Talk:Pandemic Severity Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Start
2 Can someone do tables
3 Source please
4 Rewrite
5 Notability
6 Picture Request

[edit] Start

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)

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)

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)

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)

Relevance?--ZayZayEM 04:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

You asked me questions. I answered your questions. I get nothing back from you but ignorant lip. I'm done with you. Look up the answers to your own questions from now on. WAS 4.250 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't. You haven't answered either of my questions. All you've done is called me ignorant.
1. Who uses the PSI? Who has suggested the will use the PSI? Has the CDC even wholly adopted the PSI? Have any internaional CDC-equivalents adopted the CDC's PSI? Have any organisations in or out of the US criticised or supported the PSI?
2. Is the PSI relevent only to Influenza? (What about say, black plague, smallpox, SARS, cholera, typhoid or other pandemic agents.)--ZayZayEM 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The PSI is a new CDC guideline for communicating the risk posed by pandemic influenza to the US population. It is not an international classification and is not applied to any other disease. The article quite accurately describes this guideline and its proposed application. I've added a bit to the lead. Tim Vickers 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

that one sentance make s a big difference. thanks Tim. I still think this article could do with some expansion and more than a single reference (though the further reading helps out). I would particularly like to see some comments by non-US government associated health bodies.--ZayZayEM 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone do tables

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)

[edit] Source please

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)

CDC is a domestic organisation, none of its recommendations have international standing by themselves. But check out the USINFO source I added.--ZayZayEM 13:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your excellent rewrite satisfies all my concerns with regard to this. Great job!!! WAS 4.250 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Any comments? I think there are some tense issues. Is PSI singular or plural?--ZayZayEM 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Notability

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)

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)

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)