Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4th April 2020

Please add this at the end of the timeline section (I copied it from the Tablighi Jamaat article), The entire Nizamuddin West area has been cordoned off by the Police as of 30 March, and medical camps have been set up. After evacuation from the markaz, of the scores of jamaat attendees, 167 of them were quarantined in a railway facility in south east Delhi amid concerns over their safety and transmission of the virus. There were further complications after the staff at the quarantine facility reported the Tablighi jamaat followers misbehaved with the staff and spat at the doctors looking after them. FIRs were lodged against members of the jamaat quarantined in Ghaziabad after their misbehaviour was reported by the Chief medical officer. The officer reported that the inmates quarantined were roaming naked, playing vulgar songs and making lewd gestures and remarks at the female staff of the hospital. After this the UP government decided that they would not be treated by any female staff and also booked the jamaat members under the National Security Act.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Souniel, this will have to wait until we add a section on the Tablighi Jamaat event. It will also need to be reworded to be less like a news report. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the, "Timeline" section already mentions the Tablighi Jamaat event, so please reword what I have mentioned above and add it. Please reply to the next two Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests also. Thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, help out and show the exact edit you would make if you edited the article yourself. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PM Modi's address to nation on lock-down extention till May 3

Previous two address to nation is already present in the page. How it will be to add the video of PM Modi's address to nation on lock-down extention till May 3? Is it available on commons.wikimedia.org? Amkgp (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp,it's not available on Commons, but in short it will add soon. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Great!. Amkgp (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can add it if you want SaiP (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SaiP Yes please. Amkgp (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection by Indian doctors

A Group of doctors , under chairmanship OF Dr Sreehari.Y , MRPA Corporation, Hyderabad.

The injection manufactured based on principal passive immunotherapy

"Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection" patented by Dr Sreehari.Y , at "Office of the control general of Patents, Governement of India"

Applied "for clinical trail" approval for "Human Covid-1- Injection"

A Group of doctors started work three months ago.

The basic principal of manufacturing the injection is , the injected immunoglobulins are collected from IgG positing asymptomatic Covid-19 patient. or from recovered Covid-19 patient. Its similar to plasma therapy, but in this therapy can collect antibodies from blood.

We can adjust the dose of this injection based on clinical symptoms.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2020/apr/30/hyderabad-firm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial-2137160.html

https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20and%20Parameters/IVIG-March-2017.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.1966.tb04713.x

https://epaper.newindianexpress.com/2653374/The-New-Indian-Express-Hyderabad/30-04-2020#clip/51442323/92283b06-0233-4b7b-8ae1-2e04786ef158/912.0000000000001:330.53025302530267

(Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Map

Hi @XIIIX: @Shanze1: Can anyone of you add a new range of 10,000-19,000 confirmed cases in the Map (If you too agree that it is needed now), as Maharashtra have crossed 10,000 mark. Thanks - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429,  Done Shanze1 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Shanze1: @XIIIX: A help needed, both maps are outdated, will be great if anyone of you can update it. Thanks in advance. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... Shanze1 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Shanze1 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove lines from Misinformation and discrimination section

The following lines should be removed from Misinformation and discrimination section as these lines are not misinformation but facts about Tablighi Jamaat. So, these lines should be put in some other appropriate section.

However, a group of Tablighi Jamaat members in some quarantine centres were held for spitting on doctors and also misbehaving with female nurses. In other centres they were also caught spitting, misbehaving and not cooperating. Many of them have been charged under the National Security Act. Jasksingh (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

137 pilgrims from Hazur Sahib in Nanded have tested positive. [1] positive cases may increase in the coming days. Can it be added please? 117.199.93.116 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks - Mayankj429 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rephrase lines in timeline section

The following lines in Timeline section should be rephrased from

A Sikh preacher that returned from travel to Italy and Germany, carrying the virus, turned into "super spreader" by attending a Sikh festival in Anandpur Sahib during 10–12 March. Twenty-seven COVID-19 cases were traced back to him. Over 40,000 people in 20 villages in Punjab were quarantined on 27 March to contain the spread.

to

A religious preacher of Punjab that returned from travel to Italy and Germany, carrying the virus, turned into "super spreader" by attending a religious festival in Anandpur Sahib during 10–12 March. Twenty-seven COVID-19 cases were traced back to him. Over 40,000 people in 20 villages in Punjab were quarantined on 27 March to contain the spread.

The reason for that is there is no need to mention the religion of the person. If religion has to be mentioned then it should be mentioned in all the cases where religious reason was involved. For eg: it should also be mentioned in the case where few people refused to eat food in quarantine centres because the cooks in those centres were dalits. Jasksingh (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information. WP:BLP applies to individuals, not religions or communities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. But then can the following line, present in Misinformation and discrimination section, be rephrased to mention the religion of the people from

Some patients, in different quarantine facilities of Uttar Pradesh, refused to eat food because the cooks in these facilities were Dalits.

to

Some Hindu patients, in different quarantine facilities of Uttar Pradesh, refused to eat food because the cooks in these facilities were Dalits.

Reference: https://www.thequint.com/coronavirus/caste-in-the-times-of-corona-cook-in-up-snubbed-by-quarantined

-- Jasksingh (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the source mention "Hindu"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph article only mentions that all the 10 people, involved in Siswa Baruwar incident, were OBCs but doesn't mentions "Hindu". The Quint article also doesn't mentions "Hindu" but mentions the name of those people in snapshot of letter as Satyaram, Ravishankar, Raju, Rajesh, Manmohan, Jayprasad, Dilipkumar, Rampratap, Shivpratap and Nitram. From the names, it is clear which religion they belong to. But, still if you want to use the fact the article doesn't mentions "Hindu" then I rest my case. But, in any case, just a general question? Will you consider Telegraph and Quint articles not naming religion of accused as censorship or responsible journalism? I would call it responsible journalism rather than censorship. Its just that right wing and Government controlled media of India fails to show such responsibility when it comes to Muslims and Sikhs. -- Jasksingh (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It is just that religion is at play in some events and not in others. We don't look at everything through religious goggles. That is the same for Wikipedia and the reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol!!. So you are trying to tell me that religion is not at play when it comes to discrimination with Dalits. We all know from which religion untouchability originated. Infact, this discrimination incident has got to do more with religion than a Sikh preacher catching coronavirus and spreading it to many others because of his personal careless attitude. -- Jasksingh (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

The number of Hazur Sahib pilgrims confirmed to be infected has reached 609 as of May 3. [2] Please keep an eye on the situation and update whenever necessary (ideally a large increase in cases), as it has become a large caseload. 117.199.88.109 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove the lines in the start claiming India has lowest level of testing in the world - 4th May, 2020

The following line must be edited:

    Experts suggest the number of infections could be much higher as India's testing rates are among the lowest in the world.

to:

    India has one of the highest numbers of test rates in the world and one of the lowest number of positive cases per test.

First of all, the reference article is very old. India has one of the highest rates of testing in the world as of 4th May 2020 (1,107,233 tests). India has by far the lowest number of positive cases per test among all countries with million+ tests which actually proves that India is more capable of testing than the developed world. India is presently testing 75000 test daily and that number is increasing. Sources:

'Rates' here refers to the number of tests done per capita. If you look at the per capita testing rates of the developed world, you will find that they are much higher than that of India. For example, The US had 22.01 tests done per 1000 people and the UK had 14.95 tests per 1000. Meanwhile for India, it's 0.86 per a thousand . Higher testing is important because in the case of any highly contagious disease, the potential maximum number of infected tends to be close to a 100% of the total population (though in practice, it almost never reaches close to a hundred). So if you can test and quarantine the infected from the general population, we can ensure that it never has a chance to infect most of the population. Fortunately, it looks like India is ramping up the number of tests, but it's nowhere near the percentage of population tested in Western European nations and some East Asian nations. 122.164.230.130 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. My point is that the reference article is very old. A few thousand thousand tests were done when it was written. My point is the line should be updated with a more recent article, like the ones you and I mentioned. Atleast care to write that India has low rates in terms of its massive population. Also the very low positivity percentage (<4%) must be mentioned. For every positive case in India, we have 25 negative cases. The expansion of tests in April done by the ICMR is nowhere mentioned in the starting of the article. As testing is such an important metric it deserves to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:188:A0A8:90A8:5F58:C555:D5E1 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• India's testing rate is very low as simple as that. Its around 900 per 1M. Dey subrata (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But the reference source is very old. Also positivity ratio is an important thing as well. The reason I am against rate according to the whole population because in a country as huge as India it is no need to test each and every citizen. Isolated rural regions are tested less while places with reported cases are tested more and contact tracing is done. For example, in my district Bilaspur their is no case for last 40 days however govt has not stopped testing they have just decreased it and allocated the resources to states which are more in need.

  'Rates' here refers to the number of tests done per capita.

Can this be somehow included with that line?

Any article on Wikipedia must show the most recent possible information. The source on the line must be updated to a more recent source to show how the government has reacted in the meanwhile. Also there is no mention of low testing rates according to population on the pages of Pakistan and Mexico. I request only one thing and please don't deny it - the word rate is vague as most people think it is number of people tested per day. I ask for it to be reflect it is according to the population as we can all agree India has a massive population. Also I request that India's low positivity ratio be mentioned. One positive case has been reported in India for every 25 people reported negative. I just want that more emphasis is put on any article's starting page as it is the lines which many people read and leave the page. Things like increase in testing, positivity ratio and containment zones are not mentioned in any of the starting lines even though they are so important in India's fight against coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:188:A0A8:90A8:5F58:C555:D5E1 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not contesting the testing rate. My main problem is against the reference article. It is from the time India had 900 cases! In a pandemic information is constantly changing. We now have 50000+ cases.. what if it is due to increased testing itself? I request that a more recent source be referenced.

I suggest the following changes to the original line:

  India has ramped up coronavirus testing since the start of the pandemic, however the country still falls behind in rate of tests according to it's population. The positivity ratio has declined while doubling rate of new cases has increased significantly.

Sorry my English is not good but I am expecting something on similar lines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin75871 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

From 6/5/2020, MoHFW will update cases only once a day

As mentioned by MoHFW on mohfw.gov.in under Latest updates section, now Daily cases will only be updated once in a day in the morning.

So whatever update we get on morning will be for a day before.

Now to maintain consistency in trends we have to decide —

• Suggestion 1 Consider data till today evening in 5 May and for 6 May it will be from 5 May evening to 7 May morning.

OR

• Suggestion 2 Consider data till tomorrow morning in 5 May and for 6 May it will be from 6 May morning to 7 May Morning.

Give your suggestions what should be done?

Pinging some active editors of this page and template editors in Stats section - @Shanze1: @Mr.Mani Raj Paul: @Kautilya3: @Susam Pal: @Ashinpt: @Timbaaa: @Amkgp: @SerChevalerie: - Mayankj429 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of what is being followed here till date, I work on state articles. Here's my suggestions using examples in this article:

1. If May 1 numbers are updated till May 2 morning update from MoHFW, we follow your Suggestion 2 here on.
2. If May 1 numbers are updated till May 1 evening update from MoHFW, we follow your Suggestion 1 here on.
3. Neither of the above, I say we follow your Suggestion 2 here on. - Timbaa -> ping me 13:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timbaaa: Sorry, I forgot mention we use data till evening for a day. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Go with your suggestion 1. - Timbaa -> ping me 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Can go with your first suggestion imo. Shanze1 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently i mailed to MoHFW regarding data, They reply me that we can also gather data from other sources. They suggested us to find data from others sources too.Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul: Using other sources will also cause inconsistencies in trends as you may know we have discussed earlier about using other sources like covid19india.org. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Consider Suggestion 1 and avoid other sources except MoHFW to maintain data consistence and as per discussion and consensus adopted earlier. Other sites like covid19india.org etc should be avoided as they are crowd-sourced and their sources themselves are in-consistent due quick spike of numbers and data validity issues that come up in news now and then. Amkgp (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, stick to MoHFW and go with Suggestion 1. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend suggestion 1 as well. It is the least confusing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 1 works for me as well. Let's keep the numbers only from MOHFW to be consistent. Ashinpt (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mayankj429, Thank you for adding me to this discussion. You have mentioned, "So whatever update we get on morning will be for a day before." Under this assumption, I recommend suggestion 1 too.

I would like to double-check this assumption though. Does this assumption really hold good? If MoHFW updates their website, say on, date X 08:00 AM, is it necessary that such an update will include cases from the previous day X_prev only? (Note: X_prev represents the date of the previous day, e.g., if X is 7 May then X_prev is 6 May.)

Are we sure that an MoHFW update on date X 08:00 AM will have no case numbers confirmed after date X_prev 11:59:59 PM? If there is a possibility that an MoHFW update on date X 08:00 AM may include cases confirmed at date X 00:00 midnight or later, then I think it would be incorrect to label those numbers as belonging to date X_prev.

I think there is evidence that suggests that MoHFW collects numbers round the clock. For example, see this update from MoHFW on 28 Mar 03:00 AM. The case numbers are 748, 66, 19, and 1. Now see this update from MoHFW on 28 Mar 09:30 AM. The case numbers are 775, 78, 19, and 1. This shows that MoHFW has updated case numbers between 03:00 AM and 09:30 AM, so a morning update does not necessarily contain case numbers belonging to the previous day only. A morning update may include case numbers from the current day.

Considering this, I would also suggest status quo as an alternative, i.e., we don't alter the dates at all. In other words, data until 5 May evening is counted for 5 May, data between 5 May evening and 6 May morning is counted for 6 May, data between 6 May morning and 7 May morning is counted for 7 May and so on.

-- Susam Pal (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion amounts to Suggestion 2. Daily data is generally unreliable unless the systems of communication is close to perfect. Any attempt at analysis should use moving averages. My preference for Suggestion 1 is merely to minimize an abnormally low figure in tables and charts. Abnormally high figures already occur for unknown reasons (like yesterday's deaths). So we take them in passing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I don't think my suggestion of status quo amounts to suggestion 2. Suggestion 2 mentions, "6 May it will be from 6 May morning to 7 May Morning." However, if we were to maintain status quo, the data from 6 May morning to 7 May morning is counted for 7 May (not 6 May suggested by suggestion 2). Having said that, I do see how status quo leads to abnormally small numbers. It first leads to an abnormally small number of new cases for 6 May because it corresponds to new cases recorded in a time interval of only about 15 hours (5-6 PM to 8-9 AM) as opposed to the usual interval of about 24 hours (8-9 AM to 8-9 AM) and then leads to abnormally small total confirmed case numbers for each day because we are reporting the numbers we have until 8 AM on each day as the numbers for that day. At the same time, it feels uneasy to take numbers that were possibly discovered on the current day and associate them with the date of the previous day. In the interest of consistency with the time at which the cases were possibly reported, I prefer status quo but if the active editors here prefer suggestion 1, I am okay with that too. -- Susam Pal (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I have a Suggestion 3, which is to switch to morning date for 5 May. Since the data for this day is too large anyway, it will looks less abnormal. Then we continue with morning data for 6 May onwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion above and thinking over it again, I too think Suggestion 3 ( by Kautilya3 ) will be good to go, since generally most of the cases in a day are added by morning update while evening update adds a few hundreds of cases later to it. So here if we go by Suggestion 1 than by today's morning update we have 2680 cases and nearly same will be there tomorrow as well so that will give a spike of 4000-5000 cases in a day.

Pinging same editors again as this suggestion needs to be considered and discussed. @Shanze1: @Mr.Mani Raj Paul: @Susam Pal: @Ashinpt: @Timbaaa: @Amkgp: @SerChevalerie: - Mayankj429 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, Suggestion 3 looks better. There is going to be a slight break in the data one way or another. We can either switch to the morning figure as of 5 May or as of today (6 May), and put a note wherever we have the break giving the reason for the break. When to switch to the morning figures can be discussed. Suggestion 1 would lead to a huge spike for the 6 May figure by tomorrow morning. -- Ashinpt (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer switching to the morning numbers starting with 6 May because that amounts to the status quo, i.e., recording case numbers available in the most recent update from MoHFW on each date. -- Susam Pal (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 3 by Kautilya3 is really interesting. It does help in making the data look less abnormal. I still prefer sticking with the status quo though. :) I am comfortable about some numbers being abnormally large or small on certain days due to deviations in update times or other factors beyond our control. I prefer recording the data on MoHFW website as they arrive without altering any dates and without eliminating the 5 PM update of 5 May. It is a fact that a large number of cases were reported on 5 May due to delayed reporting of cases in some states and I think an encyclopedia should capture that fact as is without trying to make the data look neat enough to analyze trends. A reader that wants to analyze trends has to account for deviations in update time anyway (for example, with moving averages like Kautilya3 mentioned earlier). I like the convention of recording the most recent update available for each date that we have been following until now. That said, I can understand if the active editors prefer suggestion 3 to make the data look less abnormal. In that case, my personal preference notwithstanding, suggestion 3 indeed makes sense. Ignoring the 5 PM update of 5 May is a small price to pay in order to make the data look good. I guess the decision would boil down to whether our priority should be to capture data as is or if our priority should be to present the data in a form that is conducive to analysis of trends. -- Susam Pal (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would go with Suggestion 3 as per User:Kautilya3. It would be better to avoid abnormality in data. We can also mention a small note stating reason of single day strike to avoid confusion. Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 3 with a note acceptable so that new and old editors and readers do not get confused. ~Amkgp (✉) 18:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic

India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19: India is facing one of the toughest Public Health Emergencies, COVID-19 pandemic. The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India issued India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic.

 Not done It is not clear want changes you want to make. Please specify in Change X to Y format, with relaible sources. - Mayankj429 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Exodus of Migrant Workers

The section is not updated since the intial entries. The amount of information and the big the issue became, the section nowhere near to give a clear picture of situation. Secondly, there should be separate article on the topic seeing the large amount of information and the large timeline of the topic and the coverage of the issue locally and internationally per WP:SPLITTING. So I have a request whoever is updating please try to do it. Dey subrata (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)