Talk:1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom

1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2018 and September 11, 2023.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Viruses Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Dermatology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

project's importance scale .

Death Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

The lead and conclusions section seem to me biased, with far more emphasis placed on the anti-Shooter position than the results of the official enquiry. It's not clear to me why Pallen (a microbiologist & pop-science writer) and Escott-Cox (a lawyer) are being forwarded over the official position. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official position. The Shooter report was just that. Shooter's conclusions were never ratified by Parliament or the Government. Although the source of virus (Bedson's laboratory) is beyond doubt the transmission route has never been established. The conclusion in Shooter's report, that the virus was carried through air ducts, was deemed most unlikely in the subsequent court case and was central to the "not guilty" judgment. It seems the transmission route will never be known. Pallen is not alone in thinking that the Shooter Report is wrong about this.Graham Beards (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It’s not about favouring Pallen and Escott-Cox over Shooter. They are just reflective of where the reliable sources are. For example, Behbehani p.503. It would be a

WP:DUE problem to put Shooter over subsequent RS consensus i.e. no one knows how the transmission happened. DeCausa (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Graham Beards and DeCausa: I really strongly object to the bolded parts of the following in the lead: "A number of internationally recognised experts produced compelling evidence during the prosecution to show that it was highly unlikely that Parker was infected by airborne transmission in this way. How Parker contracted the disease remains unknown. "

I'd suggest removing the unsourced intensifiers "compelling" and "highly", and also stating that Parker clearly was infected from the lab stock of smallpox, as no-one doubts this, but the precise route is unknown/contested/whatever. I also think the Birmingham Mail source is completely unreliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m neutral on the intensifiers but ”How Parker contracted the disease remains unknown” is exactly right and has to be the conclusion in the lead. But I don’t have any objection to adding to it “... although there is general agreement that the source of Parker’s infection was the smallpox virus grown at the medical school laboratory.” As far as the Birmingham Mail is concerned, it’s clearly RS for what Escott-Cox, the QC directly involved in the prosecution, said. What evidence do you have that it is unreliable to that extent (or at all)? 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited the Lead: "Several internationally recognised experts produced evidence during the prosecution to show that it was unlikely that Parker was infected by airborne transmission in this way. Although there is general agreement that the source of Parker’s infection was the smallpox virus grown at the Medical School laboratory, how Parker contracted the disease remains unknown."

I am no fan of The Birmingham Post and Mail but I too can't see why it is an unreliable source for this article. It reported the tragedy accurately as I recall. What facts cited to this newspaper are contested? Graham Beards (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham Beards. There are four sources given for the statement at the start of the conclusion "Although it seems clear that the source of Parker’s infection was the smallpox virus grown at the University of Birmingham Medical School laboratory, it remains unknown how Parker came to be infected." One is Pallen's 2018 book, but no pages are cited; one is a BBC article from 2018 which presumably was related to the book's PR; one is The Birmingham Post and Mail article from 2018, again presumably related to the book; and the final one is the Behbehani review from 1983, which is independent and reliable. I would propose removing the two presumably dependent sources, which in any case fall far short of the medical project's standards for sourcing.

In general I don't think we should use local news coverage for anything medical related at all, and the sensational tone of the Birmingham Post and Mail article in question feels to me inappropriate even for linking. However I don't see a particular problem with retaining it as the source for the quotation from Escott-Cox -- aside from the fact that it links their article to ours, and encourages people to add further details from it, and also to append similar-quality sources willy-nilly to other medical articles. But that's a wider problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a very strong point of view on this. Can you indicate reliable sources that support what appears to be your point of view i.e. that considering both the Shooter conclusion on transmission and the new evidence adduced at the subsequent prosecution (and the conclusions reached in the prosecution as a result) the Shooter conclusion should still be presented as the likely explanation. I came to this article a few months ago without any prior view or, admittedly, without any prior knowledge. I spent some time searching for sources and I couldn’t find any with your POV. It would help the development of the article if you could suggest some for us to discuss. Incidentally, I think this is unhelpfully pointy. If you want to challenge their sourced description then it would be best to raise it expressly.DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references still need work. I'll add the page numbers for Shooter and Pallen. By the way, I am acknowledged in Pallen's book – although I had little to add. I wrote most of my contribution to our article long before he wrote his book so I don't see a problem. But in the spirit of openness, I think it is best to declare this.Graham Beards (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this article is really a biography, but it has a strange name for a biography. Should this article really be called Janet Parker? Also, there is a request for an infobox. Which type of infobox is required? For a person, or some other kind for epidemics? BTW, I checked a few articles about epidemics, and it seems like they dont have infoboxes, more proof that this is supposed to be a biography. Let me know what to do here, and I will do it. Mathdestruction (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's history. The article was orginally called "Janet Parker" but it was moved to this, more appropriate, title because Parker is only notable for dying from smallpox. Infoboxes are not always useful, as is the case here. Graham Beards (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i changed the page name to "

" was inappropriate for two reasons.

"outbreak"

The page for "disease outbreak" says "Four linked cases of a rare infectious disease may be sufficient to constitute an outbreak."

Two confirmed cases is not an outbreak. This incident only even gets to three cases if you count an unconfirmed case, who may have died of other causes.

date and location

The location and date in the title downplay the global significance. They belong in the introduction and infobox.

Previously i tried "

". The revert edit comment objected to that on the basis that it "suggests it is one of a series of articles on cases per year". To make it sound less like a series, I also considered "Post eradication smallpox cases in the United Kingdom", but while the last natural case was 1977, eradication wasn't declared till 1980. But if it's the last known death, we don't need to differentiate it from other locations or dates, so no need to put those in the title.

Irtapil (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly an outbreak and it was fortunately controlled, which explains why there were only four cases. The date is important because it delayed the intended 1977 WHO eradication announcement until May 8, 1980. Graham Beards (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: but the number "1978" is not the important thing about the date, the important thing is "last", the number "1978" is meaningless because most people won't know what it is before or after, especially not most people looking it up on Wikipedia, so they won't know the significance of "1978". Irtapil (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. You are flogging a dead horse. Graham Beards (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: who? Irtapil (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see this discussion here. Since

BOLD doesn't seem to have worked out this time, can I respectfully ask, please, that no more page moves are made without consensus being reached first? Thank you DBaK (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. Irtapil, this is the second time you’ve tried to move the page without discussion and been reverted. I suggest that you establish consensus first. I also agree with Graham’s points and would add that

WP:COMMONNAME indicates the current title. Sources refer to this as an outbreak e.g. Hugh Pennington (here) and the BBC (here). Current title is fine. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, Irtapil has decided to edit war and moved the article again. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the section 1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom#Parker’s_illness_and_death, we see that people in the 1970s were as ignorant as AntiVaccers are today. They feared that the virus would continue to reproduce in the body of Janet Parker, maybe even reproduce in the soil, if they would bury her. Since viruses are not genetic parasites —— not living organisms —— that is impossible.

Do not get me wrong; touching the puss oozing out of sessions on the body SmallPoxVictum is as stupid as eating HorsePaste and AquariumCleaner, but no viral reproduction can occur in corpses. Maybe, we should fix the article.

2601:643:C002:E3E0:246C:64F:6578:A5A8 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of taking precautions when working with a smallpox corpse is not unreasonable. Some quick googling shows that some human cells remain alive after organism death for up to 3 days. More googling reveals that in one study, 10% of bird flu virus in an organism was still alive at room temperature after 15 days. The text you added has no citations and too strong a tone. I would encourage you to fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BirdFluVirus, like all viruses, is never alive. Living organisms have cells, ribosomes, metabolism, react to their environment, and maintain homeœstasis. Viruses do not do any of that. They do evolve, which makes them more lifelike than crystals and fire. The best description of a virus is as a genetic parasite.

2601:643:C002:E3E0:246C:64F:6578:A5A8 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the main idea of that block quote was that the corpse was dangerous and infectious. Whether the virus should be labeled as alive or a genetic parasite seems like a side issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The debate as to whether viruses are living is irrelevant to this article. Smallpox infected cadavers, as with Ebola infected ones, are still a source of infection. Viruses do not have to be actively replicating to be infectious. Graham Beards (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Fleet, when talking about what authorities believed said:

[blockquote]

"The body had to be cremated because there was a chance the virus could have thrived in the ground if Mrs Parker had been buried."

——

Ron Fleet

[[blockquote]

"Thrive" implies that authorities feared that the virus would reproduce in the body or even the soil. If they simply feared that the virions would remain infections for a long time, which they could —— those stupid homeœpaths play with SmallPoxScabs for making their useless magical SCAM (Supplemental Complementary Alternative Medicine), thus risking infecting themselves and causing a SmallPoxPandemic —— but a better verb to use would be exists. "Thrive" is not the sort of verb one would use for an inactive, substance. let us use an analogy:

One has a jar of potassium cyanide (kcn) in the lab. One would not say that the potassium cyanide thrives in the jar, because it just sits their, but that it continues in the jar because it does nothing in the jar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:E3E0:246C:64F:6578:A5A8 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Graham and Novem Linguae. The unsourced addition doesn’t add anything. No one doubts the corpse could be a source of infection. That’s all that matters - the rest seems to be a rabbit hole of no particular interest for this article, perhaps another. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no article on this outbreak? Google london 1973 smallpox outbreak for good sources. ^^^^^ 79.153.137.219 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no volunteer has written it yet and this is possibly because the outbreak was not notable enough for it's own article. Up until the 1930s, smallpox was endemic in the UK and cases were seen most years, albeit not to the high levels recorded in the 19th century. Since the 1930s and up to the early 1970s, there were several outbreaks in the UK that originated from imported cases i.e. migrants from the Indian subcontinent. In the 1973 outbreak Sir Keith Joseph reported just three victims to Parliament, which was sad but very few and insignificant in a historical perspective, although the source of the infection was a hospital laboratory. The 1978 outbreak described here was notable because smallpox was about to be declared eradicated by the World Health Organisation.- Graham Beards (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]