Talk:Pandemic severity index

message: Two questions regarding the scope of the PSI:
#Is the PSI used by any organisations outside the CDC? Is it used throughout the US? Is it used internationally? Has any other organisation contributed to its formulation?
#Is the PSI only relevant for Influenza pandemics?
Thanks--ZayZayEM 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its purpose is to inform everyone concerning which social isolation measures should be taken. It is designed to function like the Hurricane severity index. So if you know the coming hurricane is at one strength you as an individual might choose to act one way versus acting another way if the hurricane was a cat 5 for example. Individuals, companies and local officials will be making decisions such as stay home or not, close factory or not, close school or not. How people use scientific assessments provided by government funded experts is mostly up to them. Mandated social isolation measures like closing airports is being evaluated with computer models that show whether to do so or not is critically determined by precise details concerning the transmit-ability and lethality that are only roughly identified by this PSI. But this PSI is for public consumption. The actual mandated procedures in the case of a flu pandemic will be determined by the computer models supplied with the precise data from the scientists once they have an actual pandemic flu virus to evaluate. WAS 4.250 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm not really trying to be rude or piss you off, but you realise that you haven't actually answered either of my questions, do you? It's purpose is already clear in the article. Is it actually functional and accepted on a semi-national/national/continental/trans-atlantic/trans-pacific/international level.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the US government announces that its experts believe a hurricane is a category five does cuba ignore that? WAS 4.250 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevance?--ZayZayEM 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't have flu pandemics often enough for this to be tested by "what happened last time?" This was just invented. You are asking what the credibility of the US government experts is in the world community and I tell you that our experts are second to none and in the case of a flu pandemic will be eagerly looked to for advice. You want to improve an article on a subject that you know nothing about and don't have the faintest clue about what is a reasonable question to ask. You don't want to piss me off yet that is inevitable given that you refuse to actually read the background material about the subject you are trying to write about. You are putting effort into this I can see from your sandbox, but no amount of such effort negates ignorance. Read the source material. WAS 4.250 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell you that our experts are second to none. -WAS This simply isn't good enough for wikipedia. I know US experts (generally) have global influence, but we need to have this referenced from a credible second or third party source. As this is something sort-of-fresh of the table, it really begs its encyclopedic value until it actually has been tested and accepted.  I get no real information about what this index is, just its purpose. I don't even get that this is a proposed scheme that hasn't even been really utilised by anyone yet. Take a look at the article on Tropical cyclone scales, they have details like who uses them where, and when/how/why they were developed. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used only to describe hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Ocean and northern Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line. I know this seems like I am targetting you, it's not for simple harrassment. These are valid concerns about the writing style in several articles where you are a main contributor. You must say where information comes from and provide relevent context - you cannot place government reports as facts, they are government reports regardless of their credibility.--ZayZayEM 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: I can't do tables. The list of Category levels would look so much better in a table.--ZayZayEM 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would look even better with more examples... Turkeyphant 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone do tables

message: Can someone provide a source for "to the US population"? As far as I know there is no such limitation. Further, common sense would indicate the desire of US officials to "indicate the risk" to US citizens and military personnel all over the world and to our friends and allies all over the world. Does anyone have a source for this unnecessary, pointless and bizarre limitation on the intended use of the PSI? WAS 4.250 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source please

message: Any comments? I think there are some tense issues. Is PSI singular or plural?--ZayZayEM 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent job. One index with multiple levels. I'm thinking singular when referred to as a whole while plural if referring to one of its levels. Sorry if that's an inadequate answer. WAS 4.250 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I'm going to be really polite about this. I'm not trying to be a wanker or troll, but depsite the effort I just put into this article unless anyone can change my mind it is probably going to be nominated for Deletion.
This is a proposed US domestic health classification guideline from that the CDC themselves have acknowledged is a work in progress. The sources I used are for the most part PR exercises loaded with public health and governmental buzzwords for media digestion. Nothing much exists (online) beyond these February press releases. The CDC churns out guidelines like these with regularity, it doesn't mean they deserve a wikipedia article.
The PSI does not currently meet Notability requirements. It may in the future, but not right at this time.--ZayZayEM 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old inclusionist versus deletionist problem. H5N1 is notable. Efforts to plan for it are notable. This is a key piece of the US effort to plan for it. The question of exactly how much social isolation is useful or desireable in a flu pandemic is an issue governments are spending many millions on specifically and billions if looked at broadly including computer studies, historical research, published studies and practice drills. The need for an easily understandable communicatable way to communicate level of needed social isolation in a flu pandemic has been made apparent by problems in exercise drills that have been run. This is not some meaningless bureaucratic guideline. It is the outgrowth of intense study in how to avoid many millions of deaths. It's important. WAS 4.250 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not quite live. It's in a sort of Beta test stage. Many computer games in Beta have article, so I suspect it will survive a VfD, but at present, I personally favour exclusion. It's not important, it could be important. It really hasn't attracted that much attention domestically or internationally from the news and sources to me. It just seems a CDC PR exercise.--ZayZayEM 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The CDC said they would revise the Index in the subsequent months. It's been about 18 months since the unveiling of the PSI.
Any of you guys with your finger on the pulse more than me have any news of updates to the Index?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent revisions 

message: On 26 April 2008, 156.34.44.68 added Stages 6 and 7 to the chart under "Guidelines," but I am unable to locate any such mention of such in the CDC references.  But, if there is, I doubt the CDC would refer to Stage 7 as the religious term "Apocalypse."  --- W5WMW (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted that vandalism. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stages 6 and 7 ? 

message: The language "pandemic is going to get out of control" is sensational, unencyclopedic, and at odds with the Index itself. I replaced this with "how likely a disease will spread worldwide". Only Level 5 is about a pandemic. The other four levels are all non-pandemic (or pre-pandemic), and the language of the article should reflect this. And no disease is "under control". They all spread, mutate, and eventually end outside of human control. Interlingua 12:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced "pandemic is going to get out of control"

message: :image:WHO pandemic phases.png should be added to this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't. Totally different scale.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  phases 

message: Has the HHS/CDC used the PSI during the current swine flu scare? I think that is a real test of how successful they were out of moving this from a developmental "beta" project into a live indexing scheme. (Although it probably only rates a 1 at most at present, not a very high CFR as yet). I've seen quite a few references to WHO Pandemic phases, but haven't heard anyone mention a PSI on news reports I've seen.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in 2009 Swine flu pandemic scare 

message: Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but someone appears to have confused the 2009 swine flu outbreak's rating of 5 on the WHO's pandemic influenza phase rating system with the pandemic severity index, two very different things. This may give the impression that the WHO expects greater than two million US deaths as a result of this outbreak, when, from what I've read, no one yet knows how fatal this strain will become. I'd delete it, but I haven't had my coffee yet and it'd be cool if someone else could verify this first. 173.79.50.138 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with pandemic influenza phases 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pandemic severity index. 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/20101128201729/http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/February/20070212130917lcnirellep0.3025629.html to http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/February/20070212130917lcnirellep0.3025629.html
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) 04:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is there a real guideline for the color or anything can do ?
 Yug (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors ? 

message: Why is 2019 coronavirus disease listed in the pandemic chart? As far as I am aware, the CDC (or any other source) has not declared that, and furthermore the introduction to this page says the PSI is only for flu epidemics.
Meh222 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a listing in the table earlier since the citation given was pure original research. It might be helpful to add a code comment saying not to include it given that it isn't an influenza and hasn't been listed on the PSI to my knowledge. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing some research, the PSI seems to be defunct anyway. I updated the article with a citation accordingly. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

text: It is treated like a category 3-4 pandemic (declared as such by the WHO on March 11th), not an extreme 5-6. The fatality rate can vary from nation to nation (4% in the USA, 11% in Italy and .3% in Germany), now epidemologists said if you include serological exposure studies, the total global fatality rate for Covid-19 should be 1%! The "100 year bug" pandemic many scientists knew it would happen, especially a pandemic that is a coronavirus, related to SARS-1 in 2002-04 (a smaller scale on 1-2 but with a higher fatality rate than the current progress of Covid-19) and originated in China or East Asia, was predicted to possibly sweep the world in the first 20 years (two decades) of this century/ millennia. 2605:E000:100D:C571:8921:AB9A:1584:4730 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't think a note should be placed in the article itself; that is more appropriate for this talk page. Several edit summaries on the page history also state that COVID-19 cannot be added without proper sources, and I suspect whichever individual(s) are re-adding it are doing so with deliberate disregard for WP:CITE. I put in a request for temporary semi-protection on July 24, but it was declined due to insufficient recent disruption. If disruption continues, I will resubmit the request. Megathon7 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is 2019 coronavirus disease listed in the pandemic chart?