Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Data Sources to be used

Below are the state Dept of Health COVID-19 pages that are now reporting cases daily (mostly). Compiled by Rmaloney3 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC). Go to "web.archive.org/save/URL-OF-THE-PAGE" (paste that in browser) to create an archive version of the page. That way there is a recored if the DPH updates the page on the next day. For consistency try to use the state department of health numbers in the Timeline table. That's not always possible though. If more cases are reported after the state posts its numbers, then those new numbers will appear the next day. Seatto23 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

State	Source
Alabama	http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/infectiousdiseases/2019-coronavirus.html
Alaska	http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/Pages/COVID-19/monitoring.aspx
Arizona	https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/index.php#novel-coronavirus-home
Arkansas	https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/programs-services/topics/novel-coronavirus
California	https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ncov2019.aspx
Colorado	https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/2019-novel-coronavirus
Connecticut	https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus
Delaware	https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/epi/2019novelcoronavirus.html
Washington, DC	https://coronavirus.dc.gov
Florida	http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/COVID-19/index.html
Georgia	https://dph.georgia.gov/novelcoronavirus
Hawaii	https://health.hawaii.gov/news/category/corona-virus/
Idaho	https://coronavirus.idaho.gov
Illinois	http://www.dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/diseases-a-z-list/coronavirus
Indiana	https://www.in.gov/isdh/28470.htm
Iowa	https://idph.iowa.gov/Emerging-Health-Issues/Novel-Coronavirus
Kansas	http://www.kdheks.gov/coronavirus/index.htm
Kentucky	https://chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dph/pages/covid19.aspx
Louisiana	http://ldh.la.gov/index.cfm/page/3835
Maine	https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/airborne/coronavirus.shtml
Maryland	https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/Pages/Novel-coronavirus.aspx
Massachusetts	https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-cases-quarantine-and-monitoring#covid-19-cases-in-massachusetts-
Michigan	https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus
Minnesota	https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html
Mississippi	https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html
Missouri	https://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/communicable/novel-coronavirus/
Montana	https://dphhs.mt.gov/publichealth/cdepi/diseases/coronavirusmt
Nebraska	http://dhhs.ne.gov/Pages/Coronavirus.aspx#SectionLink2
Nevada	http://dpbh.nv.gov/Programs/OPHIE/dta/Hot_Topics/Coronavirus/
New Hampshire	https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/cdcs/2019-ncov.htm
New Jersey	https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/topics/ncov.shtml https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200306d.shtml
New Mexico	https://cv.nmhealth.org
New York	https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/coronavirus/
North Carolina	https://www.ncdhhs.gov/covid-19-case-count-north-carolina
North Dakota	https://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases
Ohio	https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/
Oklahoma	link
Oregon	https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/DISEASESAZ/Pages/emerging-respiratory-infections.aspx
Pennsylvania	https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/Pages/Coronavirus.aspx
Rhode Island	https://health.ri.gov/diseases/respiratory/?parm=163
South Carolina	https://www.scdhec.gov/health/infectious-diseases/viruses/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/monitoring-testing-covid-19
South Dakota	https://doh.sd.gov/news/Coronavirus.aspx
Tennessee	https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/ncov.html
Texas	https://www.dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/#casecounts
Utah	https://coronavirus.utah.gov/coronavirus-latest-information/
Vermont	https://www.healthvermont.gov/response/infectious-disease/2019-novel-coronavirus
Virginia	http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/surveillance-and-investigation/novel-coronavirus/
Washington	https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/Coronavirus
West Virginia	https://dhhr.wv.gov/Coronavirus%20Disease-COVID-19/Pages/default.aspx
Wisconsin	https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/outbreaks/index.htm
Wyoming	https://health.wyo.gov/publichealth/infectious-disease-epidemiology-unit/disease/novel-coronavirus/

Since the case numbers are now increasing a lot, it seems infeasible to track case numbers through newspaper reports. I think we should attempt to rely on official government communication to keep the numbers consistent and ensure that the totals are correct (otherwise there is a potential to over/undercount). Also I think each number should come with its own source since the current approach of having all sources in a single cell leads to problems with WP:VERIFY since checking all the news articles becomes hard to do. We should probably keep a list of links to individual state's health departments since the numbers published by the CDC do not include all the cases reported by individual states (it would really be helpful if the CDC were to publish a daily report that we can use - maybe I havent found it yet).

WA numbers 11am daily: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/Coronavirus. Use an archive version since they are not posting a daily update that can be linked.

NY numbers: https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/coronavirus/. They don't say when they post.

CA numbers: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ncov2019.aspx. They don't have a posting schedule and the info is not by county.

TX numbers: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/#casecounts. Update at 10am CDT. Numbers shown by county.

MA numbers: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-cases-quarantine-and-monitoring#covid-19-cases-in-massachusetts-. Updated at noon. No county inf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seatto23 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

CO numbers: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/2019-novel-coronavirus. No time listed, just that they are updated daily.

Also the numbers here differ from the WHO numbers, not quite clear why because they use CET time zone for their cutoff which is at 4am in the morning in the US so the numbers *should* be similar except for cases reported between midnight and 4am. In the March 4th report the WHO reported 108 cases while here 85 cases are reported up until March 3rd. I am somewhat afraid that keeping track of the numbers using the current system becomes really hard. --hroest 18:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hroest: The WHO numbers include repatriated cases. Seatto23 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to figure out the sourcing but at least we have sources for the numbers in the table. I haven't found a CDC page with all the state numbers either. Seatto23 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Re state official numbers. I've been searching the state department of health websites and haven't found the case numbers listed on most. A list of those websites would be very helpful. One thing to figure out though is how to cite the daily numbers. For example, WA DOH is posting official numbers at 11am but doesn't do a daily announcement that we can cite. Not sure what to do about that. Seatto23 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am also not sure what to do, we use this map from John Hopkins for the worldwide cases: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 unfortunately it aggregates by county and not by state in the US but we could use that to sum up numbers for each state? Then at least the data would be consistent and we rely on professionals to aggregate data instead of volunteers to do it. Thoughts? We could do that at least until the CDC publishes state-resolved numbers or some other more fain grained data. Gathering data from newspapers and Department of Health from 50 states sounds like a nightmare as well. --hroest 22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: their data is open source, so we could pull from that https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_19-covid-Confirmed.csv

Very nice that John Hopkins data is open source. But it is not at all clear that it is assembled by human beings (who might be experts). The data sources are https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19 . There are certainly some official sources listed but also unofficial sources. The numbers that they use for the US don't match what CDC has. Looks like they use the BNONews numbers (one of their sources) and that's a news crawler. No way is that 'official' or citeable. In fact, I don't think the number in the total box should use the John Hopkins number. It's not official. Use CDC or maybe have official CDC listed along with the unofficial (bigger number) from John Hopkins. Seatto23 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Seatto23 I agree with you and we had the same discussion here but we decided that its infeasible to wait for the official confirmed numbers as people would come and change them to the numbers reported in the media. I like what was done in the Italy article basically providing two numbers, one confirmed and one total presumptive. Would that work?

The CSSE strategy is described here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309920301201?via%3Dihub

During Jan 22–31, all data collectionand processing were done manually,and updates were typically done twice a day, morning and night (US Eastern Time). As the outbreak evolved, the manual reporting process became unsustainable; therefore, on Feb 1, we adopted a semi-automated living data stream strategy. Our primary data source is DXY, an online platform run by members of the Chinese medical community, which aggregates local media and government reports to provide cumulative totals of COVID-19 cases in near real time at the province level in China and at the country level otherwise. Every 15 min, the cumulative case counts are updated from DXY for all provinces in China and for other affected countries and regions. For countries and regions outside mainland China (including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan), we found DXY cumulative case counts to frequently lag behind other sources; we therefore manually update these case numbers throughout the day when new cases are identified. To identify new cases, we monitor various Twitter feeds, online news services, and direct communication sent through the dashboard. Before manually updating the dashboard, we confirm the case numbers with regional and local health departments, including the respective centres for disease control and prevention (CDC) of China, Taiwan, and Europe, the Hong Kong Department of Health, the Macau Government, and WHO, as well as city-level and state-level health authorities.

While the strategy is not perfect, it is probably still the most careful "estimate" compared to other news organizations since these are researchers and experts that published their methodology in a leading journal. So I think the CSSE is the "best current estimate" number while the CDC should be the "official confirmed" number. --hroest 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes we could show both CDC (official though woefully behind) and CSSE but label clearly what each is. Note that the CSSE is using twitter feeds and online news aggregators so it is not citeable, meaning we can't trace back where that number actually came from. Also CSSE numbers are changing all the time, how do we keep the page up to date unless we were to do this automatically? Seatto23 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Seatto23 you can use https://web.archive.org/save/ to get a referenceable and time-stamped state of a page that changes often for states that simply update their site and do not have individual announcement pages. --hroest 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@hroest, Yes that is what I am doing for the public health department announcements of numbers. For WA, NY & TX, I think at the end of the day we should only post the PHD numbers are. Maybe update with news reports, though that doesn't make sense for WA since numbers are going up too fast and WA state DPH is posting a daily report. For CA, it's not yet clear how the state DPH is going to be posting case numbers. I haven't found an official county by county daily press release. I wasn't able to get the CA PDH number to match up with the county numbers that we have (and which were all reported by county DPHs). Seatto23 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Added official Colorado.gov source to the above list. I agree that we should try to find official state DPH sources, and use those exclusively for the non-repatriated case tables. It would be preferable to only source data for these tables via .gov websites only.--Rmaloney3 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Below are all of the state Departments of Health COVID-19 pages, most of which contain tables outlining the case breakdown. I recommend we only use the following sources for the non-repatriated case tables.--Rmaloney3 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree sticking to official sources will be good though right now the states are up to 24 hrs behind in posting the cases. I expect that'll be the case for awhile. I think we should also consider that many state health departments may be swamped and updating their websites might not be the top priority. Personally, I think we need to stick with news reports and county press releases through the weekend. After that hopefully CDC will have a daily page that is updated (like Italy has). Seatto23 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We also need to use archived pages for the state department of health since states are using the same link to post each day. Seatto23 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Btw this might be a good table to have on the main page. Maybe a list of state departments of health coronavirus website section? Second, the page was the 25th top Wikipedia page today, like 75,000 hits. Seatto23 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with how it's being done currently is that it has become time consuming, and in places, impossible to audit the numbers, and validate that what we are showing in these tables is accurate. As the cases rise, the number of sources are also rising significantly, making it much harder to verify the table's accuracy. Additionally, the 2nd non-repatriated cases table that lists recoveries and deaths, is quite frequently completely out of sync with the cases by state over time table above it. Often that second table is edited, but the majority of those edits are not cited. All of this would be much more easily solved by a canonical source list like the one below. I would definitely be open to incorporating city and county press releases into the official list, but the current model of citing from twitter, Johns Hopkins, random new sites, and everyplace else is honestly not at all scalable. Just my two cents.--Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Interested editors are welcome to click and participate in a discussion about President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus, on the talk page for the Presidency of Donald Trump article. starship.paint (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please abide by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. --Light show (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint's note seems neutral to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The quote was for others who might go there thinking it was a personal opinion page. --Light show (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mood

To set the proper mood, we should add a link to The Masque of the Red Death by Edgar Allan Poe. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the popular culture references section… --Pete (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

nice. Mgasparin (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Pete, Bidgee will probably get their students to add that section! --1.129.107.182 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Redundant map

What is the purpose of the topmost image (Map of U.S. states with confirmed or suspected cases)? Literally all the data it holds is already displayed in the image directly below it (Map of U.S. states with confirmed coronavirus cases). -- Fyrael (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

2601:283:0:8100:543A:96A1:D940:32CA, did you have something to say? -- Fyrael (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Graphics placement

All these graphics are driving me nuts! I mean, they are great and helpful, but they are sandwiching text, disrupting section headers, creating white space, etc, as editors move them around. Can we try to place these strategically throughout the page?

Can we move one into the massive chunk of white space in the lead, below the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

vaccine for coronavirus - need advice

Hello, Need advice- What would be the best Wikipedia article to discuss content about efforts to make a coronavirus vaccine? Seen some items in the news about it in recent days. --Swunalightyear (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Swunalightyear, Try COVID-19 vaccine. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Deleted

Why is this article is needed at all? Yes, there are cases within the US, but there is no "outbreak" in US. The outbreak was in Wuhan, China, and spread to the US and other countries. This article should be deleted, or merged into the larger coronavirus article. GlassBones (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Considering the case in California showed there was community transmission occurring, I respectfully disagree. Several articles listed in the reference section have references to the US in the context of the outbreak as a whole, which is the connotation the title imparts. PedanticLlama (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This outbreak looks set to join the other instances of government mismanagement boosting the effect, as we saw in Iran, where news of the severity of the outbreak there was suppressed, no effective measures taken to isolate infections, and consequently the outbreak was far worse than in other lands.

America's response so far has been a classic of hamfisted denial. When the head of government declares that there are only a quarter of the actual number of cases, and declares that a cure is very close, one wonders where his information is coming from.[1] The economic effects alone, let alone the inadequate response of the central regime, make this a classic example of notability. --Pete (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not just Trump's usual screw-up which is the problem. The CDC and FDA are also at fault for failing to develop a usable diagnostic test kit and denying others the freedom to do so. Thus Wuhan pneumonia spreads in USA beyond our awareness. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@GlassBones: It's an outbreak. All the reliable sources are describing it that way.

@Skyring: This must be some kind of joke. Even the article you linked contradicts your ludicrous assertion of denial. The response hasn't been perfect but let's not carried away with this soapboxing.

@JRSpriggs: it's more complicated than that. Trump was the first person to put in place a travel ban from the PRC so it did have an effect in stopping the spread. At the same time there were other issues within his control that he didn't address and made the situation worse(cutting funding for the CDC being the biggest one) But as per my comment above, let's not carried away with this soapboxing and just report the facts. The situation is already worrrying as it is. Hamsteder (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hamsteder: I agree it is foolish to blame the coronavirus on Trump (or any US politician for that matter) since it is out of his control in the first place. If anyone does need someone to blame it should be Chinese Communist Party and the World Health Organization for downplaying the severity of COVID-19. 71.179.186.50 (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hamsteder: Maybe this is anecdotal, but I already found some of my contacts on Facebook sharing text from and links to this article - including text that I myself wrote last month (!). Politics aside, this is a potentially very bad situation, this article (and other related ones here) appear to be a better "portal" to the ongoing situation than even what's on CDC - and people are watching. Report the facts. If you're here in the US, like I am (in Virginia on the East Coast), what you are doing here impacts the lives of your fellow Americans . . . remember that ALWAYS. 73.99.89.82 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@73.99.89.82: I agree but some people just need their 15 seconds of fame. No better way to do that than spout political nonsense. Hamsteder (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hamsteder: Not sure what my IP address will show up as right now. I am too lazy to login to WP. Fifteen minutes of fame is nice, unless it's fifteen minutes of fame because someone yelled fire in a movie theater (or something else equally stupid). Right now, political BS in mainland China is how the original outbreak got out of hand; if the outbreak gets out of hand in the US too, then it will be due to political BS, incompetence, or some combination thereof. 73.99.90.178 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice work people! 90K views yesterday and climbing steadidly. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-10&pages=2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_the_United_States   Thanks so much for the article!   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

127k on March 9th and 14th top hit page. Seatto23 (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

CDC unreliability of numbers

I added a brief note into the lede about the CDC no longer publishing number of tests performed. This is claimed to be because other levels of government are doing their own testing, but that also means those results are not properly tracked through the CDC. This makes the CDC numbers very unreliable. (I notice that most sources are going by the Johns Hopkins information instead.) Two other significant factors are involved -- the CDC originally set a bar of far-east (esp. Wuhan) travel + symptoms; and the shortage of tests (very few states are able to perform more than 50 tests per day, with a minimum two tests required per person testing positive). Given the CDC's high reliability in previous recent outbreaks (swine flu, Ebola, zika), contrasted against what is happening now, these CDC-related issues may well deserve their own section; but I thought it would be better to vet this on the talk page first. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, given the current absence of full testing information from the CDC, section 5.2 (Cases - Testing) is meaningless. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

While I totally agree with you, we cannot do original research here and you will have to collect newspaper reports and articles that talk about this issue and use this to write up a section in the article, see WP:V and WP:SOURCE. There are tons of examples out there, for example this article. --hroest 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on the article I linked, this could go into a section regarding preparedness and communication / testing strategy in the US which seems to be critized by doctors and experts. --hroest 18:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about substituting different numbers, other than the standards already set by the main outbreak page. To report the above about the unreliability of CDC numbers is not original research, and was referenced with reliable sources. Why was that deleted? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to and if that relates to this discussion at all, can you be more specific? What was deleted and what change are you proposing? --hroest 21:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my fault -- I mixed up the lede addition with section 5.2. (Long hours, sorry.) The lede section was not deleted. What I had *meant* to do, and was vetting here, was to add information to section 5.2 regarding the validity of the CDC numbers, as specifically based on the references. It sounds, from what you are saying, that this would be okay; so I will add that part right now. I will start a different talk section on shifting the source of our information from the CDC to Johns Hopkins or Worldmeter sites (which would be consistent with the main outbreak page). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-repatriated COVID-19 cases in the US by state graph

The source section of the graph needs to be condensed. It should not take that much space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:409:8500:CD50:3D35:95DD:B7FB:544 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But there is some disagreement among editors about what numbers should be in the graph. I think we should be using the official numbers from the states. Another editor thinks we should use the Johns Hopkins CSSE or WorldMeter numbers, which have no sources. Seatto23 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Can some of the other editors weigh in on a disagreement about this graph? GyozaDumpling and I disagree about what numbers should be used in that graph. We've been undo-ing each others' submits. So need some other editors to weigh to resolve this disagreement. Matthewberns Rmaloney3 hroest since you have been working on numbers too.

My argument is that we should use cite-able and source-able daily numbers in the graph. It'd be nice if the CDC were publishing a daily report of the numbers broken out by state. But at the moment they are not. However each states' health officials are putting out official daily report. So until CDC puts out a daily report, we can use the state reports. There are 3-4 of use keeping track of the state reports. It's not that hard and is cite-able and source-able. The Johns Hopkins numbers don't have sources. We don't know what those numbers are and we don't have a way to get an 'official' daily number. Seatto23 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"State and local response" becoming unfocused...

2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_the_United_States#State_and_local_response now has claims unrelated to gov response. Perhaps we should get rid of the state heading so folks aren't tempted to add random state facts, and to try to keep this section focused? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah. I think I can keep a closer eye on it to try to keep it from getting out of hand. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Super Goku V, Thanks, but this continues to be a problem. For example, the newly added "Puerto Rico" section says nothing about government response. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. However, if we remove the heading and content entirely, I feel that we would need to either list it in the timeline which is growing in length or make it into another article, which I have concerns about. (Granted, a new article might be better than not.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump ordered all meetings discussing coronavirus to be classified since mid-January, add?

• Exclusive: White House told federal health agency to classify coronavirus deliberations - sources by Aram Roston & Marisa Taylor, March 11, 2020 Reuters.com

... discussions about the scope of the epidemic, quarantines, and travel restrictions, which potentially delayed the administration’s response to the crisis. One administration official suggested that security clearances were required not to protect national security, but to prevent leaks. Another official added: "This came directly from the White House."

X1\ (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Montana/Maryland Coronavirus

In Maryland, A Montana woman tested positive in Anne Arundel County. Since the person is a Montana resident, it is considered a Montana case. Even though the case isn’t in Montana itself. Does it still count on the states chart? -ColinBear ColinBear (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We are using whatever the state department of health report shows. So if Montana dept of health reports it as Montana, it appears for Montana. If Maryland lists it as an out-of-state case, then it appears under Maryland. Seatto23 (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Page has 607 US cases listed for 3/13 but reference page only says there are 546 cases. 71.219.64.218 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been corrected I just checked and it no longer says 607 cases Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 14 subsection either needs a credible citation or should be removed

Resolved

This is a bold claim to make without a citation:

“President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence took the test for corona virus as many people in White House reported fever”

Either cite it or delete it. I also recommend removing editing ability for the author if it cannot be credibly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.209.241 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claim. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Vermont has four cases of COVID-19

https://www.healthvermont.gov/response/infectious-disease/2019-novel-coronavirus 2601:187:100:6FA0:4516:75D1:85D7:8C74 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The article says this now. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

In section 1.3.12 March 14, please change
> North Carolina: All schools ordered to close for 2 weeks.[citation needed]
to
> North Carolina: All public schools ordered to close for 2 weeks. Matt51306 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done @Matt51306: I added a source for you to North Carolina but I used this source from WBTV because it was easier to archive. Hope that was okay. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Replacing CDC with Johns Hopkins numbers

Based on several RS, the CDC has essentially washed its hands of ever getting accurate centralized numbers, because an increasing amount of the testing no longer goes through the CDC at all. The main outbreak page uses Johns Hopkins or Worldmeter numbers instead. We already use these in the infobox, but then we default back to CDC numbers in section 5 -- which only account for about half the numbers in the infobox (and that is if you include the "presumptives")! This is a serious discrepancy in the article. Should we use Johns Hopkins or Worldmeter sites in state-by-state breakdown instead of CDC numbers? or do we just post information in section 5 about why the CDC numbers are never going to match up, or even come close, to those in the infobox? - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So which numbers are reported to the WHO? Because we should not move away completely from the official numbers, even if those are not up to date. We can preface the CDC numbers with a statement on how often they are updated and that they may represent the state of affairs a few hours or days previous, but I am not in favor of removing them completely. All other numbers, including John Hopkins, are non official and may not have access to all the information the CDC has and come with their own problems (they are often presumptive cases and not confirmed cases) which may lead to error. --hroest 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with hroest. We need to stick with citeable official numbers. In the Timeline Table, we are recording the non-repatriated numbers with an references to each state's department of health official numbers. We are saving an archive url for each day. These are state official numbers and we can see exactly where they came from, unlike what is on Johns Hopkins CSSE or the worldmeters site. Even the CDC page doesn't have day-by-day numbers by state. The timeline table is only non-repatriated cases, but adding a table for the repatriated cases would be easy enough. Those don't change daily. Seatto23 (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There was a list above about official state agencies. I only had 15 minutes today, so I did not do the math -- but do the individual state numbers match the CDC total numbers? If they do not, I think the state numbers may supersede the CDC numbers in validity. I was bold and moved the CDC tests graph down to section 5, where it seemed more immediately relevant. The key graphs near the top are the state frequency representation on the U.S. map (top) and the bar graph showing growth. Testing numbers link in better with the more detailed data at bottom, at least until that section is tightened and/or split off. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

1.9 million ICU beds required mid-March against 330,000 available ordinary hospital beds

Hey Wikipedians, we have a life-changing event occurring for many of you: https://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-us-hospitals-preparing-for-millions-of-hospitalizations-2020-3

Recommendations? EllenCT (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, we will also have thousands of low-wage workers that barely make it from paycheck to paycheck unable to attend their jobs and if they are hospitalized unable to pay for it and...who is going to take care of their children while they are hospitalized...and what about the thousands of small business owners who, unlike the large chains, will not be able to weather the storm...and add to all that, large assemblies have been cancelled, oh wait, President Trump nixed that one...I wonder why?.. Anyway Ellen, this was my next to-do for improving the article, perhaps a section called "Preparedness" or something like that. Maybe you want to open it up? Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

From Sunday Face the Nation: "SEN. MURPHY: So I think we need to be prepared for school closures and business closures. And we need to understand that no city is going to take those measures unless there is some assistance from the federal government. So what we should be talking about right now are things like paid sick leave, putting the federal government in a position to be able to assist workers if they have to stay home to take care of a sick child or to quarantine themselves. Instead, we're talking about industry bailouts and tax cuts. We should be talking about assistance for average Americans. And that's not a conversation that's happening." [2] Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like WP:CRYSTAL to me, what is the benefit of adding these speculations? Nobody knows what will happen, the only thing we could add are hard facts about the number of beds and ICU beds available -- maybe with some calculations to how many infected cases this would support. Clearly we should not add speculation to the article (there is enough of that already everywhere else). --hroest 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

WP has a policy that simple mathematical calculations are not OR or CRYSTAL. Extending a geometrical chart possibly may not count as a simple mathematical calculation (and let's face it, the rate of increase could change), but the ratio of cases to available beds is straightforward elementary school division. As it stands, if the rate of increase remains constant and the ratio of serious cases requiring hospitalization remains constant, the U.S. will run out of available hospital beds sometime in May. But I agree with Hannes Röst -- we can only report total available beds/ICU beds, although we should also probably add one or both of the current ratio of occupancy and the number of beds per 100,000 people. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

DoD's Mark Esper & Trump, add ?

Trump’s secretary of defense Mark Esper warned commanders not to make any decisions related to the coronavirus that might surprise the White House. Esper issued the directive via a conference call, telling commanders deployed overseas that they must first clear any decisions related to protecting their troops with the White House.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/us/politics/esper-trump-military-coronavirus.html

X1\ (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump response

Over the course of February and March, President Trump has: suggested that the outbreak could be over in April; downplayed the likelihood of the virus spreading within America's communities; declared that the virus would eventually vanish "like a miracle"; praised his own administration's response; declared a vaccine would be available faster than his own health officials' estimates; suggested that infected people can "go to work" and still recover; and blamed the Obama administration for slowing his own administration's testing.

References

Ok? 107.242.121.3 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not ok - please read the article first! There is already a full section on Trump statements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Trump_administration_statements where most of this is already mentioned. If you want to expand that section please use that as starting point. --hroest 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

political ideology and reported behavioral response differences, add ?

54% of Republicans said they had not altered their daily routines because of the coronavirus, compared to about 40% of Democrats.

• Brad Heath Americans divided on party lines over risk from coronavirus: Reuters/Ipsos poll March 6, 2020 (Ipsos)

Lets please keep politics out of the article as much as possible. I dont see the relevance of this. Its completely sensationalistic and contributes nothing to the topic at hand. --hroest 17:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggested change to prose style

The current Timeline section, while easy to use when there were only a few cases, has grown and become unwieldy to read. It is also merely a list of dates, each with news clips. But trying to use a prose style at this point makes more sense IMO and is "preferred" by the MOS. While the news clip style goes against suggested guidelines, ie. Wikipedia is not written in news style..

To try converting the current list to prose, I took January and rewrote it. The result below came to 265 words and 4 paragraphs, vs. the original of 401 words and 7 paragraphs. I believe the readability is improved. I did not add in the cites or links, which would all be included from the original.

January
The first reported case in the U.S. was in Washington state on January 21, 2020, which affected a man who had returned from Wuhan, China. He was released after two weeks of treatment. A few days later, another case was reported in Chicago, by a woman who had also just returned from Wuhan. A third case was confirmed a day later in Orange County California. Two more cases were confirmed on January 26th, similarly by two people who had returned from Wuhan. All of the cases so far were allowed to self-isolate for two weeks, after which time they were no longer infected.

As Wuhan was the capital of China’s Hubei Province, the U.S. government evacuated 195 of its employees along with other U.S. citizens, to an air force base in Riverside, California on January 29th, where they were kept under quarantine for 14 days, although none of them had been infected.

On January 30, the first case of person-to-person transmission was confirmed in Chicago, by a married couple who had not traveled to China. The following day, another case of a person who had returned from Wuhan was confirmed in California, which marked the seventh known case in the U.S.

Later that day, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency, announcing a mandatory 14-day quarantine for any US citizens who had visited Hubei Province within the preceding two weeks. It also began denying entry of non-US nationals who had traveled to China within the preceding two weeks. This was the first such order in more than 50 years.

Comments welcome, or else a support/oppose. If there's a consensus of support, anyone can volunteer to pick a month to get things going. --Light show (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Light show, I admit, I've not compared your proposed text to the current text to make sure an appropriate level of detail has been kept, but in general I support efforts to convert the bullets into prose. The bullets are super helpful when details are coming in rapidly, but longterm we should strive for a summary in prose form. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that bullets should be converted to prose for earlier days. I think for a current day, the bullets are good for keeping track of the main news re cases by state. But once that day is over, the bullets can be converted to text. I made a stab at a brief summary of the tenor of the day for each March day, but that summary should probably be expanded a little since it assumed that the bullets were there. Seatto23 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United Kingdom is a good example of prose over bullets. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Even that one has a WP:PROSELINE problem, but it's better than this one. I say let's start converting January and February to prose. --valereee (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we can convert to prose 1-2 days after the fact. There are other projects dedicated to link individual cases to newspaper articles and this is not in the scope of Wikipedia, see for example https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en which seems to do a pretty good job. --hroest 16:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems there's a general consensus to convert bullets into prose. January seems to be done. February next! Further checklist below:

To do:

• March 1  Done
• March 2  Done
• March 3  Done
• March 4  Done

It is odd to have Washington and California missing from the summary for the US. I know they have their own pages, but these are the states with the largest numbers. What happened in WA and CA should be mentioned briefly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seatto23 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Seatto23, I understand and agree. Think longterm here. Right now editors should be placing details on appropriate U.S. state articles when possible. Days, weeks, months from now, summaries of the state articles can be incorporate into the parent article. For now we should focus on not duplicating details across various articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer Got it. I was just suggesting brief, really brief, mention of what happened in the locales with the most cases (WA, CA, NY, MA). Definitely details in the state specific pages. Anyhow that's just my sense. I'm not editing this part. These short summaries are good. Seatto23 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• March 5  Not done
• March 6  Not done
• March 7  Not done
• March 8  Not done
• March 9  Not done
• March 10  Not done

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the benefits of the prose style is not simply to remove bullets, but to improve readability for casual readers. Since every sentence usually includes a cite to some news source, my example got the word count down about 33% of the original by trimming off minute details. But the current January section, while in prose, is actually longer than the original bullet style. Maybe letting readers who want more details just click on the cite, will keep things less complex and easier to read. --Light show (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding converting March to prose. Instead of just doing the whole month as one chunk. Maybe each "phase" of the outbreak gets a paragraph? So that it is kind of thematically organized? First week of March was 'outbreak builds steam'. Second week, 'numbers continue to grow and prompt states to take more aggressive action'. Week three of March, who knows. Week four, 'OMG' phase (if Italy is our future...). Seatto23 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Standalone articles for select U.S states?

Perhaps too soon, but this article is starting to get long, and I'm wondering if we might consider creating articles for select U.S. states. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Agreed that we need to think about organization as the numbers go up. The timeline info which is very important (and what I am focusing on), is going to quickly swamp out the other info on economic, social, political impacts. I say think and plan about this for another two days. By Sunday, for sure we need a new structure but by then we are likely to need NY and TX pages too. We need to think about what those state templates should look like. Seatto23 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Seatto23, There are only 5 cases in Texas, so I'm not sure forking is necessary there yet, but I've created a subsection for NY below for further discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, I meant by Sunday TX will likely need a page. Though who knows maybe 5 other states will too. But I do think that thought about what structure the state pages should have is needed and that we'll have better insight on that in a day (or two). Many of the non-US country pages are wildly different---great info but no consistency. We need to think ahead to what the page will look like when there are 10,000 cases. Seatto23 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer Not soon enough. California ought to get its own page at this point, especially with the ongoing Grand Princess outbreak. Friends Don't Let Friends Go to UVA (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Friends Don't Let Friends Go to UVA, See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in California. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, I see that New York has its own page too. Friends Don't Let Friends Go to UVA (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. Can we start one pertaining to the outbreak in Massachusetts. I have been keeping track of it and would like to contribute to its development. ThomasAquinas2019 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

sorry to be annoying but I wanted to start or at least contribute to a standalone covid19 entry for state of massachusetts. we as of today have 92 cases in our state and 70+ are from a company conference held last week at Biogen in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I had written an entry following the development from three to 42 cases in the wiki page for the company (Biogeen) but it was deleted. I could just move that stuff into a standalone article about Covid19 in Massachusetts. The rapid development and outbreak is remarkable but it is noteworthy that conference participants left the state and ended up infecting co-workers in North Carolina which just reported its first confirmed cases. ThomasAquinas2019 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ok guys, i am a total noob here. but i am from Massachusetts. we have the fourth largest virus outbreak in the state and we have had tons of schools closing and almost 7,000 people in self-quarantine. Almost half the major university in the state are planning to start some form of online classes and I know a lot of tech firms in the city have asked their employees to stay home for the next two weeks. The famous Boston St. Patrick's Day parade was canceled yesterday and there is ongoing reports that the Boston Marathon will be canceled as well. I don't know how to setup a standalone page or I would have done it. we have 92 total infections which makes us fourth behind California, New York and Washington state. 70 of our infections came out of business conference last week where an infected person from Tennessee visited the state and infected 70 of his co-workers. Could someone do me a solid and set up a standalone page? ThomasAquinas2019 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ThomasAquinas2019,  Done Feel free to help improve 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Massachusetts. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington (state)

What about 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Washington (state)? There are 70+ cases there, which is more than many countries with standalone articles related to the outbreak. Thoughts, concerns? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I was bold and decided to create 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Washington (state). I forked over the government response content specific to WA, then copied over parts of the Timeline section and trimmed appropriately. Surely additional pruning would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

California

Ditto for 2020 coronavirus outbreak in California. I've redirected both for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in California. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New York

Another editor mentioned possibly New York as well. Thoughts on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in New York (state)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Update:  Done Another editor has expanded 2020 coronavirus outbreak in New York (state) into a stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

I suggest to start with a subsection for each of these states that can be quickly spun out into their own articles when necessary? To me it seems to early right now and a lot of work to maintain and update articles for each state? Also, as long as state-level information "fits" into the article (e.g. doesnt make it unwieldy) then I think we *should not* split. Other areas in the world with much higher case numbers also have country-level articles (e.g. South Korea, Italy, Iran) and not province/state-level articles - as long as we dont have 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Hubei (province) I dont see the point of having state-level articles for the US. Why should the US be treated differently? --hroest 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: are there other virus / outbreak articles that have a state-level structure? Eg HIV / Influenza / SARS? Looking at the corresponding category that never seemed necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_outbreaks_in_the_United_States except for cases where the disease was localized to a single city / state but I dont see articles where the a US-level article *and* state-level articles exist. Probably the best comparison is the 2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States with a total of 115k cases and over 3000 deaths a single article was sufficient back then, but an overview article 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state was created. Could that be a solution. --hroest 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• The key here is GNG and WP:Article size (and potential to growth). Unfortunately (I'm from Seattle) the article on Washington State certainly justifies both. This article is just under 30k of readable prose, but it doesn't have all the information possible. And the virus is spreading rapidly. buidhe 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I am also from Seattle, and have been actively updating the page for Washington specific information, but there is much more to be added. I think it warrants it's own page. As well as a map highlighting the counties where there are known cases. --Rmaloney3 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Rmaloney3: Please see 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Washington (state). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I foresee this page growing very rapidly (even more than now) in the near future and having a large number of pages that were formerly sections on this main page. Right now, we have a few pages, but this is going to probably end up with enough material for something more substantial. Friends Don't Let Friends Go to UVA (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I like the opportunity that break-out articles provide for more local information. For instance, school closures on the Eastside probably are not of interest in a U.S. article, but have been discussed for the Washington state article. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What about creating 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States by state similar to 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state - that seems like a good intermediate solution and prevents the creation of 50 small articles with little information. --hroest 02:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Enwiki is not United States-pedia. I also storngly recommend 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States by state. Otherwise, please feel free to move those articles by US states to another US oriented wikisites. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Kyuri1449, You mean the article with all the tags, including one encouraging a split? Let's not... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Another Believer Sorry if were any inconsistencies in language or interpretation. In short, I mean, agree with the '--hroest 02:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)'.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Another editor has created a standalone article for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Washington, D.C.

Please help expand this new article by moving over detail from this article appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Additional Cases from Kansas to March 12th section

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article241128896.html

Three new cases in Johnson County KS tested positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.174.2 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

US territories

As far as I know, there have been no cases in any US territories (Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, CMNI and American Samoa). When that happens (I know WP:CRYSTALBALL but it is inevitable), will they be covered here or on separate pages, and do they count towards the US total? CrazyC83 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for cases in situ, but at least one person in Ontario (Waterloo) was determined to have been infected as a result of travel in Puerto Rico, per the Ontario government dedicated webpage. https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus Would that be appropriate to add to the "Spread to other countries" section? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is missing a truthful beginning!!!

The article is missing a truthful beginning!!! the Coronavirus was already reported by researchers in December. China took a month to release the information to the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.23.217 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the U.S. coronavirus article. As such, it documents the growth of COVID-19 in the U.S. Early coronavirus reports in China belong in the China coronavirus article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest compressing most state cases from lists to prose.

There's no longer any benefit, IMO, to having every single reported infection listed. In fact, it's counter-productive to readability as it adds a massive list where a summary, with summary type cites, would work better. Do we need to add 5,200 words to cover 12 days of news clips, with their 180 separate news citations? There are enough news reports that summarize the pandemic over a weekly basis, which would help us remove hundreds of news clips. Note: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Light show, I think we need to start forking the Timeline section into standalone Wikipedia articles for select U.S. states. I think details about specific cases would be appropriate for state articles, and I agree there's too much case detail for a national article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. This event isn't like a tornado or flood that covers a few states. And most of the states in the East are small, with people commuting daily between them. But if there's something that happens later that warrants special attention to a single state, it might be worth reconsidering. --Light show (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Add 4 cases in Montana as of Today: https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/montana-announces-first-cases-of-coronavirus/article_a674d19c-ca69-5939-bb72-3c2d470e9ca3.html 71.202.54.95 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I added them to table of state cases along with archived url from the dept of health. Seatto23 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Please change Minnesota's current number of non-repatriated cases to 35 vis the MDH Karalauryns (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rcul4u998 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 testing wlink, add

Add wikilink to COVID-19 testing for "testing". X1\ (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)  Done X1\ (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Resolved

March 13

Florida: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has tested positive for coronavirus, his spokesperson said. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-13-20-intl-hnk/h_f3ec1b6648458a35e2b9ebd4138e8966 Ethjbush13 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethjbush13, This should be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Florida ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, just moved it thank you! Ethjbush13 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethjbush13, Thanks. Please be sure to add sources when updates pages. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States

Time to fork out Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States, as a subpage of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports?

@ViperSnake151: Curious for your thoughts, and thanks so much for your work here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove worldometers.info numbers off the main box?

Recently the Johns Hopkins CSSE number was removed from the main box and the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries number was used instead. This worldmeters.info numbers is completely unofficial. At least with Johns Hopkins data, we know that legit experts are trying to have correct numbers and their data is open-source. The worldmeters data is proprietary and we have no way to know where it really comes from and why it might disagree with official CDC or state health department numbers.

• I would like to remove it from the main box and use Johns Hopkins plus the official CDC numbers OR only CDC. Italy and Germany pages only use their country's official numbers. The graph could also be changed to CDC numbers if we wanted it to reflect that instead of the state numbers. Seatto23 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Problem with CDC though is that they say the states have the most up to date numbers. This is from their website. "In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date." "Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide." That takes us back to the Timeline Table where we are keeping track of the numbers reported by the states. Seatto23 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial? You do realize that on their coronavirus counter page, they actually list sources to confirmed cases and deaths for nearly every county right? It's literally at the bottom. Not to mention, this isn't the only Wikipedia page to use the site. As such, I don't think it's a problem to include Worldometer along with the Johns Hopkins tracker. There's also another tracker where the numbers match up with Worldometer as well as cites their sources. 2601:409:8500:CD50:2403:3F15:CD81:CD5C (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is unofficial. Those "sources" cannot be matched up to specific state official numbers (released by state government) on specific days. Go back to say March 2nd and show me what "sources" the March 2nd number is on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. You can't. It is not there. But in any case, this isn't an official (government) set of numbers. The sources are a mix of news sources (of unknown quality) and actual press releases from state officials. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/ sources are easier to match up to specific days, but again the sources are a mix of news and and state government updates. For the US, the CDC says that the state health officials are the official numbers. Seatto23 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue with these non-verifiable trackers has come up multiple times in the talk pages. See here. As hroest notes "this [coronavirus.1point3acres] is a self-published source by non-experts and should not be used in Wikipedia." If you go to, say, WA for March 11, you see that what they say is the official numbers for WA (showing even a link to the WA Dept of Health website) does not match what is on the WA Dept of Health website. Wrong # deaths and # of cases. Seatto23 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all numbers except WHO and government numbers are unofficial. However John Hopkins published their tool and methodology in a peer reviewed journal (Lancet) and they list their sources and keep up to date. The right place for the reliability discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where we did discuss the 1point3acres source in detail and we could discuss worldometers, I dont know exactly how they operate and whether they have experts for this task. Overall the agreement is that in terms of reliability WHO > CDC > John Hopkins > everything else while in terms of up-to-dateness its probably John Hopkins > CDC / WHO (WHO relies on reports from individual countries). I am already hesitant to use John Hopkins but we almost have to since CDC / WHO are so much behind -- but I am much more hesitant to use less reliable sources than JH. --hroest 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

hroest Re JH. How do we archive the daily number? That's not rhetorical; I mean that as a logistical question. And when should the day end? I'm fine with using JH in the graph/box but we should decide these 2 questions. Seatto23 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

JH publishes time series: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_19-covid-Confirmed.csv however I am not sure what they use as cutoff time to end the day, but its relatively straight forward to use these to aggregate on a state level. So that would be one option, but of course I would prefer official sources. --hroest 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

GyozaDumpling See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard discussions about what are official and reliable sources. I'll keep changing sources back to either CDC, JH or state numbers until there is some consensus about whether using a mix of news sources and government sources (which Worldmeters does) is considered a reliable source for this page. Seatto23 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

To mitigate the amount of cooks in the kitchen, i’ll just refrain from any edits from now on. Thanks for the brief on sources, and ill make sure to catch up on it. GyozaDumpling (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should settle on one source (BNO, worldofmeters, CNN whatever) and use that number with a (est.) behind it to indicate that this is a best-guess estimate. They will all have bias but probably on average be not far off. --hroest 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Federal response section needs tightening

That section can be tightened quite a bit at this point, which would allow adding more current information without it being buried within the current 3,500 words of text in that section, some with dated material. I'll try to trim off some redundant material and excess citations. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ohio reports 100,000 + have COVID-19

Ohio's department of health has estimated that the state alone has over 100,000 cases of COVID-19, based off of mathematical calculations. This has been reported on in the following linked article: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487329-ohio-health-official-estimates-100000-people-in-state-have-coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.71.28 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

While they are probably right, "The Hill" would not be the preferred reference, since it is a politics-focused publication, not a medical one, and also not broad-based media. Get that same quote off (eg.) the NYT, or Times, or CNN, or Fox, and I would see no problem. Note to subsequent commenters - this calculation is not predicting the future but an extrapolation to try to see a fuller-picture now. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont know the "The Hill" but if they are simply quoting the health department then it seems reasonable to use it. The question is whether this is an official communication from the health department, the article says "A top health official in Ohio estimated" which seems to me that it is not the official stance of the department but just an off-hand comment that one person made. --hroest 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU is experiencing a bug that is preventing cases from being counted correctly BluePurr (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please continue adding California updates on the 2020 coronavirus US page

The Wikipedia updates are the best on the web for 2020 coronavirus updates. Thank you. However, the California Wikipedia page is not being updated in a timely manner, with very little added for the past 2 days (March 11 and 12). Please continue to update California along with the states that do not have individual pages. This is important an necessary. Thank you again. HeJF (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

HeJF, Er, no, I'd encourage editors to update 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California directly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comment, Another Believer, and at first I considered proceeding in the way you suggest. But after thinking about it, I realized that I don't think the problem with the California page is a lack encouragement. I think there is a lack of organized response. Meanwhile on the US site the information is being updated in a highly useful manner. When the California site first went up, and overlapped with the US page, the updates were fine. My guess is that initially the information on the US page was moved over to the California page. Now that the US page is no longer updating California--aside from numbers of new cases, deaths, and recovered cases--the California page has dwindled a great deal. I am open to contacting anyone who might be able to help update. I think once per day for the California page would be a minimum. If you know how to get more action please let me know. I am personally unable to take on the task, or I would happily do so. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. The updated information is vital and whatever is available should be put somewhere. I am suggesting the US page until California manages to stay current. If this can't happen, then California should be treated like the many states that don't have their own page, and updates should be on the US page. Thank you for any thoughts and suggestions. HeJF (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

HeJF, I think one solution is to have more links to the state articles throughout the article. But, we must also avoid overlinking. @Valereee: Curious if you have any thoughts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, maybe the answer would be to merge the CA page back into the US page? I suspect that all of these pages are going to be considered redundant and merged back in once the crisis is past, as well as probably shortened considerably as once it's no longer breaking news, much of this information will be trivia. --valereee (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Oh, I disagree, I have a feeling we're going to see more U.S. state articles created. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, I get your point, the splits were originally made because the article was becoming ridiculously long. But don't you think a year from now a lot of this day-by-day stuff is going to be considered unimportant? I think its marginally useful (since we have plenty of people willing to do minute-by-minute updates) to keep track of it in the moment, as if we have every single thing reported IRT, it makes it easier once we're looking back to pick out the stuff that actually ended up being important, and right now we don't know which of these things are going to end up being important developments. But a year from now, are we really going to still think knowing it was a 40-year-old woman from Santa Clara who was the 4th case and a 50-year-old from San Diego who was the second, or are we just going to be saying there were six cases in CA in February and 600 in March? If we were creating this article 10 years from now or 50 years from now, we'd never include the level of detail we have in it right now. We wouldn't have separate articles for each state. We might not even have separate articles for each country. That's my feeling, anyway. --valereee (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I understand. For now, I'm working to move claims to their respective U.S. state articles and eliminate redundancies. Longterm, the state articles will be much easier to mold into appropriate summaries. Even for states with few confirmed cases, millions of people are being impacted by school closures, economic downturns, etc, so I'm starting to encourage fleshing out of state articles in an effort to keep the U.S. page more general. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also report presumed positive cases?

Do we need a category for presumed positive (along with the JHU and the cdc confirmed categories)? Wrecksie (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

NCHSAA

North Carolina High School Athletic association postponed all spring sporting events per their Twitter on March 12th N8cwhite (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Long quote from TV hearing

The following paragraphs, totaling 250 words excluding the sources, seem very long-winded and should be summarized briefly. I removed them, but if someone feels like summarizing this, go ahead. As it was, it reads like a courtroom testimony, not an encyclopedic summary, and the article is already excessive and over 5,000 words long. --Light show (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

On March 12 during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Trump administration's preparedness and response, Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, asked Fauci why health-care workers and others were being denied tests by their local health officials, who have been citing CDC protocol. Fauci explained a complicated distribution system and said, “The system is not geared toward what we need right now, what you are asking for. That is a failing. Let’s admit it. The idea of anybody getting it easily the way people in other countries are doing it? We’re not set up for that. Should we be? Yes, but we’re not.”

<ref>{{cite web |title=Fauci says U.S. system ‘not geared’ for widespread access to coronavirus testing |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/12/coronavirus-live-updates/ |website=The Washington Post |accessdate=March 12, 2020}}</ref>
Speaking on the PBS NewsHour, Ashish Jha commented on Fauci's statements:

"Well, of course, Dr. Tony Fauci is right. It has been a failing. And what your viewers need to understand is, if you get sick tomorrow with coronavirus, and you reach out to your doctor or you talk to your doctor, and your doctor wants to test you for coronavirus, he or she can't. Most doctors today cannot test people for coronavirus, because we just don't have the tests. Every other major country has figured out how to do it. South Korea is testing 15,000 people a day. Across the European Union, people are getting tests. Even Iran and Vietnam are testing more regularly than we are. We have just managed to bungle this so incredibly badly that most Americans cannot get the test they need. And, as Dr. Fauci said, it's a failing."
<ref>{{cite web |last1=transcript |title=U.S. federal response to coronavirus a ‘fiasco,’ says global health expert |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-federal-response-to-coronavirus-a-fiasco-says-global-health-expert |website=PBS News Hour |accessdate=March 12, 2020}}</ref>

--Light show (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)