with an IPV injection in the developed world, but showing the latter alone would risk giving the wrong impression. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 1967 Images 

message: It might help to remind editors again that the GPEI site is a little bit quirky in the way it updates. The text and the tables update separately, and this week is a perfect example.  The text says that there were three new polio cases in Afghanistan, while the table, as of this moment, has not been changed from last week.  It also describes in the text a case in Somalia which does not appear in the table.  It is thus problematic to change our 'as of' date to reflect this week based on GPEI data that have yet to be fully updated.  On the flip side, last week the GPEI table showed a new DRC case, while the text said there had been no cases there since last year and only added the new case in this week's revision.  This is something that we are repeatedly going to have to struggle with as long as we insist on keeping this page 'up to date' the minute the date changes on the GPEI site, particularly now that the Wild Poliovirus list appears to have gone to monthly updating, leaving just the GPEI weekly report. At a minimum, we will want to make sure we are accurately reflecting what the entire update says (not just the table), preferably after the week's updating at GPEI has been completed, before doing our updates, and if that means we have last week's data for an extra day or more, so be it. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The country sections are kept up to date. The main table does lag a bit. Virion123 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

text: It also seems we need a new map of countries affected. Anyone able to do this? Virion123 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the country sections are not always kept up to date - just last week the table was updated for DRC but the country section was not.  That is why it behooves us not to just assume either the text or the table is right, but when there is a conflict wait until it is clear which is right before making the update.  And the last thing we want to do is to huddiedly replace the 'as of' date without updating all the numbers that have changed for all countries, because it signals incorrectly that the appropriate count modifications have already been made.  Better to have an older date when the data was fully updated than replace it with a newer date but partially out of date data.  (I have said it here before - I slower but accurate is better than faster but inaccurate/incomplete).  I already prepared an updated map, and was waiting to upload it until Somalia had been added to the text. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPEI updates 

message: Lede says "Three countries remain where the disease is endemic—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria."
But tables for individual years show 2016 as the last year when it was endemic in Nigeria and show Pakistan and Afghanistan as the only two countries where it is still endemic.
Please figure out which is wrong and fix it.47.139.42.94 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Three years must pass since the last case for a country not be considered endemic. Ruslik_Zero 10:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Equally important, this is not for us to decide on Wikipedia - GPEI and WHO still classify it as endemic.  They are taking a 'better safe than sorry' approach this time around - in 2016 they declared Nigeria no longer WPV endemic after two years without a case even though there was a region of the country where insurgency rendered monitoring impossible, only to have to announce the next week that there was a new case and they had to reverse the status change.  Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: It is not about time, it is about certainty that it is no longer circulating, so it remains endemic until GPEI/WHO announce it isn't, no matter how long that takes. Nigeria is currently the epicenter of a major vaccine-derived polio outbreak, which has nothing to do with its (non-)endemici status for wild poliovirus, but they perhaps have their hands full, plus announcing that that polio is no longer endemic might be counter-productive, when it is critical the country achieves higher vaccination rates to fight the vaccine-derived epidemic. Agricolae (talk)
The GPEI and WHO no longer list T1 Polio as endemic in Nigeria
http://polioeradication.org/where-we-work/nigeria/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/poliomyelitis#tab=tab_1
Updating the article 216.180.78.11 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it still endemic in Nigeria?  Article is inconsistent 

message: I am of two minds on the appropriateness of including the following, which while published in what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source still has the sniff of rumour mongering/conspiracy theory disguised as medical reporting.Pakistan accused of cover-up over fresh polio outbreak. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is of course a very serious accusation, not to be taken lightly. If the accusation turns out to be true, it would be the kind of content that requires WP:EXCEPTIONAL sourcing. I say wait for now, and take our cues from the sources. If the story develops, we can include it. If the accusation itself gets very widespread coverage, we can mention that there has been an accusation. If the story "fizzles out", let's leave it off the page. TompaDompa (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion 

message: As has happened before, there is conflicting information between the table and text of the PolioThisWeek page.  For Angola, the table shows 16 cases, the text 41.  The table number dropped inexplicably last week after tracking with the new cases reported weekly and with the text up until that time.  While this could be a case of duplicate counting giving the larger number that was discovered and reversed, it seems more likely to be a data entry error in the table, so I have gone with the text for this one.  For Somalia, the text has an atypical format, adn says the last case was in 2018, but the table says there were three this year, and those appeared progressively as the cases were reported, so I think here the text is in error and have gone with the table. There are other entries that are inconsistent with prior weeks but are in agreement between text and table, so the value reported there is given. Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest GPEI update has brought Angola back into register. The Ethiopia/Somalia outbreak(s) coverage is still problematic. The text is internally inconsistent with regard to Ethiopia, first saying three cases, then two, and for Somalia the weekly updates and the table have reported 3 cases, while the text says the last case was in 2018.  I have gone with the table for this and will continue to do so unless the reason for the conflict becomes clear. Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting info on GPEI page 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Philippines polio outbreak Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant AfD 

message: One shows "Number of wild poliovirus cases, 1975–2017".  Please add 2018 and 2019.
Other shows "Number of cVDPV cases, 2000-2018".  Please add 2019.
47.139.41.142 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be good were the colors of the cVDPV plot to be switched, so that the WPV in the two plots are shown with the same color.  That being said, the 2019 data are still coming in, so until that stabilizes, any change would have to be redone anyhow, so it would be better to wait another month or so before doing the updates. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just in case this is missed, the GPEI have very belatedly detected an additional 2019 cVDPV1 case in Yemen from late 2019, so when next updated these charts are updated the cVDPV number for 2019 needs to be increased by one. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs in Vaccine-derived poliovirus section need updating 

message: 2020 map needs updating  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  map update 

message: Phrases in the 2019 that are written in the present tense, such as "in Pakistan the number of cases is surging" or "polio is classified as endemic" need to be changed to past tense.47.139.43.188 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and anyone can make those edits, even you. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb tenses in 2019 section 

message: Yes, stacking tables is an improvement, it looks better. Esszet (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to side with  here. Stacking the tables messes up the alignment with the text. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: In my typical half-screen view, it put the 2020 table up next to the text for 2017.  Viewed full-screen it puts the 2020 table down below the See Also section. Yes, the white-space between years is awkward, but it is the only way of aligning the tables with their respective years. Agricolae (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the tables collapsible could be an option. TompaDompa (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late response, I didn't realize that people read Wikipedia in half-screen, it was basically fine in my (full-screen) view.  I guess making them collapsible would be an option. Esszet (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: Is it really necessary to insert archived copies of live links given that there are bots that do routine dead-link/archive repair? To me, it bulks out the article with pointless code that makes it harder to find the text one wants to edit. Agricolae (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codecruft 

message: I wonder how they determine if the polio case was a WPV or a cVDPV. Tried to ask this on a different site and all they explained is that the symptoms of WPV and cVDPV do not differ. 
Also, why are there so many cVDPV cases in the last few years? A very strange situation, in my opinion. First, 95% of African people are vaccinated against polio. Without it, WHO wouldn't probably certify the continent as being wil polio-free. Second, as I know, type 2 polio vaccine production was discontinued in 2016 or so. Modern vaccines must contain just types 1 and 3. Does anybody still use old oral polio vaccine?
And is it good to treat all vaccine-derived polio outbreaks with more and more vaccination rounds?.. It looks like a mindgame. I understand the necessity of vaccination and I am not an anti-vaxxer; however, I think each person must be treated individually. I am not sure if a child, according to jurisdiction (laws), must be considered as parents' property (I have no children). I know some Pakistani parents are hiding their children from the vaccinators or refuse vaccination by all means.
By the way, I am gravely concerned about polio situation in Pakistan. Is it true that sometimes a child receives 7+ vacine rounds but still gets wild polio?.. Again, very strange. I think scientists should work on polio vaccines every year and update them to prevent this. Otherwise, old vaccines may become pretty useless if this continues to happen. Also, does the religion of islam even allow vaccinating all the children?.. Why were was no such problem when we were eradicating smallpox in Pakistan, and why do Pakistani clerics consider that polio vaccine contains pork or alcohol? Simply ridiculous! 
One additional question. If a person has had polio and survived, then is he/she considered completely healthy? I guess the presence of the people who have already had polio does not affect global polio eradication. 
Thanks a lot. I think this thread can be useful for the encyclopedia, for the sake of free knowledge.
89.149.79.161 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is unclear. AIDS is caused by a separate and distinct virus, and there is no evidence that any vaccination has any impact on developing AIDS. Are you suggesting that a pre-existing presence of AIDS in children affects the immunogenicity of the polio vaccine? BD2412 T 22:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions to clarify the problems and dangers of polio eradication 

message: The article doesn't seem to mention this. I see above that immune-compromised individuals can be infectious for decades, but most of the problem seems to be from cVDPV. How many months? years? is that an issue, after we stop vaccinating for a particular strain? That is, how long does the break in transmission of cVDPV need to be, to be confident it's been eradicated? (I'm assuming the contact immunity from attenuated OPV is due to a much lower rate of transmission than WPV, or else we wouldn't need to keep revaccinating.) — kwami (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation with cVDPV is the same as with WPV, except that in particular with the cVDPV2 strains there tend to be a much larger proportion of asymptomatic carriers. Other than in the rare immune-compromised long-term infections, their timelines for disease progression and virus clearing in an individual are no different.  How long vaccination will have to continue after the last identified case is an open subject of discussion. Some say decades, some say much shorter or complacency will set in, vaccination rates will drop, a whole bunch of new cVDPVs will arise, and we are back to square one. The fact is, nobody really has a good idea how the endgame will play out, and they are putting a lot of hope in vaccine innovation to allow less expensive, more heat-stable injections, and orals less prone to mutation. Otherwise there is no good plan for breaking the vaccine-cVDPV cycle other than just trying really hard to achieve vaccination rates sufficient to both both block transmission of existing strains and prevent new ones from arising. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Since this page is really for talking about improvements to the page and not general discussions of the topic, I have responded on your User Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long is cVDPV a danger? 

message: Passing under my radar, GPEI has made several additions to the 2019 case counts, both for WPV and cVDPV.  I have incorporated these into the narrative and tables, but these totals will need to be changed for the plot.  
I have also removed all of the PolioThisWeek references from prior years, as the narratives on that page change weekly and it no longer provide the cited information. They have a new set of stable weekly tables for cVDPV, matching the stable weekly Wild Poliovirus tables, and these stable tables should be used for any case numbers that aren't expected to get stale, rather than PolioThisWeek.  There are currently duplicate references for both, but I anticipate the references in the current year to be replaced by newer weekly tables, while those in previous years can retain the stable fixed-date tables I just used to replace PolioThisWeek. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers update / stable vs dynamic citations 

message: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-60429726
Malawi finds Africa’s first wild polio case in five years
"As the case came from Pakistan, it does not affect the continent's wild poliovirus-free status, the World Health Organization (WHO) says."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.26 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan or Malawi? 

message: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/07/polio-outbreak-in-pakistan-worsens-as-eighth-child-reported-paralysed this looks relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.64.8 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan pens and fraud

message: VDPV2 found in sewage samples in the UK:  --Uhooep (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: UK

message: reported case in orthodox community in Suburbs of NYC 2600:1702:9F0:D140:B9F3:65A1:9:7E43 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: THe map does need updated, but ntot for this reason. We base the map on the data table. We base the data table on the formal weekly announced case count from GPEI. This weekly account has yet to report the US case.  It should be mentioned that it may never show up there - the GPEI has rules on what qualifies as a cVDPV case versus what qualifies simply as a vaccination contact case, that they don't count (note that the sewage hit in the UK has not been tabulated, presumably because it is being interpreted as vaccine and not cVDPV). We usually wait until GPEI records a case before we even mention it in the article, but the media freakout both in the US and UK makes it hard to wait. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  map needs update 

message: 47.139.45.80 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please update 2022 map and table to include New York State  (USA) 

message: Should a 2023 section be made yet? There is data available for which to build a page. - https://polioeradication.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/weekly-polio-analyses-WPV-20230124.pdf Watch Atlas791 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2023 section has been created and I have added a case table to it. It needs a map (2022 map should also be updated to include Mali), and it can be expanded if there are good sources for it. Coolclawcat (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 

message: Someone who knows where to find the numbers for 2023, please update the following in article lead to show 2023 statistics instead of 2022 statistics: “ There were 30 confirmed WPV cases in 2022, a decrease from 2019's 5-year high of 176, a 95.8% reduction from the 719 diagnosed cases in 2000 and a 99.91% reduction from the 35,251 reported cases when the eradication effort began in 1988. Total polio cases (combined wild and circulating vaccine-derived) have dropped 97.5% from 35,251 (reported) in 1988 to 894 (confirmed) in 2022.” 47.139.46.124 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit/update request