Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:08, 17 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WikiProject COVID-19 consensus

WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.

General

Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.

Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020)

For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)

"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)

Page title

COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).

SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)

Map

There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)

There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)

For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)

To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2020, when it received 18,895,254 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:

COVID-19 High‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: History High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).

Medicine: Pulmonology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Viruses High‑importance

	Viruses portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for COVID-19 pandemic in India (68 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	12,832	12,832
Timeline	331	43,696
2020	10,749	10,749
2021: Second wave	28,186	28,186
2022	1,219	1,219
2023	3,211	3,211
Response	186	153,233
Health care and testing	6,526	74,276
Initial testing	4,100	4,100
Expansion of tests	9,314	9,314
Testing community transmission	5,254	5,254
Daily samples tested	9,169	9,169
Research and treatment	15,755	15,755
Vaccine development and production	8,785	8,785
Vaccination policy and distribution	15,373	15,373
Immediate relief	421	14,684
Welfare	6,050	6,050
Economic relief and stimulus package	8,213	8,213
Lockdowns	55	17,072
First wave: Nation-wide	13,147	13,147
Second wave: State-wise and localized	3,870	3,870
Administration, committees and task forces	15,738	15,738
Pseudoscience practices	1,157	1,157
Military	4,919	4,919
Private sector	4,392	4,392
International	22	13,866
International support	13,844	13,844
Response shortages and criticism	6,943	6,943
Evacuations by India related to the COVID-19 pandemic	208	47,094
Background	20	6,159
COVID-19 pandemic	2,712	2,712
Migration	1,470	1,470
Previous evacuations	1,957	1,957
International	22	31,092
January–April 2020	10,762	10,762
May 2020–present: Vande Bharat Mission	3,515	3,515
Phase I	7,582	7,582
Phase II	2,609	2,609
Phase III	650	650
Phase IV	1,483	1,483
Phase V	1,759	1,759
Phase VI	363	363
Phase VII	526	526
Samudra Setu II	1,821	1,821
Domestic	1,415	1,415
Reception	6,599	6,599
Incidents	19	1,621
Air India Express Flight 1344	565	565
Air India Flight AI-312 27-Aug Fiasco	1,037	1,037
Impact	14	71,300
Displacement of migrant workers	7,705	7,705
Drug shortages	4,026	4,026
Education	5,638	5,638
Economy	7,688	7,688
Freedom of expression	3,305	3,305
Other diseases	2,823	2,823
Healthcare and frontline workers	6,460	6,460
Religion	7,978	7,978
Rural and semi-rural India	4,799	4,799
Transport	9,102	9,102
Other	11,762	11,762
Statistics	1,538	12,596
Undercounting of cases and deaths	11,058	11,058
See also	287	287
Notes	263	263
References	33	33
Further reading	2,391	2,391
External links	2,162	2,162
Total	345,887	345,887

Text and/or other creative content from this version of COVID-19 pandemic in India was copied or moved into Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Estimations

@Vanamonde93: I would like to answer your question that "how on earth is this not in the lead already?"

The source is WHO, and their report has pegged India’s excess mortality (people who probably would not have died if there was no pandemic) to be at 4.7 million. These ‘excess’ deaths are considered to be a direct or indirect result of Covid-19.

This is nowhere same as Indian government's own statistics which suggest half-a-million deaths due to Covid-19. That's why these statistics cannot be used as alternative statistics to those provided by Indian government.

You should read these two sources that have provided good argument against these types of computer modelling, not just by WHO but other sources who also came up with 1 million - 5 million excess deaths: [1][2] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That just isn't going to fly, sorry. The WHO estimates, and the slew of studies that preceded it and fed into it, are conducted by scholars. They're far and away the best estimates we have. Statements from the Health Ministry are not given the same weight, because they are less reliable than scholarly work. This is pretty basic stuff; not sure why I need to explain it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the WHO themselves admitted that "their modeling exercise suffered from a number of limitations like limited representation and generalisation of variable utilised to settings that may be systematically different".[3]

Together with these noted flaws, I would still recommend you to read the 2 sources which I have provided, they are also WP:RS and provide the reasons why these types of computer modelling cannot be taken at face value. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO study admitted its limitations. Its something scientific studies do; that it had limitations doesn't change that it's the best source available. Scholarly sources are still superior to media sources and primary government data. A statement from a minister gets no weight whatsoever next to a scholarly study (and that's all that's in the last link you provided; did you read it?) I really do not know how you're disputing that, nor how you think it reasonable to exclude the attributed WHO estimate from the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not 100% sure about their own estimates then why we have to be? I would repeat again that the excess deaths figure provided by WHO concerns both direct and indirect result of Covid-19. It is not same as direct death which is provided by Indian government and state governments. It relies on computer modelling than actual body count. Both are greatly different from each other.

2nd source has comments from Randeep Guleria, Balram Bhargava, who are academics and have disputed these models. It cannot be ignored.

Current sentence is too long and does not explain the flaws of the study. It would be misleading for the readers if we don't mention that. The long-standing sentence "But these official numbers are suspected to be significant undercounts" was much better. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only routine, it is expected for scientific studies to provide margins of error. That is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. AKG, if you want to provide high-quality, up-to-date RS with alternative estimates, I'm willing to discuss them. If you continue to call into question the reliability of scholarly sources with nonsensical arguments like the above, you're looking at arbitration enforcement. I have also removed your wildly out of date addition from a questionable journal; you will need to take that to RSN. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any other 'alternative estimates' because the official figure is by far the most up-to-date. Just chanting same argument without addressing any of the argument I raised won't help you. Can you show where Wikipedia community agreed to provide more weight to WHO's computer modelling over official figures? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been written in 1 sentence instead of 4 sentences like now. The WHO has lost enough credibility with regard to entire COVID-19 scenario,[4] so it would make no sense to provide them undue weight. I also support restoring the lead before 21 August, and avoid giving undue weight to any particular study or estimate on the lead. Dympies (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have never edited a Covid article; how did you hear of this discussion? Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS before commenting further. Scientific studies should always take primacy over government estimates, and there's a wealth of scientific studies showing huge undercounts in the Indian government data. The WHO study is just the most recent of these. Here's another example, estimating 3.2 million deaths by June 2021 [5]. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS well and it does not say that Indian government figures become less reliable than WHO with regards to COVID-19 statistics in India. Dympies (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, government statistics are primary sources; have you read WP:RSPRIMARY? The Indian government statistics are also in the lead anyway, so I don't know what you're trying to say with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why no other country's page provides more weight to non-governmental statistics? By saying "more weight", I am talking about how you have dedicated more sentences to WHO's statistics on lead. It was better before when it was written in a single sentence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like already noted above, "excess deaths" provided by WHO and the registered COVID-19 deaths by India, are not same figures. Both figures shouldn't be on lead and shouldn't be compared with each other. I am also in support of restoring the sentence from the earlier version before this version, as it already noted suspected undercounting. @Abecedare: can you also share your view? >>> Extorc.talk 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Extorc, you are right that ""excess deaths" provided by WHO and the registered COVID-19 deaths by India" are not exactly comparable. That is because of, as numerous scholarly studies have said, (primarily) (1) significant under-counting and/or misattribution of COVID-19 related deaths in the GOI statistics, and (secondarily) (2) the excess deaths include indirect deaths due to the pandemic. But I am not seeing any real-world or wiki-policy based argument for excluding or downplaying the WHO/scholarly estimates from the lede or the article. Per NPOV and RS/MEDRS: the official GOI numbers can be cited with attribution since, well, they reflect the official GOI position; and, the numbers from WHO/other-scholarly-studies should also be included both because they perhaps are a better reflection of COVID-19's toll in India and because they are the type of sources that wikipedia in general gives more weight to. Abecedare (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Do you think that the current sentence (which is too long and was added here) should be replaced with something like "The WHO estimated 4.7 million excess deaths, both directly and indirectly related to COVID-19 to have taken place in India."? This will probably resolve this dispute. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abecedare; perhaps your explanation will convince folks of what I've gotten sick of repeating. The only way to write a policy-based account of Covid deaths in India is to find the most reliable, reasonably up-to-date sources that cover the topic, and summarize what they say. The WHO estimate is one of those, as is the Science article I mention. If anyone wants to provide an alternative summary of these, I'm willing to discuss it. If there's further specious argument attempting to discredit reliable sources, I intend to ignore it, and if necessary take it to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative wording has been already proposed just above your comment. Can you comment on that? I dont see any issue with it. >>> Extorc.talk 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't appropriate, because the "direct vs indirect" stuff is terminology primarily used by the Indian government that is not reflected in any other reliable sources, nor in their discussion of mortality in other countries. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But "directly and indirectly" wording is used by WHO for this report,[6] and is also widely used by reliable sources when discussing this WHO report.[7][8][9][10] >>> Extorc.talk 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still something to discuss in the body of the article, if at all. The reliable sources in question still state unequivocally that this is the death toll from Covid. Furthermore, the comparison to the government figures is made prominently by very many reliable sources, as is the comparison to the global death toll. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Covid Awareness Murals in Chennai 02.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PortiaGui (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PortiaGui (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request, February 18, 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Semi-protected padlock icon to article, and change "is" to "was", because the pandemic is over 108.49.72.125 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the pandemic has been over for more than a year now, and also I don't believe you need a source to put the semi-protected padlock icon to the article 108.49.72.125 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I'm unsure if there's a template for this page's protection reason. If I am wrong, anyone can feel free to correct me so it can be added. As for the latter, adding information from personal research is against Wikipedia policy.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the padlock icon that's put at the top of all semi-protected pages to indicate it is semi-protected. And this isn't original research, as the pandemic has been over since May 5th, 2023, after the WHO declared it to be over:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-is-no-longer-global-health-emergency-who-2023-05-05/

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367

108.49.72.125 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Padlock icon added. Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what about changing "was" to "is"? I provided sources for that as well 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to first para: [Evidence of excess mortality beyond what has reported deaths have been supported by other independent evaluations, including from the Indian government's own data. ^[1] ^[2] ] Lekhajokha20 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: If you mean first paragraph as, in, what Wikipedia calls the WP:LEAD of an article then - given the fact COVID-19 is a pretty heated topic, and how visible the lead is, I'm going to say this should probably be discussed on the talk page first before implementation. I would not consider this to meet the "not controversial" marker for edit requests. —Sirdog (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk2070

[2] ttps://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000803

[1]

[2]