Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarioGom (talk | contribs) at 13:09, 21 April 2020 (→Highlighted open discussions: remove #RfC: Criteria for territory listing (archived, apparent agreement)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Highlighted open discussions

  1. #Removing "mainland" from China
  2. #Removal of country notes about testing capacity and criteria

Removing "mainland" from China

I hope we will not need a RfC on this. A couple of weeks ago we decided to list dependent territories separate from their countries. Thus, the template now features several examples of territories which are not counted in their countries' totals. For consistency with other countries, I am proposing to remove "mainland" besides China. There is no such thing as "China (mainland)" or "mainland China" in other templates or lists in which territories (e.g. Hong Kong and Macau) are listed separately, notably including List of countries and dependencies by population. As I said, it is a pure and simple matter of consistency, otherwise we would have "Unite States (mainland)", "France (mainland)", "United Kingdom (mainland)", "Netherlands (mainland) and so on. Let's be logical, please. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Note that reliable sources that publish world tables and split Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are divided on this: Reuters or South China Morning Post list it as "China" while others like The New York Times list is as "Mainland China". We have a note with clarifications and I don't think the (mainland) part is required. Anyway, this has been a contentious topic in the past, so let's wait for more input. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. I also agree we should remove the "mainland", also to be concise, consistent with other countries in the table, and also consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and most news outlets. --17jiangz1 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking WP:SMALLFONT into consideration... It's best if we remove it. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for removing mainland. I have also been saying this for awhile, we even went into a large debate and had a dispute resolution. There is no mainland China as a proper name for a state or region so I am not sure why the desperation to include it. There seems to be some political or partisan reason to do so, of which I am not really sure, but the proponents are there. Either way it no longer makes sense. Krazytea(talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think previously there was a note. I don't know why it was removed. Chbe113 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chbe113, I assume it's because Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are listed separately. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: I mean previously there was a note saying that "Excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and the disputed Taiwan", and I don't know why it was removed. Chbe113 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chbe113, and I'm saying it's probably because the SARs are included separately on the table. I personally think that the note should be reintroduced as people might conflate them with the Mainland, but it depends on what the current consensus is on the matter. So far there's nothing there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. I also think that the note should be added back for the reason you mentioned as well as to maintain consistency. I was involved in the initial decision on splitting territories and even though this wasn't discussed implicitly I think we all abided by the rule of adding a note whenever a territory was split, so I suppose this should also work for China. Chbe113 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support to remove. I support removing "mainland" only if a note is introduced to clarify the exclusion of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. The note is to maintain consistency and political neutrality. Chbe113 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on adding the note. That's in line with every other country in the table with analogous situations. --MarioGom (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The qualifier "(mainland)" from China's cell has been replaced with two footnotes regarding Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine, wrong figures

The current number of cases in Palestine according to the reference used is 313 cases only, not 418.--138.75.191.224 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dellux mkd: I have just noticed your edit summary ([1]). I would say that cases in "occupied Jerusalem" are already in the Israel count? --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm i am not sure about that, i will try to explore whether Palestinians in occupied territories are counted in Israel. But, it's ok, I accept the revision. Cheers! Dellux mkd (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dellux mkd, ok. I have looked for a while and found some info on Haaretz (e.g. [2]) but nothing conclusive at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom I checked JHU CSSE, Worldometer before that edit and everywhere Palestine counts 418 cases (at JHU CSSE Palestine is named as West Bank and Gaza but the number is 418 again.) I also asked Google, everywhere Palestine number is 418. And if you ask Google about 303 cases, the result is 0 sources claiming 303 cases. Dellux mkd (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dellux mkd, fair enough. --MarioGom (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that we should not be including the "occupied Jerusalem" under Palestine, otherwise we are double counting. Just the west bank and Gaza figures should be in this figure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is about the West Bank, a territory occupied and ruled by Israel. In this territory there are Area A and B(claimed and controlled by Palestine and Area C(occupied and controlled by Israel). I think that Palestine counts the cases in these Areas A and B which are in control and counted by Palestine. Area C cases are counted by Israel. About Gaza Stripthere is no doubt, this territory is ruled by Palestine and Israel has nothing to do with the cases there. This is my opinion. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I just want to note that at the source for Covid-19 cases in Palestine the numbers have notes which say: The numbers about occupied territories in Jerusalem, may be inaccurate as they come from local sources in the city, not that they do not fall within the total. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dellux mkd, I won't object to this change anymore. After looking at a few sources, I declare myself completely incompetent and clueless for this topic at the moment ;-) MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US deaths source??

Why exactly are we using a website made by some unofficial people (https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en) to keep track of the number of deaths in the US, instead of the CDC data??? --Spaastm (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because "CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons. COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there may be differences in how states and territories confirm numbers in their jurisdictions." and that "Total cases includes 1,282 probable cases and total deaths includes 4,226 probable deaths." -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1point3acres gets their reports from local authorities. They follow the same "cases" and "deaths" definition as the CDC, and their numbers match, other than minor errors that are usually quickly corrected. CDC figures come from the same local authorities, but the consolidated report is published later. I'm not really fond of aggregate sources like 1point3acres, JHU CSSE or Worldometer, but 1point3acres is probably the best for the US. --MarioGom (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Virgin Islands

Today, and not for the first time, the data from doh.vi.gov (used by the U.S. Virgin Islands entry) varies slightly from the U.S. Virgin Islands data from coronavirus.1point3acres.com, which is used for a USVI figured subtracted from the overall aggregates in the US entry. As I write this, doh.vi.gov says 48 recoveries, but coronavirus.1point3acres.com says 46. It's reasonable to expect a time lag of a few hours while 1point3acres gathers the data, but for now we have conflicting entries for the two USVI figures. Capewearer (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we subtract the numbers that coronavirus.1point3acres.com uses then that is the Calculation for US. But for the USVI entry, the value does not have to match that subtracted, especially if we use a different source. Not they are both now 53, so they have converged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually recoveries are still separated at 48 and 46. But I take your point about needing to use one reference per entry, and we have no way to verify which is the accurate count. Capewearer (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The USVI website is likely the most up-to-date, with other sites copying their figure with varying delay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Capewearer: It does not matter that figures for USVI at 1point3acres are outdated. They are factored out and no user will see them. The important thing for the US entry is that we subtract whatever number of cases from USVI that was included by 1point3acres in their US total, even if outdated or wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and/& Herzegovina

I see that the Google map is giving no data for Bosnia and Herzegovina cf 1000 plus cases on the Wikipedia page. I know you say elsewhere on this template talk that how Google is getting the data across is their business, but I think this is likely to be a mismatch between names ie Wikipedia uses an ampersand in the country's name, while Google uses 'and'. As the official name appears to have 'and' could I suggest changing it in the Wikipedia table, which could solve Google's problem as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.113.133 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting. I have contacted MPinchuk (WMF) to see if Google can be notified about this issue. --MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I believe this issue is fixed now, but let me know if you're still seeing any discrepancies. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by recoveries

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory
 – MarioGom (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This table does not order well by the column recovery, it is possible that this column is of the alphanumeric type when it should be of the numerical type. FranchoGonzalez (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FranchoGonzalez,  Fixed. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of country notes about testing capacity and criteria

Most countries that are not in an early stage have test shortage. We have notes for a few of them, but we could add many more. Also the fact that testing criteria is different for every country makes some notes irrelevant. We have the following general note:

  • This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases is likely to be higher than reported.
  • [...]
  • Reporting criteria and testing capacity varies between countries.

I propose removing all other notes about testing capacity and testing criteria, and keep only those related to reporting criteria. The notes to be removed would be:

  • United States: There are no standard requirements to receive a COVID-19 test across the entire United States. The official Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that "decisions about testing are at the discretion of state and local health departments and/or individual clinicians." People often have to show symptoms consistent with COVID-19 to be tested, although some locations will test asymptomatic people under certain circumstances.
  • Spain: Testing has been restricted to at-risk people showing symptoms. The Ministry of Health estimates that there are at least 15 times as many cases as are confirmed.
  • Italy: Only at-risk people showing symptoms have been tested from 27 February 2020 and onwards
  • France: Testing has been restricted to at-risk people showing severe symptoms.
  • Iran: Due to a shortage of resources, testing is restricted to only severe cases
  • Belgium: It is estimated that the actual number of cases is much higher than the number of confirmed cases, with testing being limited to specific people and/or to people with severe symptoms.
  • Netherlands: The Dutch Government agency RIVM reports that the actual number of infections since 20 March 2020 is higher than those reported because not everyone with potential infection is tested.
  • Switzerland: Since 6 March 2020, the Swiss government has an official policy of not testing people with only mild symptoms and the number of people actually infected is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases.
  • Sweden: Testing of suspected infections has been cut back in the whole country in the period around 12 March 2020, to focus efforts on people with increased risk of serious illness and complications.
  • Japan: A huge number of patients have been rejected for testing due to various reasons, such as their mild symptoms and insufficient medical facilities, and the number of people actually infected is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases.
  • Denmark: The Danish authorities estimate that the true number of cases is significantly higher, as testing from 12 March to 1 April 2020 primarily focused on people with more serious symptoms, vulnerable people and health professionals. Before and after this period testing was done more broadly.
  • Norway: From 13 March 2020, testing of the normal population was discontinued and is now only reserved for health professionals and acutely ill people in vulnerable groups. and The Norwegian Institute of Public Health states that there are more infected people in Norway than the figures show. The dark figures are presumed to be higher because of limited testing.
  • Finland: From 1 March 2020, testing has primarily focused on patients with severe symptoms of respiratory tract infection, as well as healthcare and social welfare personnel. Testing is also recommended for people in vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those with an underlying condition. Where testing capacity allows, specimens may also be taken from patients with mild symptoms, close contacts with a confirmed case, returning travellers, and other patient groups.

What do you think? --MarioGom (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, there are far too many testing notes, and the one general one will do. The country articles can expand on the testing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could also add a link to COVID-19 testing in the general note. That article has deeper explanations, a table of number of tests, etc. MarioGom (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

119.18.2.194 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2020/apr/20/coronavirus-australia-numbers-how-many-new-cases-today-deaths-death-toll-covid-19-stats-graph-map-by-postcode Australia's covid 19 on a map hope this helps you update AU map[reply]

Referred elsewhere. Thanks for the maps, but this is probably more suited for the folks who are managing 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia. I've posted your source over on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

In Spain dead "change 21852 to 20852" 2A01:CB04:52D:1600:7963:6D92:C736:2F6E (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per RTVE, El País and ISCIII. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Statistics for Japan is off by a lot. According to this source (which had been in the reference list but recently deleted by someone), https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/special/coronavirus/

  1. Cases = 10,807
  2. Deaths = 238
  3. Recovered = 1,069

The numbers need to be updated and the reference has to be added back. 209.6.133.224 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the daily official reports as the source ([3]) but we may be missing something when using machine translation, or maybe there is a difference in criteria by different sources. We really need a Japanese speaker who can explain the figures in the Ministry of Health report ([[4]]) and NHK ([5]). --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom, in order of the first 3 tables in the Ministry of Health report:
  1. The left column tabulates the number of people that tested positive via PCR testing while the right shows the number tested. The rows divide the testees by location (e.g., within the country, chartered flights, ports).
  2. This table takes the value of the number of people who tested positive via PCR (10,751) and splits them into 3 groups: symptomatic, asymptomatic, and "currently investigating".
  3. The table tabulates the current hospitalisation situation: the column with the subgroups are the people requiring hospital treatment (subgroups include severity of symptoms and testing for disease), next to the number of people being discharged, and the number of deceased at the end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom, I might as well ask: is the reason we're using the daily reports because it's a governmental source compared to NHK being a major broadcasting company? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu, as far as I know, it was the most cited source in other sites. We use press sources too when they provide more up-to-date reports and they are reliable. However, if the figures diverge so much, we should consider why. Perhaps both sources are counting different things. I assume we are using "discharged" from the official reports. What's the NHK figure for recoveries? Where do they get it from? For other countries, some sources give speculative projections of recoveries, or "released from quarantine" misreported as "recoveries", when people in quarantine included people who were not confirmed cases in the first place, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom, Looking over at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Japan I see that they're using the NHK source instead. I'll go see what's up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu, thank you for taking care of this. MarioGom (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source for Brazil

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Primary source for Brazil
 – MarioGom (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find the primary source for recoveries in Brazil? The number posted here would require a recovery speed five times higher than any other country. I can find secondary sources but not the original which may show that recoveries actually means non-hospitalized like the numbers for Peru do. Of course I looked at Portuguese wikipedia but they don't report any recoveries for Brazil there. Thanks, Of 19 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of 19, current figures come from JHU ([6]). I'm also quite suspicious about it. As far as I know, there is no official source for recoveries, except for some daily updates from Globo G1 (taken from press conferences I think). --MarioGom (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blanking Brazil's figure for recoveries until someone can show a source that reports them and where we can verify they are actually recoveries and not a different figure. --MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: I've found what's probably the original source: [7]. The recovery rate seems suspect, but it's the official figure so I guess we should just run with it. --17jiangz1 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17jiangz1, ok, I guess it's good enough. The recovery rate can probably be explained because of the reporting criteria: São considerados recuperados, os pacientes confirmados que receberam alta hospitalar ou aqueles que, sem terem precisado de internação, não apresentam mais sintomas., which would be roughly translated as [Patients] considered as recovered are confirmed patients that are discharged from hospital or those who, without being previously hospitalized, do not present symptoms. This is considerably different from countries where recoveries are reported only after two negative tests. --MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Applying RfC result regarding French regions

I've seen the RfC has been archived with a clear lead of proposal A: [8]. As such I'm proceeding to the result in merging France as a single country. Considering that France's figures already included counts for regions to be merged, that basically only means removing their singled-out entries. Metropolitan (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan, makes sense, since nobody has objected so far to consider proposal A as the conclusion. #Current consensus should be amended accordingly (e.g. striking the first item and adding a new one). MarioGom (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data&oldid=952281574"