Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 8 April 2020 (Signing comment by Josecansecoder - "→Challenges: Testing Capacity: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Template:Vital article Template:COVID19 sanctions

    In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 16, 2020.

    Highlighted open discussions

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    1. Superseded by #9
    The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (RfC March 2020)
    2. Superseded by #7
    The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)
    3. Obsolete
    The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

    4. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

    5. Cancelled

    Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

    Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)
    6. Obsolete
    There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

    7. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

    8. Superseded by #16
    The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)
    9. Cancelled

    Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
    2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
    On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

    10. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

    11. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

    12. Superseded by #19
    The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)
    13. Superseded by #15
    File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[1] (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)
    14. Overturned
    Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

    15. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

    16. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

    17. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

    18. Superseded by #19
    The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

    19. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

    Regarding “first few” sentences, the discussion was mainly on just the first two.

    RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

    And instead of “not generally airborne,” we’ve currently decided to go with the phrase “are not generally spread through air over large distances.” FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes 2

    RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

    This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Country Polls

    Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

    Italy - include
    Italy
    Iran - include
    Iran
    Spain
    France
    United States - include
    United States
    UK - include
    United Kingdom
    Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany
    South Korea - include
    South Korea
    Japan
    Singapore
    User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    European Union
    It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include. In particular, failure in negotiations and lack of consistent response at European Union level had a high impact on reliable sources and is worth mentioning. European Central Bank reaction might also be worth mentioning. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK

    Exclude: Australia, Netherlands

    2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

    @QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

    Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

    • European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

    The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordering

    Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s poorly worded because doc james wants it clear that it isn’t known to be airborne, but we agree to want to make it clear that it can be transmitted via exhalation in the lead . An alternative would be “primarily small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. These droplets can be transmitted through breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances “ Almaty (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Which maps to include

    Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Section on Latin America?

    I do not think any countries in Latin America currently deserve a section on their own, but Latin America as a whole deserves a section. In particular, Brazil is notable for Bolsonaro's relative downplaying of the threat [1] (I haven't seen this in any large country other than Brazil). Ecuador seems especially ravaged on a per-capita basis. [2]. The only issue is that if we add a section on Latin America, we might as well add a section on Africa as well. Alternatively, we could split the section by continent as a whole, which could clean up the "Domestic responses" section. Nmurali02 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really a global pandemic at this point, so I agree it might make sense toward having "Domestic responses" split into continents and then, if needed, countries, like we do for Europe currently. Questions that come up there is how we want to handle the Middle East and Australia.
    Overall, this section is a mess, since the prevailing !votes on yes Singapore and no France aren't being enforced in the actual article, and there's some conflicts between different parts of this discussion e.g. on the UK. The article itself is looking okay, but the disconnect between that and the talk page here needs to be remedied. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transition to excerpts

    Woah, Sophivorus, could you slow down a bit? I endorse switching to excerpts, but the "domestic response" sections need to reflect a careful balance so as not to make this already-overlong article more bloated, as is reflected with all the discussion above here. Switching to excerpts for various European countries seems to be making the sections on a bunch of European countries way too long and switching the images to maps (which we don't want, since we already have a map of Europe, and we need some variety). (The edit history is pretty complex, so apologies if it's not your edits that are introducing the changes.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just undid the change to an excerpt for the Europe section, which introduced a bunch of redundant language. It's fine for the lead of the Europe article to state that the pandemic started in China, but not at all okay for the article here to state it in the Europe section where it has no relevance. There are similar issues in the other excerpts — please fix them or self-revert until a better way to implement the excerpts can be found. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I fixed the links to this article in the intros of the articles about Spain, Germany and France, which causes them to show as plain text here. It could be argued that saying "2020-19 coronavirus pandemic" in each case is still a bit redundant, but weighting the benefits of the excerpts against that tiny prose redundancy yields a clear answer, at least on my scale. I hope you'll agree? Else let me know. I also went through the three domestic response excerpts (Spain, Germany and France) and managed to condense the intros, but I think I'm reaching the limit. Each has approximately one paragraph about the arrival and early stages of the outbreak, one paragraph about the government response and general evolution of the drama, and one paragraph about the current numbers. Can any of that be left out, either here or there? Sophivorus (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: Okay, thanks for the edits! Going through them now... The Europe intro paragraph looks much better from the perspective of this article, although I think the editors at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe might have reasonable concerns that the intro there is now too short. If they do, we'll have to reassess, since it's a tricky and possibly impossible balance — the proper length of the intro there is probably longer than the acceptable length of a section here. Also, do you know how we might be able to change the map back to a case count rather than a death count and make it larger? I'm personally fine with a death count, but I was overruled by a prevailing consensus here to continue using primarily case counts, and we need to respect that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: Looking at the sections for Spain, France, and Germany, I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to use excerpts. There's a lot of lines like On 12 March, president of France Emmanuel Macron announced on public television that all schools and all universities would close from Monday 16 March until further notice. That's appropriate for the lead of the France article and shouldn't be removed from there, but it's just too much detail for here. If we announced every school closure in every country as big/bigger than France in that format, it'd take up a large portion of the article. Instead, what we were doing was condensing all the education info into the education section, which notes broad things like the percentage of the world population out of school, and mostly keeping it out of the smaller country sections. The France section is now four paragraphs with a map, which is just way too much; it was previously one paragraph with no map as of yesterday. Above, five out of seven editors !voted to have no specific section on France at all, and although that probably changes within the context of a section on Europe, such a major expansion severely infringes on that consensus. I could see some use for judicious fragments here and there, but wholesale replacements of sections with excerpted leads of other articles just adds way too much. This page is way too long as is, and we need to be slimming it wherever we can, not adding to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging RealFakeKim: since this is a significant change, it'd helpful to have a third opinion, and if my memory serves me right you helped draft some of the country sections. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed Europe's map from the death count to the case count. As to the length of the excerpts of the countries, I think the intros can be condensed some more (of course editors there may disagree, but maybe not). However, if the requirement here is one paragraph per country, then the only way to keep excerpts would be to craft the first paragraph of each lead as needed here (which arguably would be useful there too, because the most important information should always go first, in my opinion) and then excerpt just the first paragraph. This would be doable, I think, or at least worth a try. However, maybe it's the wrong approach and we should rather improve the intros of the continents and excerpt only those. In any case, I'd like to mention that while doing what I did, I noticed several instances of outdated information, both here and in the subarticles, so we should also take that into consideration when deciding whether on not to give up on excerpts. Anyway, I agree, lets wait for a third voice. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With your comment on outdated information if you use excerpts it's only one thing that's outdated not two, potentially with different information, so I think they are best for keeping information constant. Although the section might have a better flow if they are written to specifically fit the section not being the lead of a few countries. Overall I think excerpts worked fine in the section but you shouldn't rely on them in the article. Also, don't change too much in the countries article to suit the section. The article comes first! — RealFakeKimT 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: As I said above, I think moving toward continents rather than countries is largely the right direction at this point. Regarding the overall situation, I'm still seeing a lot that needs to be remedied. Countries like Germany should not have a dedicated map, especially when countries like Italy do not; the wider variety of photos that used to be there were better (the article has plenty enough maps). And the map of Europe is still too small. I hope I'm not coming across as overly picky or grouchy — as you know from my engagement at the excerpt template page and use of them elsewhere, I support the work you're doing spreading them. But it's very important you understand that, especially for an article this heavily trafficked, there's a lot of work that's gone into fine-tuning the sections here. Just staying on the maps, yesterday, for instance, I requested and implemented a case map for Europe that was red, rather than blue, so it could be standardized with the other red case maps in this article. It's very frustrating to see that, along with many many other changes, undone in the course of a unilateral switch to excerpts, and to then have to put in additional work just to get the article back to where it was before. I understand that it's not always clear why things are the way they are, and I sympathize that this talk page is extremely long with a gazillion archives, but still, if you want to come in here and start switching to excerpts in a whole bunch of sections, it's incumbent on you to take more care to ensure that the excerpts will be at least as good as the sections they are replacing, and to come to talk to get consensus before switching to excerpts that introduce significant changes. I hope that's a reasonable ask. – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I changed the map at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe for the red version. Agree with the rest, cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sophivorus: I just added a transclusion to the middle of the lead where there was some nearly identical text between here and coronavirus disease 2019. It appears to have introduced an unwanted paragraph break between "two to 14 days" and "common symptoms", though. How do we resolve that? And any progress on getting the Europe map back to size? That's absolutely not an issue that can be safely ignored — it needs to be big enough that it's reasonably useful without needing to click on it, and right now the scale is miniscule and the smaller countries are hard to see (it definitely shouldn't be smaller than the China map). This issue has now been present for about 48 hours, which means that around two million readers have viewed the inferior version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And sorry to keep harping on the section lengths, but I just checked the number of page scrolls (the official section size counts above don't reflect excerpts), and Europe is about 3.5, whereas the entire rest of the world is 4.5. That's definitely way too much focus on Europe, even considering that it's the current epicenter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I just replaced the excerpted map for a not-excerpted bigger version. Regarding the section sizes, I don't know what to do. Sophivorus (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: I think the ultimate solution for section sizes will be converting to continents rather than countries, but for now, I replaced the maps for Germany and France with photos, so at least that issue is resolved. For the unwanted paragraph break in the lead section, could we introduce a parameter to Template:Excerpt that uses span rather than div? I think that's the only way to solve it if I'm reading the code right. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I added the parameter myself and fixed the paragraph break issue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?

    Per Metropolitan's arguments here, the death count is a better metric at this point of the severity of a pandemic in a given region than the case count, since the latter is highly dependent on the region's testing capacity. Accordingly, I propose that we switch to using the deaths per capita map as the top map in the infobox, with the others collapsed beneath. Sdkb (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. For months, we have focused on case counts. I see no compelling argument to change this right now. I understand that testing is not being evenly applied across regions but the case count (and cases per million) is the best number we have right now to measure the extent to which the pandemic has impacted each region. And testing volumes are increasing dramatically everywhere. Death rates are greatly influenced by each region's healthcare system quality and capacity. I'd oppose changing for now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to look at it might be that we want the map to reflect the fact that some countries' weaker healthcare systems are leading to higher death counts there. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another. Obviously deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these concerns can be fairly addressed with a footnote. We're already seeing death-to-case ratios vary by an order of magnitude from one country to the next so I really don't think counting deaths is a fair indicator of anything. Testing capacity limits are rapidly being resolved and cheaper and faster tests will come to market over the next few weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The first map is based off a recent consensus formed here. It's to early from that to change it in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @RealFakeKim: When I formulated the question for that RfC, you'll notice that I referred only to "per capita" vs. "total", and left out the word "cases". That was a deliberate choice, since I anticipated we might at some point want to switch to using death counts instead. I'll leave it to others with more medical/statistical experience to decide what the best approach is at this point (I haven't been persuaded to wed myself to one or the other yet), but I don't think that that RfC should be used as an argument against switching. The other maps RfC might serve as a slightly better precedent, but it was a little muddled since it was asking about per capita vs. totals/cases vs. deaths/collapsed vs. uncollapsed all at the same time. Plus it was started over a week ago, which is meaningful given how rapidly the situation is evolving. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Death is not the only consequence of the disease, and the constant fixation on the fatality rate in the media can likely be of partial blame for the complacency seen among the general public (e.g. "It's no big deal, only 3.5% die!" or "Don't worry, only boomers and retirees die!"). There are plenty of infected patients that do not die, but end up in ICU and require emergency intervention, not to mention we don't fully understand the long-term chronic implications of the disease yet (e.g. lung tissue scarring, and whether or not patients are able to eventually regain most of their pre-infection lung capacity). The spotlight needs to be on infection, and not excessively on cases of death. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an incredibly important point. I'd also add that as treatment improves in coming weeks and months, the death rate will become a weaker and weaker indicator of the pandemic's reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per capita confirmed cases were always dependant on testing capacity, and as the pandemic continues and countries like the US fail to increase testing capacity, the numbers quickly become misleading. Unfortunately, deaths are not subject to the same issues of testing capacity; we could test no one and the rate of reported deaths would remain the same. Given the known issues with testing capacity in many countries and the growing death toll, per capita deaths are a better representation of the extent of the pandemic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't this depend on the country's (or local provincial) specific procedures? If there is little to no testing capability for cadavers, then if an untested patient dies, wouldn't the cause of death be recorded as unrelated pneumonia? If the local provincial/national policy was to cremate all pneumonia-case bodies, tested or untested, would they record all bodies as coronavirus cases? --benlisquareT•C•E 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. The testing capacity required to have an accurate count of deaths is much lower than the testing capacity required to have an accurate count of infections. If we ballpark the death rate at 3%, you'd need 30 times more testing to identify 90% of confirmed case than you would need to identify every death (and that's assuming we never test someone without the disease). It also is more likely that in regions with limited testing capacity, tests will be limited to severe cases which are also the ones most likely to die, so cases that lead to death are more likely to be identified well before actual death. I find it unlikely that covid19 deaths will go misreported as pneumonia-related deaths since every doctor in the world is on the lookout for patients with pneumonia-like symptoms. Even if there are the occasional errors, the much greater error is using data we know represents testing capacity and not infection rates and then tell readers that it represents infection rates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In some countries, the number of deaths counted depends on testing, so the whole point is moot. For example, in Iran, it is said that they classed the deaths as pneumonia or other causes if they had not been tested for the virus. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As @Wugapodes: stated. The readers want to make sure these details are there for them to see. We cant have anymore misinfomation or missing detail on such heavily worked topic. Regice2020 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Death is only one of the possible symptoms of COVID-19. People who spend days in ICU and place a significant stain on the healthcare system are also to be accounted for. The main map should reflect the spread of COVID-19, not the number of respirators available to save people. Moreover, countries that under-report the number of cases often also under-report the number of death. Of course if the global consensus goes towards death per capita map, then we should follow it!Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Is the most object quantity (with least amount of uncertainty) Voorlandt (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per Raphael Dunant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Death numbers are much more comparable between countries. Also: We should always prioritize numbers per capita over absolute numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No good reason to change it, especially as the death rates appear to vary considerably between countries, over ten times the difference in some cases (e.g. very low in Germany but very high in Italy). Hzh (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above is likely explained by Germans testing much more than Italians by now. The above is a reason to prioritize the death map, not because deaths are the only important thing, but because deaths are probably a better basis for an estimate of the real cases than the confirmed cases are; both confirmed deaths and confirmed cases are subject to incomplete testing, but deaths would seem less so. Ideally, show both per capita maps and drop the map with absolute numbers, and then it will be no longer so important which of the two maps is prioritized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, since some countries don't count deaths they haven't tested, they simply attribute deaths to other causes like pneumonia, therefore death number would also be unreliable. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too soon. There will come a time. But right now for a current event what is more of interest is the infections/infection rate. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The per capita map just needs its ranges tweaked or added to. It's far too homogeneous in colour to be helpful at conveying the data. Worse, it might be misleading, implying some countries have similar rates when it's anything but. If you're going to lead with that map you at least need to include the specific numbers in the following chart because, as it stands, it requires users to look all of the information up themselves and do the math.135.23.106.211 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The article should switch to using a harmonic mean of infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, and fatality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.111.74 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The deaths per capita, although comes with its own biases, is a better indicator of the effect on the region and is less affected by the saturated testing capacity in many regions.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as per 17jiangz1 and others. The cases figure is known to be all over the place because of different approaches to testing from country to country. It could be off by more than an order of magnitude. Deaths, while still having some differences in recording, are much more comparable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The reasons given above are strong and convincing. Cases are nowhere near as reliable a statistic as deaths. The only valid argument I see in opposition is that a pandemic is not characterised by deaths but by cases. While this is true, one could argue that the impact of a pandemic is indeed better characterised by deaths. I feel that argument ends up being a 50/50 about what is considered important, with equal validity to those who say deaths are more important and those who say cases are more important. With equality on that argument, and the reliability argument favouring heavily the use of deaths as a metric, I definitely support this change.Wikiditm (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per others' comments. I don't see how "for months, we have focused on case counts, why should we switch now" is a good argument. If you have focused on the wrong thing for months, shouldn't that be an incentive to focus on the better measure immediately? Once cases become the better measure again, you can always switch back. Only tangentially related: in the "Deaths" section, can someone explain to me the difference between "death-to-case ratio" and case fatality rate? The section makes it seem like those are two distinct measures, but (and I am not an expert), to me they seem to be the same thing...? Felix.winter2010 (talk) 8:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Support - The cases map is certainly misleading, as it makes the most efficient countries like Germany and South Korea look like problem cases. Quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Case count is largely meaningless as a means of comparing the epidemic in two countries, due to the huge discrepancy in testing regimes. It's comparing apples to oranges. The death count, although not completely consistent (some countries may be less likely to test for COVID in a postmortem than others, for example), is certainly much better than case count, because most deaths will be recorded unlike many stay-at-home-and-isolate cases which are not.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument simply doesn't make sense. Countries that don't test much, whether on the living or the dead, won't register deaths as being due to Covid-19. I'm not sure why people would also assume that post-mortem test is something even done in most countries (I would think most countries don't do it when even rich countries like Germany don't). This is in addition to countries that have been accused of deliberately downplaying the number of deaths. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The countries that test less focus their small number of tests, and they focus them on people who are more likely to carry the disease; that's the idea. In such countries, covid-infected people are more likely to escape testing than covid-infected dying people (dying of covid or with covid.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still the same problem - those who don't test won't assign the deaths to Covid-19, I have no idea why people assume that those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19. For example, in China people who died from flu for many years were attributed to other reasons, giving China an unusually low death count compared to other countries - [4]. Hzh (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My post does not suggest that "those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19", nor is it concerned with "those who don't test" but rather with those who focus their tests, and the only non-focused tests would be random-sampled tests from general population with no pre-selection bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both – because deaths lag cases by several weeks, but also they are arguably the more reliable statistic. Countries like S Korea and Germany have kept things under control by much more extensive testing which gives comparatively high case figures. I maintain the graphs of new cases and daily deaths on this page and lacking any better measure I use the weighted average of the two figures to pick the top 5 countries. If a statistician can suggest a better combination I'm open to it. Chris55 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought about it for a few minutes, it's probably better to use the geometric mean. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't make sense to take the mean of two statistics which aren't independent.Wikiditm (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transmission

    Proposed revision of the Transmission section

    Although the content of the Transmission section is good, the structure is poor. Paras 1,2, and 4 deal with droplets, para 3 mentions feces and severity of symptoms.

    I propose revision as follows:

    Para 1 - Brief introduction; severity of symptoms, droplets (main), feces (possible)
    Para 2 - Airborne droplets
    Para 3 - Droplets on surfaces (fomites)

    How does that sound? Robertpedley (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    also asymptomatic needs a section. Do u know what this ample research is from prof Macintyre?—Almaty (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I support a reorganisation and also removing the technical terms respiratory droplets and airborne, whilst including de-emphasised exhalation (as part of the main method). Although you, doc james, and I know what we’re talking about, the a world sure doesn’t. 

    It is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. The virus can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances.

    please see this WHO tweet and also the twitter replies as to how confused the world is by our current wording. —Almaty (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drbogdan your opinion will be welcome.Robertpedley (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertpedley: yes - agree - a better wording and related may be indicated - your own suggestions above seem *entirely* ok with me at the moment - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - here's my first draft.

    Notes:

    1) I have only used existing cited sources - CDC reviewed 4 March, WHO revised 28 March, ECDC updated 31 March. Some of these are more recently updated versions than currently appear in the page. I've left the citations out of the text below.

    2) None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets.

    3) There's currently a detailed paragraph on disinfecting surfaces - I propose to move this into the "Prevention & Control" section.

    Research is ongoing into the transmission of COVID-19. There is consensus that COVID-19 is mainly transmitted from one person to another through respiratory droplets produced by a person with symptoms, for example by coughing or sneezing. There may be a risk of transmission in this way from people who are infected but do not yet display COVID-19 symptoms. These droplets then come into contact, either directly or indirectly, with another person’s mouth, nose, or eyes.

    Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances and directly cause infection if they come into contact with another person. In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres.

    Respiratory droplets may also cause infection if they land on objects which are subsequently touched by an uninfected person, and then transferred to that person’s mouth, nose or eyes. The virus can survive in this way for hours or possibly days.

    While there are concerns it may spread by feces, this risk is believed to be low. Some medical procedures such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may increase the likelihood of airborne spread.

    Robertpedley (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • 1) We had a massive RfC about this.
      • 2) The claim that "None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets." Breathing is mentioned in "when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales" exhaled means breathing out...
      • 3) User:Robertpedley unclear were this text is coming from? For example "Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Doc James
    Point 1 - sorry, I missed that. I know there has been extensive discussion about the wording of the lead section, but I'm not editing the lead; this section has room for more detail. My proposed edit has been here for about 4 days, no-one pointed that out before.
    Point 2 - OK I was wrong again.
    Point 3 - It's my attempt at a synthesis of the 3 main sources - CDC, ECDC, and WHO. So far as I know the edit doesn't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:CITE, WP:PLAG, or WP:SYN
    I'd be very happy to accept constructive suggestions, or if someone else would like to edit the proposed revision so that it incorporates the extra details I have missed.
    Robertpedley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Robertpedley this stuff is critical important. I am wanting to see what reference and what text supports each sentence as it was before. This bit belongs under prevention not cause "In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres."
    Close contact is also listed as a primary method of spread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In the latest World Health Organization recommendations for COVID-19, health care personnel and other staff are advised to maintain a 3-foot distance away from a person showing symptoms of disease, such as coughing and sneezing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a 6-foot separation. However, these distances are based on estimates of range that have not considered the possible presence of a high-momentum cloud carrying the droplets long distances. Given the turbulent puff cloud dynamic model, recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range for a health care worker. Peak exhalation speeds can reach up to 33 to 100 feet per second, creating a cloud that can span approximately 23 to 27 feet. [3] Givingbacktosociety (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Givingbacktosociety Yes but it also says that further research is needed to find out if this affects infectivity of SARS-COV-2, so it's currently speculative. There's a lot of "blue skies" research like this which is valuable but may not make it into the mainstream. Organisations like CDC and WHO will (hopefully) evaluate it and modify guidelines if appropriate.Robertpedley (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/world/americas/brazil-bolsonaro-coronavirus.html
    2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/03/826675439/corpses-lie-for-days-as-ecuador-struggles-to-keep-up-with-covid-19-deaths
    3. ^ Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19
    We should follow WP:MEDRS and use high quality secondary sources. Once the CDC, ECDC, or WHO switch their recommendation than so should we.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

    is it reasonable to summarise the sources of the WHO ECDC and CDC as they stand today with the following two sentences:

    The virus is primarily spread via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. It can also be transmitted via breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances. —Almaty (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ps done, as I believe that being a major contributor to the previous rfc, this still is consensus. Also we need to avoid technical language. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to reply to this new rfc. —Almaty (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the prior consensus as noted at the top of this page. The sources support primarily coughing and sneezing and less so simple talking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but we can get rid of the technical words . —Almaty (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to go with "small droplets" rather than "respiratory droplets". Addressing airborne if we are talking about simple breathing was the balance we agreed to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I bunch of people agreed on the prior consensus including you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But no numbers ? !
    We can be timid, I guess, if we want to. But this is just too important a topic to be anything other than very straightforward. We have numbers from WHO, CDC, and medical journals regarding what is “close contact,” and we should use those numbers.
    WHO says at least 3 feet social distance. U.S. CDC says at least 6 feet. Yes, this is awkward, perhaps even embarrassing. But I’ve come around to embracing it. With a new disease, it’s to be expected that authorities will have differing views. Even if views later converge, we should still probably include this as an example of the initial uncertainly surrounding COVID-19. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about it, or try to paper it over.
    And regarding coughs, we have at least two medical articles saying, quite a bit further than 6 feet. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FriendlyRiverOtter no numbers in the lead or in the body? We could have them as a hatnote in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want distance recommendations matter-of-factly in the lead itself, just like we include dates of emergency and then pandemic. Is a hatnote a parenthetic comment? I’d rather just mention a few numbers in the sentence itself. I prefer going light on use of parentheses. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so what do you propose? The sentence is currently "The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when people cough or sneeze."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay added the numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: When I closed the last discussion, I made sure to mention that if someone wanted to discuss further changes they could start a new discussion (that one had grown very large and any hope of getting new participants to read it all was going to be small). I see nothing wrong with addressing the changing landscape our sources are providing too: I know a number of media outlets (including CNN on their front page today) has said officials are starting to think it was a mistake to advise people not to wear masks. That goes hand-in-hand with noting what the WHO has noted since our last discussion: you can spread this by simply talking. Consensus can change. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have no problem discussing consensus changing. But do not think it is fair to everyone involved in the discussion to change everything without discussion and a new consensus.
    The recommendations around people wearing masks is somewhat separate from the discussion on how it spreads. IMO wearing a simple cloth mask should be recommended for everyone. Keeps people from beathing out / coughing and contaminating their environment. Expecially with the 72 hours on surfaces. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: and simply by talking . . . certainly sounds airborne to me! (over short distances and brief time periods) And yet, WHO are other public health authorities, like a band of 1st century Christians, seemed to have gone the route of dogma. The public health “establishment,” as it were, seems to be insisting that COVID-19 is not generally airborne. And this seems to turn on a purely linguistic issue that in public health circles “airborne” is taken to mean highly airborne. Wow. And that is just really confusing. I mean, it’s bad to take a common word and use it in a restrictive, technical sense. That’s a lot worse than just introducing and using a pure technical term. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The WHO has emphatically said it is NOT airborne. The part where they mention talking is that those who are contagious can inadvertently contaminate surfaces by normal talking. NOT that it lingers in the air. That's where the use of masks earlier, as in a number of Asian countries, could have helped significantly slow the spread. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole: when WHO says it’s not airborne, they are not speaking English. When they say not airborne, they mean not highly airborne in the fashion of measles. Don’t know how they’ve made such a muddled mess of the whole thing.
    I’m going to post a link to Wired magazine which nails it. And sometimes you need someone outside a field to nail a problem or issue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.
    ’ . . When health officials say the pathogen isn’t “airborne,” they’re relying on a narrow definition of the term, and one that’s been disputed by some leading scholars of viral transmission through the air. . ‘
    I believe that this "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne." balances the fact that it can spread via simple breathing but is not technically airborne.
    Anyone object to changing respiratory droplets to "small droplets"?
    What about changing "not generally airborne" to "not generally highly airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We’re better off telling what COVID-19 is, rather than what it isn’t, especially in the lead. And @Doc James: I thought you ER Docs were a very plain-spoken bunch, for example, “the patient injured his penis because he stuck it into a vacuum cleaner,” although I suspect rather in less genteel terms.
    And yet curiously here, we’re going to parse “airborne” to the 10th degree, become English scholars, in fact, attempt to re-define English. I just don’t get the upside. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice from public helath bodies is based on risk. For 2 people separated by 1 foot, a cough would almost certainly cause transmission. Increase the distance to a yard, it's less likely. 2 yards, you would need a really projectile cough so risk is further reduced, but it's not 0.000%. I'm sure that if you coughed in a hurricane, droplets would carry downwind for quite a distance further. The guys who write guidelines for CDC and WHO have to draw a line somewhere. Robertpedley (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not need that much of a projectile cough.
    Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; et al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMC 7090637. PMID 32189218.
    —>This study found up to 4.5 meters (15 feet).
    Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMID 32215590.
    —>This study, which took a fluid dynamic approach, found up to 8.2 meters (27 feet). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We should really be sticking with sources per MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ECDC states "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via small respiratory droplets through sneezing, coughing, or when people interact with each other for some time in close proximity (usually less than one metre)."

    The CDC states "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)... Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks."

    The WHO states "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."

    So have added "talk" to the first sentence since that is now supported as one of the main methods. Happy to restore the prior version if anyone disagrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I’d rather say, “On April 2, the U.S. CDC recommends . . . ” And the CDC now gives this reference a “last reviewed” date of April 2. Unfortunately, many of our references are buried in a huge list in the “References” section itself, making them very difficult to update. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure to what text you are referring? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Studies of how far a cough travels.

    Loh, Ne-Hooi Will; Tan, Yanni; Taculod, Juvel H.; et al. (18 March 2020). "The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use During the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak". Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01634-3. PMC 7090637. PMID 32189218.

    —> This study found up to 4.5 meters (15 feet).

    Bourouiba, Lydia (26 March 2020). "Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19". JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4756. PMID 32215590.

    —>This study took a fluid dynamic approach and found up to 8.2 meters (27 feet).

    And both studies specifically reference Coronavirus making this pertinent to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We should stick with high quality secondary sources rather than primary sources. And please can we keep this stuff together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But didn’t our norms and practices evolve for relatively static situations, and not a dynamic, fast-moving situation? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The CDC, WHO, and ECDC are adjusting their recommendations as they feel the evidence supports it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes 1

    What do people think of

    Versus

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CDCTrans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ECDCQA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 meter (3 feet) by WHO[1] and 2 meter (6 feet) by the CDC[2]

    Changes 2

    Wondering what people think of

    Rather than

    • "These small droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne."

    In the lead? Would this address the concerns about using the technical term "airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ "Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations". World Health Organization. 29 March 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes.
    3. ^ Organization (WHO), World Health (28 March 2020). "FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.To protect yourself:-keep 1m distance from others-disinfect surfaces frequently-wash/rub your -avoid touching your pic.twitter.com/fpkcpHAJx7". @WHO. Retrieved 3 April 2020. These droplets are too heavy to hang in the air. They quickly fall on floors or sufaces.
    I think it’ll be a definite improvement, and I go ahead and make that change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay will give it a couple of days and than update the "current consensus" if no one raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading sentence

    The sentence: 

    These small droplets may also be produced during breathing, but rapidly fall to the ground  [...]

    suggests that only droplets produced during breathing rapidly fall to the ground. The problem is that such a phenomenon contradicts the laws of physics because droplets produced during breathing are smaller then those appearing during coughing, sneezing, or talking. And the smaller the droplet, the slower it falls. In addition to this, droplets below 200 microns can drift considerable distance, unless they are smaller then 100 μm because then they tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface. Of course when humidity rises that process slows down and stops when humidity reaches 100%. Anyway, if you get too close to someone, you may inhale their droplets before they dry out. If the droplets are free from the coronavirus, you are in good luck. Otherwise, you had better have your mask on. 85.193.250.200 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Debated at length elsewhere on this talk page. Robertpedley (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @85.193.250.200: all the same, you’re correct. Please read at least some of the discussion and then just jump on in there and make what you think is a positive change. The discussion is currently located above at:
    6 Transmission
    Move here to group topic. What wording do you suggest?
    I do not read the fall to the group ground bit as just applying to the ones produced during breathing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Doc James Wow. Thanks to you I don't feel ignored. But... I can't fully understand you.
    1. You wrote: "Move here to group topic."
    It can mean: "You should move here to the group topic." or "You should move here to group the topic."
    2. What do you mean by "the fall to the group bit" ? I know a "group bit" only in information technology ;-)
    English is not my mother tongue but I read NY Times articles without any problems. So please, give me a chance to understand you :-) 85.193.250.200 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes working to keep topics together. Mis-typed, meant "the fall to ground" applies to all the respiratory droplets.
    "What wording do you suggest? "Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Doc James I suggest something like: "The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. Even smaller droplets may be produced during breathing, and the smaller the droplet, the slower it falls. Droplets below 200 microns can drift considerable distance, unless they are smaller then 100 microns because then they tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface. When humidity rises that process slows down and stops when humidity reaches 100%." The numbers 200 and 100 microns are not my invention - there are sources to be found. 85.193.250.200 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the first two sentence. The rest I would need to see supporting evidence. And do not believe it belongs in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the decision is yours. But look at this:
    85.193.250.200 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

    The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

    Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

    1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
    2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
    3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

    So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    @Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

    I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

    1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
    2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
    3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
    4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
    5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

    Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

      "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
      — User:Sapah3

      {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
    Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) See [5], [6], [7] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [8]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [9]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [10][11][12][13][14] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [15] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pets and tigers

    Various sources reports that cats can be infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I think there should be a section about this as virus spreads between species! – Vilnisr T | C 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a source [16]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The direct source is this. Rather belongs to the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The cats appear to be asymtpomatic. Brandmeistertalk 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, these cats were infected directly with syringes. Unless you have a cat who can work a plunger and has serum handy and hates you, your species should be fine. Fine sucking up its cats' faces, anyway (but if you kiss two cats, have the decency to wash up between them). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seen this: "Pets or other livestock may test positive but can't pass on coronavirus to humans". I've checked both sources and they don't state this as far as I can tell. The statements I do see are:
    • Coronaviruses that infect animals can sometimes be spread to people, but this is rare.
    • We do not have evidence that companion animals, including pets, can spread COVID-19.
    • Pet cats and dogs cannot pass the new coronavirus on to humans, but they can test positive for low levels of the pathogen if they catch it from their owners.
    None of these statements equates to saying that no species of pet or livestock whatsoever can possibly pass the virus onto humans. Clearly there's no way every species can have been studied in sufficient detail to reach this conclusion. Furthermore, there are warnings out there that inanimate objects can carry the virus; if this is true then surely almost any animal could carry it just the same? — Smjg (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just modified the section header above to include tigers, as the Bronx tiger has come and gone several times over the last 48 hours. I think it's a distraction, it doesn't belong on a page which documents a disease which has (so far) killed a hundred thousand humans, and there is no evidence that this event is significant. But I don't want to start a war! User:-sche, User:RayDeeUx, User:Mx._Granger please comment! Robertpedley (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, Robertpedley. I feel that we could touch upon the Bronx Zoo tiger in the main article (it is a first for confirmed cases of animals with COVID-19 after all), and if the situation for COVID-19 worsens for pets/animals, we could make a See also notice leading to a smaller article focusing on COVID-19's effects on pets and animals above it and add more content in there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Maybe the information would fit better in the Coronavirus disease 2019 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had cut the mention of the tiger down to a three-word parenthetical (which could alternatively be reworked to e.g. "Pets, a tiger and other animals..."), since I respect the argument that a tiger being sick is not per se relevant to transmission (the justification I saw for it being removed), and not "due" three whole sentences. I did leave the three-word mention, since people had kept adding mentions of it, but I don't mind it being cut out. I did, as a separate matter but using some related sources, add a clause and some references which are on-topic for a "Transmission" section, briefly noting that transmission from humans to animals infrequently seems to occur, complimenting the existing statement that animal-to-human transmission is not evidenced. I do think having a single sentence about both of those kinds of transmission is appropriate, for a section on transmission. -sche (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China number of cases and deaths

    China's number of cases hasn't increased in over 3 days now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt

    China(mainland) reported 2 domestic cases on April 2, 1 on April 3, 5 on April 4, along with 29, 18, 25 imported cases respectively.[1] DrizzleD (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't China's number at least have this added: [dubious – discuss] ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No. And express.co.uk is a tabloid and unreliable (see WP:RSP). Also, tweaktown looks like a random website. There is no confirmation of what you said in reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with User:SharabSalam we need proper sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dubious as the numbers are, that's pretty much the only remotely reliable source we have. The other ones are often just citing sensationalist/straight up fake-news sources like Taiwan News or NTD. Juxlos (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the initial comment and Ozzie10aaaa. There are now reports in multiple, respected U.S. newspapers, and Kyodo News in Japan, which describe the number of urns being returned to family members, the numbers and hours of crematoria in Wuhan, and efforts to stop identifying infected persons or treating them. There is also a report of U.S. government intelligence information. All that is more than enough to present this information emerging about significantly higher numbers than the Chinese government has published. Additionally, the table should be edited to include a footnote on the 3,000 person death toll, which notes this figure may not be reliable.Jaedglass (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I support adding a note of a short sentence that there is doubt about the number of cases in China but I wouldn't up t a hard number on it. — RealFakeKimT 07:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree that we need to make it clear that the Chinese figures are likely BS. This should be done in the table, too. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the numbers are not the current infections due to many reasons. Does not belong in the table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple independent reliable sources (from various countries) reporting on the controversy of the Chinese figures. From the perspective of Wikipedia policies there's really no choice but to include this information. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CRGreathouse: But certainly not as to inclusion on the urns story on this main page (file it under Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), which multiple users have refuted below. From the perspective of Wikipedia's reputation, conspiracy theories should be labeled as such. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should even give the urns story oxygen. I can see how a reporter would pick up on it, but I don't see value in passing that along. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "That tweet came amid allegations that the coronavirus numbers reported by China were not accurate, but manipulated to make the country's response to the pandemic look stronger than it was"...WHO director faces calls for resignation over handling of coronavirus, China--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Post uses "Wuhan funeral homes have returned 3,500 urns a day" to prove its opinion, but based on the 0.8% annual death rate in China, there should be at least 2400 deaths a day normally in such a city with 11 million people. The margin not only reflects confirmed coronavirus deaths, but reflects deaths indirectly caused by it and deaths untested. It is rather a global problem, not in China only.[2] I don't think there's a need to stress doubt about China's number. DrizzleD (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is some pretty simple math, and DrizzleD's post above doesn't fit with the math. If we assume a 70 year lifespan, then 11 million/70/365 = about 430 deaths per day. Obviously it will vary based on people's age and so forth. Alternatively, we could go with 7.2 deaths per thousand population per year per Demographics of China, which would come to 7.2*11,000 = about 80,000 deaths per year, or 220 per day, for Wuhan. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I miscalculated. But I still think underreport is almost everywhere, especially in those hotspots like Wuhan. Brazil [18], Iran [19], Russia [20], US [21], UK [22], India [23], Italy [24], etc. DrizzleD (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MarioGom and I have noted the fact that the "urns" story that Ozzie10aaaa and Jaedglass are citing is itself being used in extremely flimsy extrapolation to fuel a BS conspiracy theory. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adoring nanny's figures should be about correct. Based on China death rate, and assuming homogeneous death rate across the country and for the whole year (which is not true), there should be around 235 deaths/day in Wuhan (mind the WP:OR). But keep in mind that funeral homes were closed in Wuhan for around two months. The urns are being distributed, presumably, to keep up with the backlog after funeral homes opened (SCMP: Coronavirus: Wuhan opens its funeral homes, cemeteries so families can bury their dead). Some media outlets are omitting this "small" detail, leading to bogus extrapolations. --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And to give some perspective: in the metropolitan area of Madrid, with half the population of Wuhan and less than 3 weeks in confinement, our local Government just opened the third temporary morgue, and further morgues are expected to open soon. This is not something extraordinary about China. --MarioGom (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloomberg is explicit. Both Chinese dissidents and US intelligence says China concealed the extent of the epidemic. [25] Adoring nanny (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adoring nanny: That Bloomberg piece does not mention Chinese dissidents in any form, and the one you cited from 1 Apr is irrelevant to the "3,500 urns / daily → 40K+ COVID-19 deaths" exorbitant claims being regurgitated un-critically throughout US / UK mainstream media, refuted above and by Jeremy Konyndyk, who was involved with pandemic preparation in the Obama administration. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All these news reports of "42000 deaths" are all based on the same report, and merely repeated by various media outlets. There is no substantial proof of those large number of deaths, and those reports are merely conjecture, it looks like the standard case of cherry-picked statistics to obfuscate and start conspiracy theories. Mopswade (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally someone has placed the 42,000 death number into the article very recently, while we are discussing this an editor should not have unilaterally put it in. Mopswade (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml
    2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/coronavirus-death-toll-americans-are-almost-certainly-dying-of-covid-19-but-being-left-out-of-the-official-count/2020/04/05/71d67982-747e-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html

    Vatican City is at 10,000 infected per million

    Hi, on the map Vatican City should be 10,000 per million. There are seven cases and 618 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B148:5B1C:D548:DB2C:8CF0:6321 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and its over 190 000 for the Diamond Princess. DMBFFF (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit / clarification request - sneezing

    Hi all. The article mentions sneezing a few times as a route of transmission, including in the opening paragraph. But sneezing is not listed as a symptom (not even a rare symptom). I can imagine if someone had both a common cold and COVID-19, sneezing caused by the common cold could spread COVID-19. But I am concerned that because sneezing is mentioned in the opening paragraph, the reader is likely to conflate it as a symptom (and therefore potentially worry about their own sneeze). Is this something which could be reworked? For instance, leaving it in the later section on transmission but removing from the opening? 2001:44B8:1102:C200:6CAF:E01E:18A6:FA59 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Extensive debate of this topic elsewhere on this talk page!! Robertpedley (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Value of wearing a mask

    On Feb 17, 2020, Fauci called the coronavirus risk "minuscule" and said wearing a mask was not necessary. On March 30, 2020, WHO said there was no evidence wearing a mask helped, and that was echoed on March 31, 2020 by the Surgeon General. A few days later, the CDC recommended masks.

    Jeremy Howard (entrepreneur), research scientist at the University of San Francisco, made the statement: "What we now know, or strongly guess, is that if eighty percent of people in a community wear a face mask, any kind of cloth cover, it can actually stop the virus in its tracks." and "each person wearing a single mask has a value of four to six thousand dollars due to the huge impact it has on transmission." [26] starting about 4:30. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. YouTube is NOT a reliable source for most things. And are you sure you're linking to the right Jeremy Howard? Entrepreneur? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like him, on CNN; maybe post the time he says what he said. DMBFFF (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll save you some time. How abut this: "Protect your face during coronavirus with these easy DIY face covers : Medical professionals weigh in about DIY face covers to use during coronavirus". ABC News. April 6, 2020. Research supported by Nobel prize-winning virologist Harold Varmus tells us that placing a layer of cloth in front of a person's face stops 99% of the droplets. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK government has apparently advised Britons that there is no benefit in wearing face masks in public, despite new US medical guidance advising Americans to do so.[27] -- DeFacto (talk). 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A close relative who is a doctor told me that masks collect moisture from your breath, which condenses in them. Unless you can change them frequently (every hour or less), they become a breeding ground for some pretty nasty bacteria which can kill you in other ways. Anecdotal, I know, but it seems to make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo48, you are experienced enough to be familiar with WP: NOTAFORUM so please follow that guidance. Certain construction workers, painters, industrial workers and landscapers have worn N-95 type facemasks for 8 hour shifts for decades. Where are the medical journal reports about these alleged bacterial infections? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of my comment, but also note that something similar is noted in the linked article. And your comment seems as anecdotal and unsourced as mine. I see neither comment as forum style posts, but more in the vein of guiding ourselves in the direction of better information to include in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Total deaths in 2020 irrespective of cause

    Does Wikipedia have a page showing total deaths in 2020 per region (country or territory), irrespective of cause of death, that is, regardless of whether covid-positive or not? Does anyone know of data sources for these figures?

    The above would help answer the following questions, say for France:

    • What is the cummulative death count in France in 2020 up to a date, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?
    • What is the cummulative death count in France in March 2020, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?
    • Or even, what are the daily death counts in France in 2020 up to a date, irrespective of cause (covid or non-covid)?

    If a source could be found, it would not be amiss to expand the table in the article with total deaths irrespective of cause, for a very basic context for the figures shown. Maybe there was a consensus that this should not be done, but I think there are very good reasons to do just that if possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy trick : divide the population by 100 to 150. Knowing that the life expectancy is 65-77 year but there is more younger people. Something like that would give you a good rough estimate per year. Typical pneumonia ends at 7-8% of total deaths, this one seems as high as 25%. Judging by italy's death toll. I'm not opposed to source this better in the article, I agree it gives context. Iluvalar (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to see the actuals for 2020, not estimates based on previous years; I want to see how the covid-positive deaths are reflected in the actual totals for 2020, especially for the worst affected countries and regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I am aware of. Generally it is about a year out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found something for England and Wales: Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional by Office of National Statistics, ons.gov.uk - has 2020 figures downloadable as a spreadsheet. It would be good to have similar data for other countries. The linked source seems well done to me, it has e.g. for week ending on 27. March 2020 (week 12): Total deaths, all ages: 10645; deaths for respiratory disease: 1514; covid-on-death-certificate deaths: 103. Meanwhile, the covid-associated deaths have increased, and can be put into relation to the other two figures, although what we would really need to see is what happened to them as well in the most recent weeks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's Northern Ireland: Weekly death registrations in Northern Ireland, 2020., nisra.gov.uk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's U.S.: * COVIDView: A Weekly Surveillance Summary of U.S. COVID-19 Activity, cdc.gov - has a graph showing total deaths together with deaths via pneumonia and deaths via influenza. I don't see a data table but there is a graph at the bottom from which the scale of the numbers is seen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, the Data from CDC for corona like ilness (CLI) dating back to the 40th week of 2019, that's new to me. Iluvalar (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deaths in Slovakia

    The death in Slovakia is 1 in "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Slovakia" and 0 in the template. What happened? The Supermind (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Information has to be updated seperatly in different articals so there will be some diffrence in numbers accross articals. — RealFakeKimT 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting deaths varies from country to country, Slovakia deciding only deaths caused by the virus directly counted, thus both previous deaths not counted as caused by it (1st being caused by massive heart attack, 2nd still not having its autopsy results officially confirmed - thus different reports about numbers even in Slovakia as of today) --20.133.7.254 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Antibody testing

    Mentioned on a related page COVID-19_testing#Detection_of_antibodies, Should we mention it here, in which section? Robertpedley (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are they widely avaliable / avaliable yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James They are coming on stream, and there is extensive news coverage. [[28]] There are big questions about the reliability of the various tests, and currently it's not clear whether they can be used for diagnosis (as opposed to demonstrating immunity post infection). I think it would be useful to put a qualified reference to them on this page, but not sure which section to place it. Robertpedley (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Robertpedley okay yes coming on line but not avaliable yet. We need to make that clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Article: "Coverage of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic on Wikipedia"

    Okay, this might sound absurd and a little too much detail, but look at these articles:

    Warrant that a couple of you reading this might have been interviewed in one of the above. These are just articles in the first and second pages of Google News where Wikipedia's coverage of the disease is the key topic, excluding secondary mentions. Trying to get opinions on whether an article could (and for that matter, should) be created. Juxlos (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very cool! Thank you for collecting and sharing these links. I'd vote against trying to make this into a topic though. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    About that: both editors and non editors of Wikipedia have to admit that Wikipedia offers information about facts. But just facts in light of reliable sources and from scientific view. But we have always to remember that it is up to the people to JUDGE these facts as they freely want, such as government responses or even WHO responses. We should not forget that the measures that have been taken from "scientific" point of views affect people lives, in many areas, meanwhile, we should be careful to judge information in the net NOT as mis-information, but free speech and a way to judge the facts that happen. 83.39.208.224 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Several times over the last month, a hatnote with a link to Coronavirus § Outbreaks has been added to this topic. The current notice reads:

    "Corona outbreak" and "Coronavirus outbreak" redirect here. For other outbreaks, see Coronavirus § Outbreaks.

    To me, the notes seem unnecessary. The guidance provided in WP:HAT is not crystal clear though. I think the 0.1% of users who are actually looking for information on other coronavirus outbreaks will be able to easily find their way to MERS or SARS or the Coronavirus topic. Perhaps we could instead include a link to Coronavirus § Outbreaks in the See also section? I could be wrong though so interested to hear other opinions.

    Alternatively, perhaps we could just redirect "Coronavirus outbreak" directly to Coronavirus § Outbreaks. Does anyone have any stats on the actual percentage of page visitors that arrive via this redirect? - Wikmoz (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Coronavirus outbreak" gets a few hundreds visits per day ([29]). --MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MarioGom for the guidance. By my math, in the last 7 days, there were 2,300 hits to "Coronavirus outbreak" and 6,203,000 PVs to this topic. Assuming generously that 10% of those visitors were not looking for the current outbreak, and assuming for simplicity one PV per visitor, then the hatnote possibly helped 230 visitors, or 0.004% (1 in 26,600) visitors to this topic over the last week. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It looks like a ridiculously low amount. It seems to me that retargeting the redirect to Coronavirus § Outbreaks would be the most correct. After all, there are only 21 links to it from the default namespace, which can be easily fixed ([30]). But even if the redirect is not changed, the hat note looks like overkill to me. --MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree no hatnote needed. Moving to talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both! I've also gone ahead and corrected most of the direct links to the redirect that were included in a number of topics identified by MarioGom. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China (mainland)

    Why is (mainland) written after China in the list of countries? Meanwhile every other country has an explanation in the notes section. It's not France (mainland) or Netherlands (mainland). The explanation that it's just the mainland of theses countries should be consistent and kept in the notes section, no? 50.101.52.133 (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To distinguish between Red China and RoC. DMBFFF (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the reason at all: it is because Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefor (mainland) should be removed and a note put into the notes section. 50.101.52.133 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to happen when the relevant article is at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, and a recent requested move to remove the "mainland" there failed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Than France (mainland), Netherlands (mainland), United Stets (mainland), etc. should all be added for consistency. Why only pick one country to list (mainland) and not all the others with other jurisdictions? 50.101.52.133 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles aren't titled France (mainland) (the term is Metropolitan France anyway), Netherlands (mainland) etc. The move request failed, time to move on from this total non-issue. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Video

    Video summary (script)

    Wondering peoples thoughts? The script can be edited easily and the video updated easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • video is very good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is any consensus to incorporate the video into the lede of the article at all, nevertheless it was added by Doc James twice, which is not covered by WP:BRD any more).
    We are an encyclopedia, not a video site. Foremostly, our medium is text enriched with static illustrations. While an occasional animation is okay (as is, IMHO, a link to a quality video in the External Links section), many people consider "moving" contents a distraction and annoyance. If a video would be actually needed to convey the message, it means that we failed in our core discipline to explain the topic in prose.
    In the case of videos, users not having suitable plugins installed and scripting enabled may f.e. just see a large empty box instead of a video. This looks very odd, in particular in the lede of a high-profile article such as this one. It completely ruins the page layout and makes people stop reading the article beyond the lede. I would appreciate for the video to be removed again. (A link to it under EL would be fine with me.)
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We’re not staying sleek and streamlined

    And Coronavirus will be one of the topics people judge Wikipedia by. Either they’ll say, Wikipedia did okay I guess, with disappointment in their voice. Or they’ll say, Wikipedia actually did really good.

    It will be so much better to have the second and that’s what we should strive for!

    Okay, we currently have all these references thrown in “References” where it’s very hard to update, for example, when WHO or CDC gives a later date, and it’s very hard to delete one we know longer need.

    The second paragraph of our lead begins: “The virus is mainly spread during close contact[c] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. . . ” Important stuff on the spread, and yet seems to be buried in . .

    {{Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread . .

    Wow.

    This makes it harder to update stuff that’s likely to change. I say, we embrace our unprecedented circumstances, which are unprecedented at least in degree. We embrace the challenge of both a fast-changing factual situation and the fact that many editors are interested and want to pitch in and help out.

    Yes, we certainly can learn something new. But then we’re asked to learn all these tables and templates. Yes, people often take ownership of such, but what if people get sick or just get busy at work. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What, exactly, are you trying to suggest? Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to User:Liz Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That we have our references within the text like a regular, normal article. And that we not subsume whole paragraphs in some weird template.
    And in general, that we go with our regular skills in this important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I think you're trying to suggest that editors shouldn't need to learn how to cite their sources to edit this article? Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not! :-) In baseball terms, I want our rotation to be very good at the standard pitches, just try not to learn fancy pitches during the heat of a pennant race. ;-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with FriendlyRiverOtter that excerpts mixed with Template:Main look weird. The standard way has always been Template:Main in such cases, so we should use consistent style. Even featured articles generally use Template:Main instead of excerpts. Brandmeistertalk 08:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah I am not a big fan of excerpts as it make it difficult to figure out were to edit the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, everyone. So please, step-by-medium-step, let’s start moving away from excerpts. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed some of our lead from excerpt back to text with this edit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949649438&oldid=949646277

    and a couple of following clean-up edits. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sdkb: in fairness I should tell you that I changed back your edit back of 17:16 6 April.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=949469834&oldid=949469120
    My thinking is that we need to keep things readily available to update and change as new information comes out. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @FriendlyRiverOtter: thanks for the ping. Sophivorus has been the main editor adding excerpts, not me, so they are the one to talk to. As you'll see if you read above, I had strong concerns about some of the excerpts that they added, which introduced negative changes that they did not fix (they've since addressed some, and I addressed some others myself). Regarding the portion of the paragraph in the intro, though, the text there was nearly identical, and once I made changes at one that should've been made at both, they were completely identical, so the case for an excerpt there is very strong. If you want to remove some of the detail in this article that's in the coronavirus article, I support that, but the part that remains the same (which is still substantial) should be an excerpt, so that updates at one are reflected at both, and they don't start to drift apart again. For addressing the confusion, just add a hidden comment telling editors to go to the other article, since any change they'll want to make should be made at both. I'll note as well that your transition back has re-introduced some errors, such as having 2 as a numeral rather than spelled out, and removing some wikilinks. Regarding excerpts vs. {{Main}}, the latter does not actually transclude any text, so they're very different. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But I thought there was an advantage to having separate articles. For example, Coronavirus disease 2019 for the health effects on a human being, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for scientific and medical responses, and broader societal effects, and then Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 for the virus itself. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the fragment parameter makes excerpts difficult to understand and implement. I always disliked fragments, they suck. I recommend the Template:Excerpt be used just for transcluding entire lead sections of subarticles into sections of this article, such as for example in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Education. Check the wikitext there, I think it's nature (and benefits) should be clear to any editor. Sophivorus (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want low hurdle, so that maybe we get 20 editors activity participating over a two day period, and not just five. After all, the decentralized approach is the whole Wikipedia way, right? Within reason of course.
    And then, we might have longer, more detailed coverage in our Coronavirus disease 2019. And shorter, briefer, crisper coverage in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic since it has to cover more topics. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just made a few changes to the intro layout, which at the end have resulted in the excerpt being its own paragraph. That and the hidden comment should make it very clear what it's doing. (For further improvement, I'd recommend making changes at coronavirus disease 2019 to make it a separate paragraph there as well; that'll prevent the need to use a fragment.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Herd Immunity

    The article states that 60 to 70% people need to get infected and survive the disease in order for the community to reach herd immunity. In reality it is "get infected and survive, or get vaccinated". (The percentage depends on R0). The alternative of vaccination should be mentioned.

    --Stefanhanoi (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You’re very right. This is a glaring oversight, and I went ahead and made the change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no vaccine (in reality, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone you. Sources don't mention an alternative. BBC didn't mention immunity. Does the Drosten interview really mention 70%? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that right now, right here, it’s a pipe dream. But I’ve read some estimates of a year and a half, which compared to older times, ain’t bad.
    And I’m going to invite the other people who have commented to this discussion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two million years of catching the old coronaviruses colours me less optimistic. But yeah, fingers crossed! For now, though, let's reflect current outlooks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ————

    @Stefanhanoi:, @MiasmaEternal: and @CRGreathouse: should we cover vaccination the same time we talk about herd immunity, and if so, how? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused, because I was about to say we need to account of natural immunity in the population, I read a research that postulated 20% and I'm expecting even more immunity. But I just fell on a WHO conference where it is said "no one have immunity" is that backed by any solid evidence ? Iluvalar (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the research has been done, nor has there been time or resources to test a sufficient sample of the non-infected population. There is also the fact that it seems some people can be infected, but show no symptoms. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, we should wait for further research on vaccination (the vaccines currently in development are in Phase I trials, so we won't know for some time whether they work on humans), while herd immunity has been extensively covered. But I'm not a medical expert, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Our opinions are great, don't get me wrong, but maybe we just look for a published expert opinion on whether up to 70% of some population or another could, should or must be vaccinated for herd immunity to do its thing, then cite that publication (alternatively, don't make any such claims up through consensus). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the current sentence intended to be a general explanation of how herd immunity is achieved? If so, then yes, it's a large percentage of a population gaining immunity through infection or vaccination. See measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pertussis, diphtheria, etc. Or is it intended to be some kind of a solution? If so, I haven't heard any reputable medical sources endorse this as a good idea without factoring in vaccination. I'd recommend deleting the paragraph and rewriting with better sourcing. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the sentence to be Patrick Vallance's specifically British advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vallance's advice was never mainstream and it seems like he has backed off the idea. If we're presenting his old ideas, we should qualify it with the current general consensus that it was considered by many to be a bad idea. Good article here explaining this a little more. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't attribute anything to "many", though, name names. On that note, Matt Hancock backed off in your article. He's not Vallance. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are about 500 here and another 680 here. Another letter from the British Society for Immunology here. In contrast to herd immunity, the current mainstream recommendation is to gradually move from mitigation to control by dramatically expanding rapid testing. Then ultimately solve this with a vaccine in the next two years. I don't believe this is a pipe dream given current technology and the resources going into vaccine development. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be some herd immunity here: 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships. DMBFFF (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough one. Some readers will read article in a very here-and-now frame of mind and want a good deep dive of the present. On the other hand, with the current statement “estimated that 60% of the British population will need to become infected,” well, even a 10-year-old child might ask, how about vaccine? So, we do both.
    And if different scientists give different estimates, that’s real world and a good thing and we include the range.
    And if this Patrick Vallance guy gives wild card advice, we should say so, whatever his position with the UK government. I mean, if there are people speaking against his predictions, we should cover that as matter-of-factly as anything else. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenophobia and Racism

    In the above section, can we add the repeated mention of SARS-COV2 as Chinese virus by Donald Trump as a form of racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, "Chinese" refers to place of origin. A form of placism. Better known as nationalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so under which section should we mention this fact? I mean I still think this is racism. Check out the following article: [1]Sitaphul (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul 05:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is discussed on the Xenophobia and racism pandemic topic page. The related section in this topic is just meant to be a brief summary of that topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump's a racist, but the term isn't. I'd call it the "PRC virus" or "Xi Jinping Virus" or maybe the "XJV." In wikt:Wiktionary:Requested entries (English), I've requested wikt:Trump virus. DMBFFF (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Trump's own accounting of his motivation for using the term, it was more political than anything else. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole Trump-CNN-opinion triangle is thoroughly documented in most articles about Trump, if you're looking for agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump may well be a racist, but his reason for calling this the Chinese Virus is to pander to the racists who think he's on their side. Fomenting racism and division wins votes. It's an old strategy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also can't think of it as the American virus if it's the Chinese virus, making America (seem) great again. Older strategy than the slogan, even. Passing the buck, the kids used to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a very old strategy. I mentioned Trump, but politicians in almost every country have used it and still do. I see it as similar to politicians play the Law And Order(!!!!) card. We do mention when politicians do that, in a diplomatic way. There is no reason not to say they are playing the Race card. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason. The kids now say "race" to mean skin colour, nose shape and dick size. The Big Orange One is playing a more social, economic and cultural race card here. White supremacists may get on board that train, but only because it's compatible with modern racist views, not flat-out appealing to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/24/politics/us-china-coronavirus-disinformation-campaign/index.html

    Wrong info

    Why is there No recoveries in uk? There is 135 recoveries in uk not 0. I found a YouTube video about coronavirus Link > Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK5-DfNyewA Hi poland (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See related footnote for the UK in the Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data: "As of 23 March 2020, the United Kingdom government does not publish the number of recoveries. Last update on 22 March reported 135 recovered patients". Brandmeistertalk 12:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Templates

    Templates and other inclusions breaking: Time to split the article?

    This page has broken templates and inclusions which may be seen by viewing Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. This page has reached its limit.

    To fix, you have the following options:

    • Split the article (recommended)
    • Remove lesser-needed templates and convert cite web templates into regular citations sans templates.

    I have left the template, Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic at the bottom and it will only show as a direct link unless the transclusion problem is cleared up. That is acceptable in the meantime since the reader can still click on it to navigate the other sets of articles.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Berean Hunter, not sure if it helps, but a precedent was set when the March 2020 timeline article was split into Chronology of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 and Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References in columns on wider screens

    This change[31] by User:Ahecht

    Changed it from multiple columns on wide screens to one column and in my opinion makes it harder to read. Is there another solution that returns multi column? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doc James: The <references>...</references> tag is responsive, and will adjust the number of columns automatically based on window width. The references should show up two columns if your screen is over ~1100 pixels wide, and in three if its over ~1500 pixels wide (I just took this screenshot on a 1920px wide monitor using Chrome). If you want fixed narrower columns, instead of the responsive layout, this can be replicated by replacing <references> with {{refbegin|30em}}<references responsive="0"> and </references> with </references>{{refend}}. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Great that is perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request

    Information to be added (I'm not sure where to add it): On 5th April, 2020, some Pastors worldwide arranged Palm Sunday congregations defying the ban on mass gatherings and have been arrested for the same.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

    References

    1. ^ "New Coronavirus Limits Bring New Religious Freedom Tension". The New York Times. 4 April 2020. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    2. ^ Sherriff, Lucy (5 April 2020). "Christian pastors hold packed services on Palm Sunday to 'fight Satan' despite exploding virus death toll". The Sun. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    3. ^ Alonso, Melissa; Hackney, Deanna; Waldrop, Theresa (5 April 2020). "Churches hold Palm Sunday services despite state bans on gatherings". Cable News Network. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    4. ^ Wilson, Scott; Boorstein, Michelle; Hernández, Arelis; Rozsa, Lori (5 April 2020). "Coronavirus creates conflict for churches, where gatherings can be dangerous but also provide solace". The Washington Post. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    5. ^ Barone, Vincent (5 April 2020). "Defiant pastors vow to host Palm Sunday mass during coronavirus pandemic". New York Post. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    6. ^ Reddy, Sudhakar (6 April 2020). "Police crackdown on Sunday prayers at church in Andhra Pradesh". Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    7. ^ "Andhra pastor arrested for defying lockdown, conducting Mass with 150 people". Business Standard Private Ltd. 5 April 2020. Retrieved 7 April 2020.

    Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I can cite more references but it would become, "overciting", isn't it (see WP:Overcite)?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is the sentence nonsensical with respect to the English language, it is non-neutral as well. The sources that User:Souniel Yadav has cited make reference to religious exemptions allowed in some states, such as Flordia, that allow congregations to gather for worship; additionally the majority of churches have suspended meetings in houses of worship, instead airing prayers online or offering drive-in worship. AnupamTalk 17:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've marked this edit request as answered as per reasons below:
    a) the content that's requested to be added in does not fit in the main article
    b) there seems to be a consensus as such
    c) there's no need to have seven sources to support a single claim.
    Additionally, some of these sources aren't necessarily the most reliable. Fortunately, the existence of these seven sources means that we can trim it down to (maybe) the NYTimes and WashPost article.
    Souniel Yadav, please post your edit request in a more appropriate article's talk page, and trim down the number of sources being cited.
    Cheers, u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 18:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recoveries

    Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Recoveries
     – u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello D.M. from Ukraine, I've moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page. See my response there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PSA for anyone who wants to update the number of coronavirus cases

    If you wish to help update the number of coronavirus cases, please go over to Template:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and use Edit source. Currently I think there have only been about 6 people who have edited and updated the page so far, so hopefully this post will help more people update it as new information comes in.

    Update: If you want to update the number of territories affected, go to Template:Territories affected by the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic.

    Sam1370 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Countries/Territories

    The current count is 223 countries/territories + 4 ships. This should be reflected both in the stats box and in the info box at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please provide a source for this? We are currently using worldometers.info.
    Sam1370 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Animals

    The mainstream media has reported cases of coronavirus in animals. It's important enough for this article to have a section about it. Jim Michael (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    it may be more appropriate in the disease article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd want to see a truly reliable source saying it's a scientific fact, not just "reports", or ""claimed", or anything weak like that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Over a million animals have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. What's more interesting is whether or not non-human animals, in particular non-human vertebrates, have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. But that would be more likely to be relevant to an associated page, such as the disease article, not this one. Boud (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a section about coronavirus in animals in both coronavirus disease 2019 and this article. It's part of this outbreak as well as the disease. Jim Michael (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Animals don't have a choice. If they're not happy with their place in the world, too bad. They have to live the life they've been given. Humans, on the other hand, don't have to. We have a choice." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, the idea of "pandemic" is what separates us from them. They don't get the social deal, even if they catch the disease. And if they're not contributing to the human numbers, they should stay the hell out of our pandemic, sorry-not-sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly Need a Section on HCQ, the Old Malaria Drug Which Seems Efficacious

    Despite Dr. Fauci saying he wanted long randomized tests, others urged more testing of HCQ given the emergency situation. Didier Raoult, MD, PhD found HCQ useful, as did Stephen Smith, MD of the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases. Questions were also raised as to whether HCQ could help as a preventative measure to help health care workers remain coronavirus-free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea who those people are and what those abbreviations mean. I'm guessing it's a little US-centric, so this non-American can't quite keep up. How about some sourcing, and elaboration for the other 95% of the world's population please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not from the US, but the IP user is probably talking about HCQ = hydroxychloroquine, and Didier Raoult, who is a French medical researcher with senior administrative responsibilities who has been strongly promoting the using of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and making claims that up to now would have had no chance of all at surviving WP:MEDRS. I suggest that 24.152.216.213 should take a look at COVID-19 drug development#Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and if something is missing there, suggest on the talk page there that it be added. I don't think that adding MD or PhD to researchers' names there would increase the encyclopedic quality of the research discussed there. It wouldn't pass WP:MOS, in any case.
    If you're reading this 24.152, here's an informal summary of COVID-19 drug development#Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine: it's definitely good at killing SARS-CoV-2 in vitro (Nature paper), and it's definitely good at killing human hosts if the dose is just a little bit higher than the amount that is good against mosquitoes. See that section on that page for details. Boud (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenges: Testing Capacity

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/next-covid-19-testing-crisis/609193/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/04/americas-covid-19-testing-has-stalled-and-thats-a-big-problem/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/health/coronavirus-testing-us.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josecansecoder (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=949716581"