Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Semi-protected anti-vandalism request on 3 March 2020

• NOTE from author of plots: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are a nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease. In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita what is the ask here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. The semi-log graphs have been edited out on two occasions and I have had to manually restore them. I'm not a proficient Wikipedia editor so restoring what I see as vandalism is is painstaking. Undo doesn't work because other changes have been made in the mean time. The semi-log plots are time consuming to prepare, well at least the data collection is, taking a bit over an hour a day. This is because the Rest-of-the-World data comes in piecemeal and has to be carefully checked and rechecked by country to identify discrepancies. So I'm asking that it not be so easy to edit out the work I have contributed. Is there some setting that forces a discussion before a single editor arbitrarily removes something.Galerita (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita there is no simple way. Will keep an eye on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James Thanks Galerita (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita once again thanks for the graphs. The beauty of wikipedia is that anyone, anywhere can question any content, ever. Editors often, and should be encouraged to follow WP:BRD. When they do that, it doesn't mean they're vandalising, at all. There are vandals, but many removing your graphs including myself previously, aren't, they just want the content to be questioned again. Rest assured many editors such as Doc James and myself will continue to ensure that appropriate graphs that follow the policies particularly around consensus are included - at the moment, the consensus is your graphs, which is great. --Almaty (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Self-isolation and quarantine

Under self-isolation, I've previously linked to the CDC's instructions for sick individuals, which are the clearest I've found to date. It seems harmless to include but the link has been twice removed so I don't want to add it back without consensus. I think the public health benefit of providing this link outweighs any MOS guideline but I may well be wrong.

On a related note, there's some confusion about self-isolation vs. self-quarantine. Not sure that the distinction is too important but we should try to get it right. The 14 day recommendation applies to those in quarantine. There's still no standard guidance on when to end self-isolation.

- Wikmoz (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the link for the moment pending further discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• We don't do this; external links are references or they are external links. If this isn't either, it doesn't belong. See Wikipedia:External links. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood and in any other context, I'd agree. In this case though, given the value of this information and reach of this article (500,000 PVs/day), could the public health benefit of providing easy access to credible instructions take precedence? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The same link is right there in the reference at the end of the sentence. Readers will look to a reference for further info and not for a link in text which they will assume is an internal link. I really don't see the benefit in doing this. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The benefit is that many readers do not know to look to the reference for a link to more detailed material. Assuming the user is interested enough to click the link but not notice the outbound link icon, would they be that disappointed to end up on a well formatted CDC guide rather than another Wikipedia entry? - Wikmoz (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's hypothetical and there is no evidence backing up your suppositions. Per WP:EL we don't do this. --The Huhsz (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Vastly more readers will find the link to the supporting material if the link is placed inline. There's no question or supposition here. Several UX principles come into play. "Readers will look to a reference for further info and not for a link in text which they will assume is an internal link." Again, I don't doubt this is true among Wikipedia editors and regular readers. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Huhsz, I see you removed the link with the edit note, "per talk this adds nothing; link is already in the reference." No objection to the removal pending consensus but I'd still like to hear from additional editors as WP:IAR may support an exception in this case. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I can pedantically legalistic with the best of them and there are any number of rules, protocols, and style guidelines to pick from to say this should not be done, but I'm with Wikmoz. In this global pandemic unprecedented numbers of people are coming here for information, what is Wikipedia for if not to provide it? At the risk sounding grandiose I say we owe it to humanity to ignore all rules and make the information as easily accessible as possible. Put it inline, hiding it in a reference doesn't cut it. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more swayed by your noble wishes if there was any evidence at all that this will help anybody. There isn't though, is there? --The Huhsz (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well sometimes we don't need evidence, in this case we wouldn't get that until the research on survival rates of people who read the article before and after the link is inserted is done. But I am inclined to think that "The CDC issued instructions^[123] as did HMG^[124]." would be enough.

I would perhaps not remove a link, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

@Doc James and Dekimasu: Very interested to get your take on this WP:EL vs WP:IAR problem. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would put that link inside a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be following WP:IAR as a particularly important pillar in this outbreak/pandemic/global outbreak --Almaty (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• The link is already there, inside a reference. I don't see the merit of duplicating it. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Animated map is too old

Animated map of confirmed COVID-19 cases has not been updated since the beginning of March! 93.85.72.25 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is not up to date. Hi poland (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very time-consuming to update the animated graph every day. If you would like to update it, by all means go for it. We have a limited amount of time to spend here as we are all volunteers and have real jobs IRL. Mgasparin (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And is wrong anyway, example: French Guiana, this distort the reality, I don't see than Greenland be coloring because of the cases in Denmark--181.29.125.114 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Will remove, it is out of date, and although great work by the editor, virtually meaningless now if we want to keep the page current enough. --Almaty (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to add it back. I found the animated map very useful, even if it isn't updated daily - it is far from "virtually meaningless". We don't need to remove content because the creator of a map has been a couple of days behind. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as Mgasparin said, there is no reason not to bring it up to date yourself. If you want to keep it out of the infobox, by all means do that, but it should be in the article! Renerpho (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I added it back the way I suggested (into the Epidemiology section). Please help to bring it up to date! Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Regarding the "French Guiana" issue, that has been discussed on the image talk page. Renerpho (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to automate the generation of the map from a table? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Rename article from "outbreak" to "pandemic"

Regardless of the fact that the WHO no longer declares pandemics, this clearly meets the definition of pandemic as having widespread community transmission on multiple continents. We should change the title to "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". 38.124.35.11 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• leaning support "World must prepare for pandemic, says WHO". BBC News. 25 February 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.

"We Predicted a Coronavirus Pandemic. Here's What Policymakers Could Have Seen Coming". POLITICO. Retrieved 8 March 2020....irrespective of 'media source' its becoming obvious--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's definition is that? Where did you find it? What's the metric used to determine if transmission is widespread? Both sources you linked, neither authoritative, use the word pandemic only in a hypothetical sense. The use of the word is clearly quite contentious at the moment, and whether or not you personally feel that the current situation clearly meets the (unsourced) definition, I don't see any reason to move away from the completely accurate and uncontested term "outbreak" (which includes pandemics anyway) until there's a consensus among medical organizations that "pandemic" is more accurate. 2601:180:8380:25F0:850F:7910:73AC:AA6E (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

your not being accurate, as the first link(BBC) quotes the WHO....The WHO said it was too early to call the outbreak a pandemic but countries should be "in a phase of preparedness".....A pandemic is when an infectious disease spreads easily from person to person in many parts of the world....it should be noted this article was published on Feb. 25, today's March 8 and many, many cases have occurred since then(in more than 100 territories)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Follow reliable sources, not speculation or WP:CRYSTAL. Until the WHO call it a pandemic it most likely isn't. Sun Creator^(talk) 20:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed - we're not at that stage (yet?) - six months from now if 12% of most countries have caught it, that will definitely be a pandemic - a few dozen cases here and there isn't (outside China)50.111.9.62 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• “pretty clear we’re in a pandemic and I don’t know why WHO is resisting that,” ...director of the Center for Infectious Disease... University of Minnesota....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• strongly oppose at the moment WHO makes the call, and even then we are meant to explain what they mean and their definition on the page, as per previous discussion. --Almaty (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment "Pandemic" has no formal meaning: WHO used to go through a process to formally declare pandemics, but stopped doing that a few years ago. Whether we call something a "pandemic" or not should therefore be decided based on what reliable sources generally say. (Reliable sources here probably meaning WP:MEDRS compliant.) The WHO is a source, but they don't get a veto. If everyone else is calling it a pandemic, then so should we. Right now, some places are saying "pandemic", others aren't. I'd probably wait a bit, but I suspect it's only a matter of days before the weight of sources are saying "pandemic". Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

yes I agree w/ you...'sooner or later'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the bulk of us are surprised the WHO hasn't "declared" it, but as we discussed prior their word hasn't even inform their responses for a while. "who" gets to decide then? --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think wiki can/should. So I can't think of who we should defer to for the word. I don't think the words super important anyway. Just follow policy. --Almaty (talk)

CNN is pandemic. Australia has enacted pandemic response plans in mid feb, which has been in the article since roughly then, saying "operating on the basis the virus is a pandemic". Thats still very (technically) different to "the coronavirus has caused a pandemic". CDC don't call it pandemic yet neither do ECDC. So I don't think Wikipedia should be solely following the lead of CNN's journalistic and Australia's valid politically oriented terminology. But within a few weeks, will be a mute point and Pyrrhic victory for both sides of the virtually academic argument really.--Almaty (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: The scale of the outbreak is less than previous outbreaks that were called "pandemics." Few if any sources besides news outlets are referring to the outbreak as a "pandemic." Currently the pandemic Wiki page has SARS-CoV-2 under possible future pandemics which I think is where it belongs for now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Mild support. This has been a pandemic for many days already even though WHO doesn't recognize it. Tuohirulla puhu 14:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Of particular note the WHO appears to have updated its definition of the word "pandemic". The WHO defines a pandemic as a situation in which “the whole world’s population would likely be exposed to this infection and potentially a proportion of them fall sick,” Michael Ryan, who heads the WHO’s emergencies programme, has said. Although I easily concede that the WHO does not own the word on Wikipedia, or indeed in the language of English, we have to again look at our policies. The use of the word, without this current expanded definition, especially in any article titles, is very unlikely to be WP:PRECISE and cause confusion in the general reader. --02:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

"we are not at the mercy of the #coronavirus. Over the weekend we crossed 100K reported cases in 100 countries. Now that it has a foothold in so many countries, the threat of a pandemic has become very real. But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled." World Health Organization Dr Tedros Adhanom Director-General--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If we had an article on the pandemic, then we might want a separate one on the outbreak. So something like 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and 2020 coronavirus pandemic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I think that would be confusing. Move to informally close the title discussions because its so clear that the experts disagree vehemently, as no consensus. To be revisited if and when the WHO does "declare". But to reemphasise, the word is not important --Almaty (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been declared a pandemic by WHO as of March 11 2020 12:26pm ET. Transparentar (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Table Epidemiology

Is it possible to add to the table number of registered cases per capita for each country? It would help to realize the actual development of the epidemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.52.173 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

best to keep table as simple/readable as possible--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We have decided that this is unmaintainable, so we will not be adding to the table. The numbers get changed frequently, and editors have proved that they cannot add up, let alone divide. I am thinking about a JavaScript extension that could do it for you. But that is probably vapourware. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I also would very much like to see this information, and I do not think it is unmaintainable: there is a first-time investment to put the population numbers in an additional column, and then all you need is an Excel or Libreoffice spreadsheet: any user at any time can just copy the table into the spreadsheet, and have an additional column to the right of it that automatically recomputes the incidence rate and can even color the cells red where there is a deviation to the copied incidence rate of more than a given fraction. Once you have created such a spreadsheet, it is reusable (and can be shared). This is virtually no additional work compared to gathering the data in the first place. Seattle Jörg (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I created a table for selected countries. It is interesting anyway.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidence rate of 2020 coronavirus cases
as of 8 March

Country	Cases (WHO)	Population (thousand)	Incidence rate (per 100k)
South Korea (excl. Shincheonji cluster)	7,134	51,230	13.93
	(2,652)		(5.18)
Italy	5,883	60,550	9.72
Iran	5,823	82,910	7.02
China	80,859	1,433,780	5.64
France	706	65,130	1.08
Germany	795	83,520	0.95
Spain	430	46,740	0.92
Japan	455	126,860	0.36
United States	213	329,060	0.06

References

Per 100k is probably more clear for most people than per 0.1M. 38.124.35.11 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. I followed a Korean CDC report.

WP:CALC - additions, subtractions and divisions

To quote our very important, pre existing policy Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
From this, I propose very strongly the following:
1. There is not obvious, correct or meaningful current ability of myself or other Wikipedians to add, subtract, or divide statistics quoted in the WHO situation reports.
2. The reason for proposing is because particularly the WHO does not do many of the calculations we have been doing. Therefore additions, subtractions or divisions of numbers in the sit reps are not a meaningful reflection of the source. --Almaty (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: and @Doc James: as that is quite a proposal, but I think very mandatory if we're to consider ourselves an encyclopaedia, rather than a repository for original research, as simple and obvious as that research may seem. In this outbreak, it isn't. --Almaty (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree we have to be careful about WP:OR, but I think it would be more useful to discuss specific issues. What particular possible calculations were you concerned about? Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned the "death rate", and also my concerns about the graphs, although they're made by a biostatistician. But what I'm more concerned about is as the outbreak progresses, that the statistics will not follow WP:MEDRS, at all, so I'm attempting to, as I have before with the word "pandemic" pre-empt the issue --Almaty (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So I strongly propose that all graphs and statistics aren't made by wikipedians, even if its a simple addition or subtraction, and divisions are obviously my main concern. --Almaty (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So who else is supposed to make graphs and statistics for the Wikipedia? Of course the Wikipedians have to! --Maxl (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty I oppose the suggestion to not allow Wikipedian to make graphs. We allow basic calculations and common sense when making graphs and images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians should be allowed to make graphs too. However, as we have seen repeatedly here, editors can be overly enthusiastic and start doing things that are epidemiologically ignorant and tip over into WP:OR. For example, Wikipedians should not be trying to calculate the disease's case fatality rate: we should just draw on MEDRS-compliant sources there. We also need more text around numbers and graphs. These aren't "cases": there are "reported cases". We need text explaining why the numbers are frequently to be considered suspect. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying for ever, I'm saying for now when the reliable sources aren't, because they're not divisible at the moment. --Almaty (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm saying go right ahead and make graphs, just point to how a reliable source has used the exact format and the calculations, ideally with the reliable sources interpretation of the calculations Almaty (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we would agree that naive calculations of the death rate per 1000 for example, is not a good idea. But totalling columns is a reasonable activity, provided we are careful labelling our data as Bondegezou says above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I hope I sound calm and reasonable despite questioning the graphs. Thats the purpose of our encyclopaedia, to question, and question again. --Almaty (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Garbled edits

@Almaty It's nice that you tried to trim the article, but please don't garble the article in the process and give outright false information. For example you changed the first person known to have been fallen ill on 1 December 2019 to the "first case was reported in Wuhan on 1 December 2019" when they weren't even aware that there is a new viral disease. How can they report on that date about something they weren't even aware of? They traced the first one known in a study published on 24 January 2020. You also changed "Museums throughout China are temporarily closed" to "Several museums throughout China were temporarily closed", how does "several" make sense when they quarantined many cities? I can't check all the edits you made, but please check your own edits to make sure that they make sense. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, thankyou! I have been suggesting WP:SUMMARY for a very long time and I don't have much time to do it personally, would prefer if others did. --Almaty (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The best way to trim it is to remove information and then give a summary of the parts removed, rather than change the wording of pre-existing sentences you want to keep. That way if you won't accidentally change the meaning of pre-existing text if you don't want to read the sources to check. Hzh (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Great advice thankyou. I'll try to summarise Iran tomorrow, but will leave it to others to (please) do rather than me :) --Almaty (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits in thes article are garbled indeed. Constant changes are, for example, made to the list of countries and territories, and I'm not talking about the figures, without first discussing them here. No one ever discussed replacing the zeroes with "no data" espeically since a zero doesn't necessarily mean that there are no data. If you want to make suggestions such as introducing a "no data" figure please first discuss it here. This is also valid for "international conveyance" and the various ships which are alternately put in one figure and then distributed apart again. It' annoying! So discuss matters here and suggest the edit before doing it or also before undoing an edit of an other user!!! It's not too much to be expected to talk about things! --Maxl (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think people are able to follow WP:BRD. I'm happy for anyone to re-add anything I removed, I removed about 60kb of content in Chinese and Korean responses last night, but only for readability and to ensure it was neutral. I didn't touch the figures. --Almaty (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that an entire section on censorship has been removed without a proper summary and without explanation (asking for rewrite is not an explanation for removing them, it smacks of censorship itself). If you are the one who did it, please don't do it again. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Basically the edit was aiming to encourage others to summarise, clearly not how its meant to work, apologies --Almaty (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/numbers

Put Brasil Death as No Data as well

1000 cases suspect and for a week just 25 cases, how could be ? Brasil healthy system is really bad, the discharged cases numbers are more than suspect, can you believe in that ? people is not even treated... so they mix as gripe ...well there are many reasons. It had more than 600 suspected cases and only 25 confirmed, the government there fake the real numbers... so it is a country with no trust...

UK death number

According to the UK gov website, only two patients have died from the virus. Not included in their data is the death of one British citizen on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Could the number be corrected accordingly? Chasidish Gen (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No your wrong 4 people have died in Britain but I will check that if anyone from Britain died on the Diamond Princess. Hi poland (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of Canadian cases seems to be incorrect.

There seems to be an error with the source. It says 133 total cases but that's not supported by any other reporting. When you add up the cases by province you only get 66 total cases. 199.119.233.134 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A bug report has been opened regarding this problem on the John Hopkins CCSE github project page: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/issues/336 - The total number of cases appear to be totalled twice due to a recent formatting change.

Inconsistency in number of USA cases

Two Wikipedia pages consistently disagree with respect to USA Case Count.
This occurs even though the Summary page references USA case count page.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Morebits Morebits (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention of dates of validity

The table with the numbers of cases would be clearer if the numbers mentioned are accompanied by the dates (preferably in UTC) for when they are valid. For an ongoing event like the COVID-19 outbreak this seems indispensable.Redav (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

it would produce too much clutter(of numbers)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

With an ongoing event, it seems essential (at least to me) for a useful and clear overview that the dates of validity of daily (or more often) changing numbers are mentioned. To me this outweighs the - in itself valid - argument about clutter.Redav (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The numbers are like watching a live television football match. It seems to much information to provide date (and time) of last update. In the end all that matter is the final score. How will the figure be in a few months time? It will just be the end figures and what we show now is a almost live count. Sun Creator^(talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Our focus should not be providing a running total of cases, but providing encyclopaedic content on what the numbers mean. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ye. Does any source explain what the numbers mean rather then what the numbers are? Sun Creator^(talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (1)

46.193.68.50 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of tested case in Turkey as of 9 march is 2000+ according to Turkish Health Ministry Live press.

References

 Not done Turkey doesn't have any cases. Mgasparin (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't talk about confirmed cases, about suspected cases. At a press briefing in the capital Ankara Monday, Turkish Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said they have run more than 2,000 tests on suspected cases so far and none tested positive for the virus, which continues claiming lives in Turkey’s neighboring countries.

New Press conference as of 10 March Turkish Health Minister Fahrettin Koca said they have run more than 2,900 tests on suspected cases so far and none tested positive for the virus.

Not done for now: We are not listing tested cases, only confirmed cases at this time. The numbers of tested cases are not being reported consistently enough across regions and countries to make attempting to track them reasonable factual. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

But I see here that Turkey has 940, it's not true real number is 2900. Please change.

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Wrong amount of cases

There is a wrong amount of cases in Poland and it is showing 16 but is is supposed to be 17. That needs to be changed. Hi poland (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mgasparin (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Another problem I have found that 373 cases are in Britain not 375 or 2 got recovered but that is definitely wrong. Hi poland (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Cities under quarantine table totals

This table appears to be in error. On the "Quarantine total" line at the end, only the population column has actually been added up. The remaining columns are identical to the figures for Wuhan and do not include the other areas. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Table removed by another user 00:52 11 March 2020. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No such country as Palestine

There is no such country as "Palestine". Remove the heading for "Palestine" and incorporate those infection stats with those of Israel - unless of course Wikipedia is trying to live up to its reputation of being a Jew-bating outlet.2A02:2454:9873:5900:E844:5C61:E14F:DD8 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• @2A02:2454:9873:5900:E844:5C61:E14F:DD8: Stop being ignorant and stop pushing your views on Wikipedia. This is a neutral place so accept this. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:A8F0:ED9F:C1FC:4F (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC))
• Oppose: Palestine is a de jure sovereign state, recognized by the United Nations. 80.3.233.121, talk 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• WHO lists it ([1]) so we do to. And, if you read closely, the table says countries or territories. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• We deliberately use the word territories to avoid political arguments, of which there have been plenty. For any discussion that leads to a real change in that table, please use Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can the OP assure us that Israel's health services will be looking after those with COVID-19 in Palestine? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

North Korean deaths - apparently "almost 200 soldiers have died"

Business Insider is reporting from Daily NK that almost 200 North Korean soldiers have died. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's already been added. Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This report is questionable at best and as such should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Not only is its utilization of anonymous sources questionable, but the idea that 180 KPA soldiers have died from the virus is implausible currently. Even if the DPRK hadn't closed down border transit, enforced public health measures like mask wearing, etc. that many deaths among KPA soldiers would either suggest that the KPA is full of elderly soldiers, or that potentially as many as 90,000 are infected in the KPA alone seeing as the mortality rate among the 17-30 age range found within the KPA has consistently been 0.2% in other countries. As such, this would also suggest that there are potentially thousands of deaths in the DPRK among the elderly, unless the spread has been exclusively restricted to the KPA. Regardless of how implausible that statistic is, it's doubtful that a county with 1/56th the population of (with similar population density as) China while carrying out similarly strict disease control measures, would somehow be rivaling China in terms of number of infections. -- 24.156.99.220 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's the problem: the nutrition of common soldiers in NK has been shown to be extremely bad - a weakened immune system, combined with parasite infections, could easily make this virus a killer among the troops. I expect when this story breaks big, that NK will be shown to have been hard-hit.50.111.45.149 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Add 10,000-99,000 color to map legend

This will help distinguish China (and soon South Korea+Italy) from nations with lower cases counts such as France and Germany. I suggest that the color be black. 69.117.53.217 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy map

I took out the following:

Learners affected by school closures caused by Covid-19 as of 6 March 2020

The map is misleading, as Scotland, England/Wales and N Ireland all have separate school systems. The map seems to have the whole UK one colour, reflecting N Ireland's one temporary school closure. I'm not sure such a map is helpful, given that it will have to be constantly redrawn, but if we are to have one, it should be accurate. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored it. UNESCO is a perfectly good source.

The UK is still a country, for a little while longer anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken; it never has been, in this sense. The map is misleading and needs to be removed. In general there are way too many graphics on this article. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Complain to UNESCO than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-reporting countries

This is not a Wikipedia issue, I'm just making a general observation... What good are all the stats when North Korea, Syria and Turkey officially have zero cases? I would bet good money that there are over 5,000 infected people in Turkey by now. Yet, Erdogan's government claims the number is zero. Just look at the map of that region and everything will be clear.

We should have some text, appropriately sourced, that talks about the various limitations in the stats reported. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

On a quick search, while there is some scepticism online about Turkey, I couldn't find any reliable sources saying they think Turkey is hiding cases. However, there's this article discussing whether North Korea is. There's also this article covering South Korean reports of large numbers of cases and deaths in North Korea. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can bet there's huge foul play going on. Numbers from China and Iran are fake, for starters. Let's not even talk about Africa - China has colonized over 25 African countries over the last 15 years and there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers in those countries. Many of them went home to China for Chinese New Year and then traveled back to Africa, however they probably have zero test kits there and treat all local cases there as regular flu. COVID-19 is much bigger already than is being reported and only time will show how unreported the first couple of months were.

It doesn't matter what we think - if no reliable sources explicitly mention the number of "real" Chinese/Iranian cases, we cannot put a number to it. We can, however, mention that a lot of people are skeptic about their numbers. Juxlos (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This preprint identifies probable under-reporting or under-detection in Thailand and Indonesia. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And this preprint identifies under-reporting of cases in Italy, but that there has been a greater degree of under-reporting in Iran (also ). Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL - FIRST case in Turkey reported!!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Can we standardize the map by total population? Total counts are meaningless with standardization.

I have an example but I can't upload due to forgotten password. My source is CDC. 23 years working in GIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.129.9 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

23 years working in GIS

proof? why not leave the source here? Pancho507 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 3

Would someone who knows how (I don't) please fix the citation error in footnote 3. American In Brazil (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain more. Fix what? Sun Creator^(talk) 11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Flattening the epidemic curve

An illustration of the effect of spreading out infections over a long period of time on healthcare capacity managing patient volumes, known as flattening the curve

Once again, a graphic of the epidemic curve has popped up again in the "management" section. The objective of a delay/mitigation strategy is to recognise that spread of an epidemic can not be stopped, but it can be held back so as to avoid overloading the health system. I'd like to some explanation of the strategy to Wikipedia, either here or on an epidemiology page, but I can't find any reliable source. Any suggestions? Robertpedley (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned about the second panel - I get a sense of mocking the "it's just the flu" people from the drawing. While I agree they're stupid, I think it's still an issue. Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I still think it is OR, particularly when it exaggerates the expansion of the timescale. Something lifted from a non-scientific and non-official website should not be used because they often don't reflect scientific opinion accurately. What the diagram is saying is not reflected in the original CDC source. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that its a horrible diagram and it's WP:OR. The diagram that popped up on Sunday was better

but also OR. At least in the U.K. the "delay" strategy is aimed at flattening the curve [2]. I'd like to find a reliable source so that I can document this properly. Robertpedley (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The two diagrams are based on this one here - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425 (figure 1). The problems as I noted before with the two diagrams based on the CDC one are:

1. the excessive stretching of the timescale of the outbreak when there is intervention when the CDC diagram merely indicate the peak has shifted,
2. the CDC original suggests a reduction in number of total cases (the area under curve can be taken as total number of cases) in addition to lowering the peak. Both the diagrams here only show flattening of peak.
3. the CDC one suggests a reduction of impact on healthcare, the two diagram here suggest it will reduce it to below healthcare system capacity, which is OR and not supported by the CDC article. Hzh (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is in the article "A key part of managing an infectious disease outbreak is trying to decrease the epidemic peak, known as flattening the epidemic curve. This helps decrease the risk of health services being overwhelmed and providing more time for a vaccine and treatment to be developed."

That article states "A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—eg, minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies."

The before and after is supposed to have the same area under the curse and it dose. Should we remove the bottom bit? I guess we could. The first caption is someone not taking the disease seriously and the second caption is what happens when one puts in place mitigating measures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The CDC one is referring to two concept 1) delaying the speed at which cases occur without necessarily changing the total number of cases 2) decreasing the number o cases. We could use the CDC version if people prefer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

the CDC version seems best...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Both the diagrams are based on CDC one, so their diagrams should be the same as CDC, which isn't the case. The CDC one clearly stated (point #3 in Figure 1) that the overall cases would be diminished, so I'm not sure where the argument "without necessarily changing the total number of cases" comes from. These are examples of people reproducing diagrams without understanding what the original is saying. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No these are experts adjusting the graphs to emphasize one aspect of the concept.

If you want to propose a different one please do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Animals (mammals)

It's evident that the original reservoir species, and probably an intermediate species are susceptible to this virus. Moreover IIRC civets, rats and mice seem to have ACE2 receptors. I can't find a definitive statement, but it looks likely that at least most mammals have the receptor.

Separately the UK Government has advised people in isolation "Try to keep away from your pets. If this is unavoidable, wash your hands before and after contact."

I am a little chary about our "myth busting" line about cats and dogs.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

There's at least one reported case of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted to a dog. Both dogs and cats get other coronaviruses, and dogs get another human coronavirus. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above and have taken the line about pets out of the article. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

But what about bats? Hi poland (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bats are an expected reservoir of coronaviruses and other viruses, and have been for a long time. See this 2006 paper, for example.

Bats are of course mammals, as are pangolins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (2)

According to this(https://egyptianstreets.com/2020/03/10/26-out-of-59-cases-test-negative-for-coronavirus-egypts-health-ministry-confirms/) egypt has 26 recoveries Faefae122 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to have edits requested for the number of cases, deaths, and recoveries, do so on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. •rslashthinkong the oof man 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rslashthinkong (talk • contribs)

Death

How long will it take for it to kill you and how does it kill you? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

see Coronavirus disease 2019--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Maldives

The Maldivian government confirmed on the 8th of March 2020 of their first 2 coronavirus cases of two tourists supposedly from Italy. Later it was confirmed that this number increased to 4 on the following day (9th March) and spiked again by 2 more cases making the total 6 current cases. But there are still many suspects.

The Maldivian government are working on quarantining suspects and those who tested positive for the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdy767 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Spain's Recovered & Deaths Data needs to be corrected

Source data from "El País" is wrong. Instead you may use data from, for example, Johns Hopkins Univeristy: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6/

There, todays (9/03/2020) data show: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports/03-09-2020.csv

Deaths: 28 Recovered: 32 (not 135 as in "El País" newspaper) Xrjunque (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

L-type and S-type

A Los Angeles Times article seems to suggest more people in China had the L-type, which is more deadly, but the S-type, which spreads faster, is not that bad.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Found it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The conclusion has been criticized by other scientists, so unless it is supported by other studies, it should be regarded as speculative only. Hzh (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (3)

Confirmed cases in Iceland has changed from 69 to 76 31.209.227.59 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Source from worldometers https://www.visir.is/g/202016645d/fjogur-ny-tilfelli. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (4)

The infobox has a colour-coding caption distinguishing the colours of countries with

• 1,000+ confirmed cases
• 100–999 confirmed cases
• 10–99 confirmed cases
• 1–9 confirmed cases

The map, File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg, has another colour for countries with 0 confirmed cases, like Zambia. Please add a fifth line for countries with 0 confirmed cases. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to add this, as the fifth category's already implied by the existing categories. Will wait for another editor to review this. Cognaso (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

When I didn't see any colour indicator for countries with 0 confirmed cases, at first I wondered if all countries worldwide had confirmed at least 1 case. Having a fifth line would show at a glance that this isn't the case. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (5)

Australia has 107 cases now 2001:8004:CC2:600D:A4FE:7745:E4CC:B62D (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Checking sources and see nothing shown yet. Sun Creator^(talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for the first case in Turkey

The Turkish MOH had reported that the first Covid-19 positive patient in Turkey. Regards, Aozm (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus is so deadly

This is a deadly virus it started in china and moved to the U.S,and more places. Its in the state of Virginia of the U.S. someone got it in Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lntrau434 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Lntrau434, the virus has spread almost everywhere. Please provide references if you want to add new locations as to where it has popped up. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Table of countries needs additional info

Three columns should be added: Number of new cases / Number new deaths / Number of active cases. See: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

such numerical additions would only cause clutter and confuse our readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Valuable to include both public perceptions and conclusions from specialists

By all means, we should include public perceptions, say as summarized by reputable journalists. And obviously the conclusions of specialists add to the richness of our article, for example:

'A goodly number of Americans seem "exasperated" and resentful of being asked to worry, and state that COVID-19 appears no worse than the flu. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the John Hopkins Center for Health Security, states, “We don’t want another flu. This is additive, not in place of.”'

‘We’re going to have more deaths’: Influenza kills more people than the coronavirus so everyone is overreacting, right? Wrong — and here’s why, MarketWatch, Quentin Fottrell, March 9, 2020.

Although we can perhaps make the perception part shorter. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Size

This article is now about 320k long (that's the length of a novel) and takes quite some time to load, especially for those not on modern technology.

The page needs reducing.

I have created a fork of the Domestic response section which I proposed to split off a couple of days ago at #Domestic response - the article is at Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. It is 91k.

I leave it up to the editors of this page to decide if this is a good thing, and if they want to complete the split (which I don't have time for tonight).

If you decide against, you have my permission to {{G7}} the new page on my behalf, or copy it to a holding page, etc..

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I think the domestic response info belongs in the individuals countries article, so China's response goes in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in mainland China, US' response goes in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States. Otherwise it's fractured duplication. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we should have a main coronavirus article which has links to all these sub-articles. And as far as the health consequences, and the medical and gov't responses, I'd say -- this is that main article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree it needs to be decreased in size. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• It definitely needs trimming, but this needs to be done carefully and judiciously by someone with the skill and time to do it properly. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. it should be just an overview and a bunch of links to articles with more detailed information. maybe we should wait until the outbreak is over to organize things as they should bePancho507 (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

strongly support User:Rich Farmbrough's proposal to spin out the entire domestic responses section, and then someone with skill and time should re-add judiciously thought through content to the main page. I would do this myself, as a lot of my summarisations over the last few weeks did achieve effective consensus, but unfortunately I do not have anywhere near enough time to do it. The proposal sounds very reasonable and should be done, as others similarly don't seem to be able to commit the time to such a highly visible page. --Almaty (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The Domestic Response section now has multiple short paragraphs like this...

Germany

Main article: 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Germany

On 27 January 2020, the first COVID-19 case was positively confirmed in Bavaria in Germany.[347]

I feel we should be able to chop most of these, but how do we give people clear links to the multiple country articles (apart from expecting them to scroll down to the navbox)? Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I agree that it looks much better now. I won't touch Chinese censorship again, can we get an uninvolved editor to do that @Bondegezou:, and how would we find one?. I think each country deserves a current stat of cases and deaths, if editors are willing to update that, and then a wikilink to main outbreak. If its a major outbreak, they need a paragraph similar to sth Korea currently especially if there are massive public health responses. --Almaty (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link to Italian article

I noticed that "Italiano" in the language navigation bar on the left points to "Template:Epidemie". I don't see how to fix this. Could someone help please (preferably with some explanation of how to go about this)? Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

On wikidata. I have some script but anyone can go https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q81068910 login and edit right column. It currently says "Epidemia di COVID-19 del 2019-2020". Sun Creator^(talk) 23:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have looked there, but the link there seems to be correct as you say, and also I don't see how to edit stuff there. Retimuko (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It does look correct, but it perhaps only incorrect for a moment as someone was editing it? Where exactly do you see "Template:Epidemie"? To edit wikidata, you login, should be same name and pw as Wikipedia. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I see "Template:Epidemie" in the article's left navigation bar under languages. Try clicking on "Italiano". Regarding wikidata, I am logged in, but I fail to see how would I edit anything. Retimuko (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I see that the link is correct now, but still have no idea who did what and where. Retimuko (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed in [3] by removing [[it:Template:Epidemie]] from a used template. This was an example of Help:Interlanguage links#Local links. If templates have local links then they should always be in <noinclude>...</noinclude> so they don't apply to pages using the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vox

In an edit, a user removed the terminology "liberal leaning" to describe Vox, which is fine. However, if sources consider Vox News to be a left-leaning website, it is worth noting, so I propose the wording "centre-left" as a description in that sentence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are we using Vox at all. Lots of better sources say the some thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

personally i don't trust vox. Vox media companies (the verge) make mistakes like building a pc wrong, claiming that bittorrent is a company (its a protocol) claiming that bigger numbers are obviously better... i can find sources if need be.Pancho507 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Easy than User:Pancho507 find a better source that says the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps removed

Till yesterday, there were two links for maps as references in "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory" box.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Why are these links/references removed? I can't think of a single reason for removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Colorodo (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Italy Lockdown.tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Volume of testing - Czech Republic

Hello,

Could you please update volume of testing for the Czech Republic? Daily updated data are available on the website of Ministry of Health. --78.99.138.225 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not up to date

Serbia now has 12 cases Lukapecanac (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

please provide sources. Pancho507 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

children's section draft - request to contribute or include

In a previous discussion, which I can't find I had suggested adding a section on children and how their epidemiology is different . The comments were centered around having more [WP:MEDRS] sources and doing a draft. I have done the draft on "Infection in children" which I suggest should be included in the epidemiology section. Please discuss:

Early in the outbreak there was widespread concern about the risk to children because in seasonal flu both the very old and very young are at greater risk. However, a large joint study between the WHO and China reported that only 2.4% of cases were in individuals under 18. This is in line with the first SARS outbreak in which China data in a WHO consensus study indicated no fatalities in the 0-24 age group. As a result, the European CDC has stated that Covid-19 “disease in children appears to be relatively rare and mild”.

The reasons for the low infection rate amongst children are not yet understood. The joint WHO-China report noted that the virus had a “low [attack rate]” in the 18 and under group, indicating a lower susceptibility of infection in children. However, another report based on surveillance and contact tracing in China concluded that “children were as likely as adults to be attacked by the virus”. The CEO of the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation has also stated that a study based on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship indicated similar attack rates for groups below and above age 20. Gegu0284 (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a characteristic of the disease, so detailed material belongs on the disease page, Coronavirus disease 2019. There's only room for a brief mention on this page - it's already too long. Robertpedley (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gegu0284 this is fantastic work. I don't yet support its inclusion though. Is it possible to draft it again that only refers to more strictly WP:MEDRS compatible sources - ie. not including individual reports, but the synthesis of the reports from tertiary (as in CDC, WHO, etc) sources? I recognise that's much shorter, but I think this is a very important point to labour. --Almaty (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty Can you please clarify? The issue is the the reports are all WHO / CDC reports and published on the WHO / CDC site? Does that make them not WP:MEDRS ? Happy to rejig it. Just want to understand shy these refs don't work. Gegu0284 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gegu0284 I haven't had time to read the cited sources. When on the talk page, its often better to point to them with an external wikilink like this, as opposed to the reference generator. I think that you need to summarise the content in two or less sentences, in order to gain consensus for inclusion, personally, and pay particular attention to WP:SYNTH --Almaty (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the text, Gegu0284. You could possibly abbreviate a bit, as per Almaty, but I'd be happy to see it as it is inserted into the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Using estimated numbers form Worldometers.info for the epidemiology table

The table cites worldometers.info, which according to its FAQ uses estimated numbers. It reports 1565 cases for Germany for the 10th of March while official numbers are still at 1296. I believe, that the table should either use official numbers or contain a note, stating which numbers are estimated. 128.176.164.13 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree - Merged this from a previous comment: The epidemiology table obviously uses a mix of data from worldometer and others. Is there consent about the reliability of worldometer? I saw them citing regular newspapers as sources. They definitely diverge from the official resources eg. WHO or local health authorities. I feel that mixing sources comes close to something like individal primary research. Also - we don't need to reflect changes to the minute - there is no such thing as a real-time disease meter anywhere ... I'd vote to stick to WHO situation reports or at least to figures from the local health authorities. Semiliki (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

this is one of many concerns I have about the graphs. some very nearly or do encroach on WP:OR and my strict definition of WP:CALC above where I strongly suggest all graph makers do not divide any numbers unless the source does, because they're often not comparable numbers. --Almaty (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The only way we will be able to FORCE the table to use official numbers is fully protect it such that admins are the only ones who can edit it. So you will need to get consensus for that. User:Almaty this discussion is not about the graphs it is about the tables. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

duplicate content

i don't understand the point of having the same content on Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Domestic responses. It seems redundant and unnecessary, and as pointed out above, this article is becoming as long as a novel. would it be possible to have just a short summary on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Domestic responses? personally i would do it but i don't have time and this article is being edited too often (understandably)Pancho507 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

a summary is left behind when a 'daughter' article is created--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin and Arrival in infoboxes by country

For the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands infobox I have proposed an additional information for the infobox. Some editors insert Wuhan, China on every 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, and some want to put as an origin the source for the first local cases. For Poland it was Germany, for Netherlands it was Lombardy, Italy and so on. So currently under Origin in Netherlands we have both: Wuhan, China (globally) and Lombardy, Italy (first local cases). This can alleviate unnecessary edit warring between editors for this spot and give readers more clue as to the local transfer of infecion and it's global origin at the same time. Maybe there could be additional parameter in infobox Arrival for outside source. YBSOne (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo

In "protests in the special administrative region of Hong Kong have strengthened due to fears of immigration from mainland China", the word protests should be capitalised, since it stands at the beginning of a sentence. Niplav (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --occono (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support WHO statement classifying it as a pandemic. Takinginterest01 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Support as per WHO Mayankj429 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Romper (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Domestic responses

I think we can call them Domestic public health responses, because that's what they are. This isn't the governments primarily driving this, or the public driving this, it is public health physicians, the epidemiologists, the biostatiscians and infection prevention and control agencies, all "public health", terminology which has been in the lead for some time. --Almaty (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Convalescent plasma therapy

I'm not sure how or whether to use this, this, this or this but the sections were archived so I have to start over.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Change title of article from "Outbreak" to "Epidemic" Thelostone1224 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Already a discussion below on changing to "pandemic" as declared by WHO. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Imagines in the lead

File:2020 coronavirus task force.jpg

In my opinion adding all of these to the lead is too many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of pages on Wikipedia has little gallery in infobox - September 11 attacks, World War II or 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Page look more nice and has better design with that. I think, also this page should have gallery in infobox. Do you agree or disagree guys? Peter1170 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The pictures are too small. The picture of the map should get more weight. These little pictures belong in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I know, thats why we post it here, and other opinions? Peter1170 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – Finally declared by WHO... finally... accidentally posted on article page. Noah^Talk 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/11/814474930/coronavirus-covid-19-is-now-officially-a-pandemic-who-says https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51839944

• Strong support no reason not to anymore. Juxlos (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per the WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per Juxlos and Doc James. No reason not to move as the WHO has already declared it a pandemic. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO statement. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Guess it is time per the WHO. We call the Spanish flu the 1918 influenza pandemic so I guess we can call this the Coronavirus Pandemic. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support without question. Per WHO announcement. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As far as I know this would be inline with the titles of other pandemics (AIDS, Spanish Flu, etc.) --Colin dm (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO and precedent of 2009 flu pandemic. — Goszei (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WHO statement

Mayankj429 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WHO ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support use of pandemic per the WHO. The pandemic wasn't in 2019, so 2020 coronavirus pandemic would be even better. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Finally, per WHO. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per WHO, and media in general, also following the WHO on this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Per the above. I mean, well, duh, this outbreak has resembled a pandemic in the past two weeks alone, and the WHO has just declared this outbreak a pandemic, so this should be a WP:SNOWBALL move. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support WHO is the #1 RS on this topic. We should follow their lead. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO--Sunfyre (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Because this is a single page move about coronavirus outbreak to pandemic, there also a multiple page move request that also involve all articles retain name like coronavirus outbreak. So I recommend all users to moved to other Requested Move which contains all pages related to the main page.
• support Ive been proposing this for days,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• support Per WHO statement. --Efly (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Template:Editnotices/Page/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory
• Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak on the aviation industry → Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the aviation industry

– This first eight articles that have current names like "coronavirus outbreak" needs to moved in order to aligned to new name per WTO statement. I propose that all country specific articles that retain coronavirus outbreak name must be replaced by coronavirus pandemic. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support To keep everything inline with the new title of this page--Colin dm (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support a lot of wikilinks and categories will need to be fixed but that's what you get when the WHO takes forever. Juxlos (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- Since the WHO has classified it as such, the pages about it should be renamed. Calicodragon (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)