[CdM] All over the world? YES. *audience members start nudging eachother awake*
[Chalky] Medical connections? YES! *excited noises*
[ImNotJohn] pets? NO.
[Quendalon] Connected with birth? NO.
[Chalky] Alive? YES.
[Chalky] emotion? NO.
[Chalky] Bad? Some might say no. I say YES.
[Chalky] Human construct? NO. Now let somebody else ask some.

[CdM] Animal testing? NO.

What! 12 hours and no question from Chalky?

[Irouléguy] fish? NO.
[ImNotJohn] agri-husbandry? NO. (see Kim's question above)
[Quendalon] Antrhopomorphization? NO.

[Tuj] Fictitious? NO.

Summary time, and the living is easy
Fish are jumping...

We have an ABSTRACT involving multiple ANIMALish themes.

It is not: a saying (though the guess was described as 'clever'), fictional, art, a place-name, Old MacDonald had a farm, One man and his dog, connected to entertainment, a group or society, geographically specific (this question got applause), pets, connected with birth, an emotion, a human construct, animal testing, connected with agriculture or animal husbandry, an anthropomorphisation, or fictional. And the non-human animals are not fish, but they are alive. They belong to more than one species, but not to 'many' species.

It is: involving at least one human, something that happens all over the world, and with medical connections.

It might be: a true life story, and a bad thing. There may be more than one non-human animal involved (situationally dependent).

The answer includes: a word beginning with 'P'.

[Irouléguy] mostly one species? YES.
[Tuj] Title of media? NO.

[Re: Recap] "situationally dependent" was the answer to the following question: "Are the animals referred to in the plural?" The question "More than one non-human species involved?" had the answer "KIND OF", which I stand by.

Kim - Is it animal testing? I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the summary above.

[Quendalon] "Does it involve words?" I'm not really sure how to give a yes or no answer to that which would be helpful. It is not word/language-based.
[Tuj] Is it unique? NO.
[Irouléguy] Is the non-human species visible to the naked eye? NO!

[Irouléguy] A bacterium/virus/etc responsible for a particular disease/medical condition? YES.

[Irouléguy] Is the answer the disease/medical condition? YES.
[Irouléguy] is the animal specifically a virus? YES. *audience begins to gather coats and hats*

Just for the sake of satisfying my own pedantry, I feel duty-bound to point out that generally viruses are not considered by most scientists as animals, for example because they are not living things, cannot self-replicate, and don't have a membrane separating themselves from the outside world. But that's probably a debate for another time. And yes I know that Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is (a) not a virus, and (b) only theoretical, but it's an amusing word.

[Graham III] Pneumonoultrafragilisticexpialidocious? NO.
[Somebody Else] Poliomylitis? NO.
[Quendalon] The common cold? NO.
[Graham III] Does the disease affect one part of the body specifically? Hmm. As in 'athelete's foot'? NO.
[Pedantry] I know there is some debate, but I did say "animal-ish" not simply "animal", and secondly if I had answered yes or no based on viruses being animals I think it would have been more misleading. I like to consider myself not an evil man.

[Quendalon] Bird flu? NO.
[Irouléguy] Commonly fatal? NO.
[irach] Influenza? NO.