Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Semi-log charts
Yes, I understand the maths behind them, but they're massively misleading - rates of death / infection that are many times lower look much larger and small fluctuations lower down the y axis are grossly inflated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would favour using a regular linear axis. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. The topic of the charts is a phenomenon that varies by several orders of magnitude and its nature in uncontrolled, unsaturated growth phases is exponential. Semi-log graphs are much more informative than linear graphs: the impressive approach towards containment in the non-Hubei China and the more gradual approach towards containment in Hubei are clear in the graphs. The exponential growth in the ROW - taking over from Hubei - is also clear: and it's now clear that it's not from the Diamond Princess alone, the DP has been taken over mainly by SKorea + Italy + Iran, and if Iran continues rapidly expanding its numbers of tests of suspected cases and if the IRGC hospitals give out accurate data, SKorea + Italy will very likely be taken over by Iran.
- If someone has not understood the semi-log plot link and/or does not know that s/he should look at the numbers on the axis before trying to interpret the graph, then yes, there's a problem interpreting the graph. Not everyone will understand every article in this encyclopedia, even though we do our best to aid those willing to read and think.
Rates of death / infection that are many times lower look much larger
- this seems to mean that the graph is semi-log, not linear; this is not a question of being misleading - the caption says "semi-log" and the axis has numbers that increase by multiples of 10.Small fluctuations lower down the y axis are grossly inflated
- the fluctuations are not at all inflated; maybe what you mean is that they appear to be more statistically significant than they really are. It's true that Poisson errors scale as sqrt(N), so the relative error is sqrt(N)/N = 1/sqrt(N), which is bigger for smaller N. But the fluctuations at the small scales are proportionally big - that's the reality. - These semi-log graphs are extremely informative and not at all misleading. Boud (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Its not a standard graph in medicine, you freely admit that. Please also if you have time reply to my specific question below in regard to how I found them misleading. Its fine, you can fix it, or anyone can fix it, I think just separate china for now because it draws undue comparison. --Almaty (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Proposal: restore the two semi-log graphs that were removed without consensus below. YamaPlos talk 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, I Support keeping them, I find those most informative. YamaPlos talk 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020
 | This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Romania now has 4 COVID-19 CASES, meaning 1 new one. https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/al-patrulea-caz-de-coronavirus-confirmat-in-romania-1269577 Lucastefan123 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Done Okay Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we add case fatality rates by age group?
The Chinese cdc has published a study , widely circulated in the news in India, that shows case fatality rates for the first 44k+ cases by age group. Can we please include this in the DEATHS section. Worldometers has also published. Link: http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 . Citation: The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team. The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) — China, 2020[J]. China CDC Weekly, 2020, 2(8): 113-122. Gegu0284 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also , the same study shows CFR by co-morbidities Gegu0284 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Any CFR info needs to be reported with a high degree of caution. The sources always stress that the info is preliminary and a lot isn't known. If we report CFR in the article, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the China CDC Weekly publication is a big step up in terms of the reliability of sources. This is a good study and we can use it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is nice diagram here. Note the higher fatality rate of 3.4% in the 2nd table by the Business Insider per more reliable sources. What does look suspicious in Chinese statistics is the significantly lower mortality rate outside Hubei. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- We have some details here Coronavirus_disease_2019#Prognosis based on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lower case fatality rate outside Hubei is to be expected, honestly. Hubei has the most cases by far so its health care system is the most strained by the virus; elsewhere, there's much fewer patients. Additionally, Hubei was the first place with the virus, so people weren't always quite sure how to deal with it. More aggressive treatment plus more per-capita resources = better results. On top of all that, there's the possibility that many cases in Hubei went undiagnosed initially, which would result in a higher percentage of severe cases being noted and thus a "higher" case fatality rate. Or it could be like SARS, where the virus's severity dropped with additional transmissions. Or any number of things. It's not "suspicious", there's a lot of reasons why it might be the case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- What "treatment"? The only logical reason could be if they already started giving people favipiravir (or may be Remdesivir) - some news reports mentioned "antivirals" given to people in China without specifying what they actually were. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is nice diagram here. Note the higher fatality rate of 3.4% in the 2nd table by the Business Insider per more reliable sources. What does look suspicious in Chinese statistics is the significantly lower mortality rate outside Hubei. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the China CDC Weekly publication is a big step up in terms of the reliability of sources. This is a good study and we can use it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The worldometers.info data is referring to the same study as the China CDC data. So we are already considering it a reliable source. The CFR by age is important data. Here's a chart we can use.
Gegu0284 (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- support including a graph of this type, but not to interpret it. --Almaty (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. It is a lot more important than other graphs currently on the page. Please include. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- support including a graph of this type, but not to interpret it. --Almaty (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- fully agree . The graph displays only the data, no interpretation, and supports the summary text in the deaths section, while giving more granularity on specific age groups Gegu0284 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, added. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi My very best wishes, can you please add the two semi-log charts you removed while adding the new graph? The last discussion on the semi-log charts ended with keeping them. So there is an agreement to add the new chart. But no aggreement to remove semi-log charts. Thank you very much :-) Malanoqa (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I re-added this one chart discussed in this section because there is clear consensus (no one including me objected above). As about two other charts, I do not see consensus anywhere and think they should not be included as excessive. Therefore, I will not do it. If someone else wants, this is their business. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi My very best wishes, can you please add the two semi-log charts you removed while adding the new graph? The last discussion on the semi-log charts ended with keeping them. So there is an agreement to add the new chart. But no aggreement to remove semi-log charts. Thank you very much :-) Malanoqa (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, added. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- fully agree . The graph displays only the data, no interpretation, and supports the summary text in the deaths section, while giving more granularity on specific age groups Gegu0284 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a valuable graph but risks misinterpretation. When I looked at it I immediately felt that it was against 100% on the y-axis. I instantly corrected for this mentally but others without a mathematical background may not, and for anyone in the older age groups making the same mistake, it might terrify them. I'm not suggesting changing it yet, only asking if others here agree. If so, perhaps put it against 100% scale. If not, no worries and forget it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.229.216 (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I feel like it should be on a 100% y-axis scale. If you only look at it for a second and don't know to correct for it, it could seem horrifying. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Is there any polite way of drawing others' attention to this question, to get more input then (if so decided) ask for it to be changed? I am not familiar with the conventions and general plumbing of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.98.142 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I find this chart useful, informative and meaningful, but would much appreciate it were an SVG instead of a PNG. That way we could edit that all-caps AGE to something less loud. Also SVG would allow for easier update, as it's bound, by its very nature, to need updating. Small thing, I know, but still... YamaPlos talk 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
What's up with the '2020 coronavirus cases in China' graph?
Today's is <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg>
Yesterday's is <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/e/e5/20200301122525!2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg>
Today's seems to have been accumulated in reverse of yesterday's (recoveries atop deaths today, deaths above recoveries yesterday), immediately confounding visual comparison. There seems no good reason for it. The underlying stats are questionable, now the graph is re-ordered suddenly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.216.123 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Moving the discussion to Commons. Please see the note at the top of the thread. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.216.123 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- A new version of this graph has been issued, it still has the same inversion I described above and may have the other issues raised by another questioner (see above). Checking the link above (c:File talk:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg) still does not have any clarification from the author. I'm a bit puzzled. It would be good to get an explanation. 79.75.98.142 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC on splitting February timeline into multiple articles
See Talk:Timeline_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_in_February_2020#Splitting_proposal. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: restore the two semi-log graphs that were removed without consensus
Proposal: restore these two semi-log graphs that were removed without consensus. Several of the arguments for and against inclusion, more or less as discussed above, include:
- for: the phenomenon covers several orders of magnitude so a semi-log graph is less misleading than a linear graph;
- a linear graph is almost impossible to read during early and late phases;
- medical sources show both linear and semi-log graphs;
- WP:MEDRS is about the information, it doesn't force us to present information in a way that hides the properties of the information;
- the semi-log cumulative graph alone hides much of the useful information - the daily increases in values;
- against: a semi-log graph shows the relatively larger noise for small numbers literally, without warning the reader about Poisson statistics;
- medical sources usually show linear graphs;
Please add Support or Oppose and reasons under Wikipedia policy and common sense (Wikipedia policy is not written in stone). Boud (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. (proposer) The for arguments listed in the proposal outweigh the against arguments. Boud (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Semi-log graphs make it easy for specialists to see whether grow or descent is exponential and cover many orders of magnitude. We may add linear graphs next to the semi-log graphs to make them easier to be understand. Malanoqa (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support - As I stated above,
Images (photographs, maps, graphs, etc) are best thought of as being illustrations of (or visual support for) what the reliable sources say... not as being sources themselves.
Additionally, MOS:MED#Graphs allows graphs from reliably sourced data to be included, as a visual aid for the article. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC) - Support. I perceive the semi-logarithmic "Coronavirus daily cases by region" graph as the most useful source currently available, in order to get a quick overview of Hubei quarantine effectiveness and ROW cases trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:468A:900:687D:9FAB:F14E:C1CA (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like "snow consenus" to me. So included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support to understand the trend. This is, for me, the single most helpful piece of information about the outbreak. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support with a vote of thanks to user:Galerita and a wish that we could help better. YamaPlos talk 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support NOTE from author of plots: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are are nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease. In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note the graphs appear to be restored. Though I won't close this discussion as I support the inclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have a strong opinion, I just wanted them to be questioned, again. I have asked my specific question directly to User:Galerita here, User:Boud who appears to be the original author of the graph as well. I think semi log is more informative but I question why we compare china to ROW on the same graph, given the control measures are so different --Almaty (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify - I made some suggestions for the graphs and posted an example script (fairly early on) and have updated some of the tables, but it's unlikely that I get any authorship credit for the graphs updated by Galerita. Someone can search for that in the edit record later if s/he really wishes to. Boud (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment To be a little more clear, I think by looking that the current semi logs, the general reader may infer that given China has somewhat controlled spread and the daily case rate is dropping, the rest of the world will follow. I and many others probably/do suspect the opposite. So that's why I don't think the graph its encyclopaedic, yet. --Almaty (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how the general reader would infer that the rest of the world (ROW) will follow (get the epidemic under control) just from looking at the semi-log graphs; and I don't see how a reader make that inference from the semi-log graphs would not also make it from linear graphs. Boud (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Its because the line goes down, esp as you can see in China ex Hubei. I think that's quite inferable from the reader. Hence why I recommend having the Chinese data separated. I really don't care if its semi log or not, but as you stated, medical sources generally use linear graphs. @Bondegezou: what do you think?
- Support The semilog plots should be present. If someone likes or prefers linear scale, then let them both be presented. For epidemiology and similar systems, the semilog plot is essential. It allows to evaluate trends. The graphs themselves are more important than rest of the text, at least until the outbreak is ongoing. This is single most important piece of information. Actually more graphs describing development of the outbreak in individual countries shall be (also) in semilog plot. Check usefulness of linear graphs for Italy or South Korea. I do not understand the point of discussion where only single person is against. As for China being compared with others, I believe that (unfortunately) soon more countries will be added to the graph, so one can check the outbreak development. Smutny (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- comment it seems that Galerita and I agree that experts may interpret the graphs to mean that world cases will rise as compared to china, based on the effective reproduction number. I do suggest though that the general reader may infer the opposite, because the china line goes down? which was what I was concerned about in the first place. I know tis just data and we're not meant to infer, but I think the graphs naturally lead to inferences, on a general encyclopaedia article. Expert on policies please comment, surely there's one that refers to this situation in part or in whole. --Almaty (talk)
Propose standardising "spread" and "mode of spread" vs "transmission mode"
Recognising that these words are used interchangeably by the CDC in particular I propose that we can do better.
My proposal is
1. That when we say "spread" we are referring to geographical spread.
2. That when we refer to the "way that it spreads" (aka transmission mode, aka mode of spread, aka the way that it passes from one person to others) that we call it "transmission", or explain what we mean briefly. The mode of transmission is referred to much less often in the article, so I think that keeps it clear and simple with minimal words. Please reply support or oppose. --Almaty (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Doc James pinged because this has so far been a discussion between yourself and me AFAIK --Almaty (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion "The virus primarily spreads via respiratory droplets produced during coughing or sneezing." is fine.
- We could say "The virus primarily spreads between people via respiratory droplets produced during coughing or sneezing." if you do not think that is clear enough Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes "spreads between people" is good. If you see what I mean, the main reason is along the lines of "The virus is spreading globally. It spreads via respiratory droplets." - put two sentences together along those lines, without delineation of the word, is a bit anxiety provoking even personally. --20:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- In that sentence I would rather write: "The virus is spreading globally. It is transmitted via respiratory droplets."Tvx1 22:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes "spreads between people" is good. If you see what I mean, the main reason is along the lines of "The virus is spreading globally. It spreads via respiratory droplets." - put two sentences together along those lines, without delineation of the word, is a bit anxiety provoking even personally. --20:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Map of Coronavirus outbreak - wrong colours for French Caribbean territories
Please change the color for the French Caribbean territories to 1-9 or 10-99. The are not over 100 cases in each Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy. It is wrong just to use the same colour as Mainland France. Thanks a lot! --2A02:8108:41C0:4888:A9C2:5A8B:DBC:7F58 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- We cannot because they are part of Metropolitan France, at least politically. This is similar to how Alaska is coloured the same way as the lower 48 states, despite there not being 108 some cases there. Mgasparin (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course you can :) French Guiana has also a different colour than Mainland France for example – the same for New Caledonia and French Polynesia. 2A02:8108:41C0:4888:DCEC:5124:D2E0:E612 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Deciding the opening paragraph of the WHO section
- "The WHO have received criticism for their delayed declaration of the outbreak as a global emergency, leading to scrutiny of the relationship between the agency and Chinese authorities amid allegations of a cover-up. A United Nations diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the "World Health Organization is so much in thrall to China's influence, they have felt compelled to stay close to China's line on this crisis...to downplay this virus...until its position became untenable" "
I've changed to the passage of:
- "The WHO's handling of the epidemic has come under criticism amidst what has been described as the agency's "diplomatic balancing act" between "China and China's critics." This has included scrutiny of the relationship between the agency and Chinese authorities"
The allegations of a "cover-up" are not about the WHO. It's factually wrong. An opinion by an anonymous official from a single RS (the UN diplomat isn't cited in any other RS, literally only the NP article) isn't exactly appropriate in terms of WP:DUE to carry the weight of the charge, even with WP:ALLEGED, and especially not wedged awkwardly at the front of the section paragraph before people like CDC and WHO emergency committee officials have had their say. While the criticism of the WHO's PHEIC timing could stand, it doesn't match the rest of the section which is about the agency's supposed praise and defense of the Chinese response.
The passage does merit and works as the section opener because it sums up the WHO's position in relation to the criticism that follows including both the scrutiny and defence by other experts, and is backed by RS that describe its role as being in a diplomatic act like the Guardian and the Jakarta Post articles. Sleath56 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The main criticism of the WHO is delayed reporting and cover-up (used by various sources), while "diplomatic balancing act" isn't a criticism but rather a defense of the WHO's conduct. The UN diplomat's quote near the opening is similar to how official quotes have been used in the rest of the article. Thus "diplomatic balancing act" between "China and China's critics." goes appropriately in paragraph 3, rather than mentioning the similar content (paraphrased) in paragraph 1 and 3. FobTown (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- "delayed reporting and cover-up"
- Do you have a source? It seems like you're confusing criticism of the CCP cover up with the WHO.
- "The UN diplomat's quote near the opening is similar to how official quotes have been used in the rest of the article."
- The UN diplomat has only been covered in the National Post article. This makes it inappropriate and I literally googled the passage with only the NP article as a result apart from non-RS aggregator sites. They are an anonymous source as furthermore the UN is bigger than the WHO unless the article clarified he was an anonymous WHO official, it's not relevant in the section nor especially to be the second sentence before actual attributed individuals who have public health backgrounds. If accredited sources, like the WHO and CDC officials say the same, they should be used instead of an anonymous UN official.
- "while "diplomatic balancing act" isn't a criticism but rather a defense of the WHO's conduct."
- It's a summary of the context that the WHO is being criticised under, as characterised by various RS on the WHO being pushed into a 'political corner'. It is neither a charge against them nor a defense of them, but a description of the situation by reliable sources.
- CNN - "Trapped in the middle ... this means the WHO cannot afford, politically or financially, to antagonize countries like the US or China that wield outsized influence over other nations."
- The Guardian - "The World Health Organization is having to perform a diplomatic balancing act over the new coronavirus outbreak, caught between China – whose draconian measures to contain the disease have delayed transmission to the rest of the world –and China’s critics, who say its behaviour is typical of its disregard for human rights."
- Vox"Others said Tedros had little choice. “WHO has a difficult balancing act,” said Sridhar. “They have to somehow retain being the lead coordinator and director of international health work and the trade-offs they are having to make are about the greater good."
- Jakarta Post"The struggle against COVID-19 has gone hand in hand with a battle against the WHO and its executives."
- SCMP - "Mistrust between Beijing and Washington has tainted US offers of help to contain a deadly coronavirus outbreak, forcing the World Health Organisation (WHO) into a political corner, analysts say" Sleath56 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
And that summary of the context and the RS above belong in paragraph three, where it argues how the WHO being pushed into a 'political corner'. The below is what belongs in the opening paragraph which is the WHO being criticized for its handling of the crisis, rather than their "balancing act". While we are not mentioning the petition, the petition's reasons cite that Tedros improperly handled the outbreak and failed to independently verify China's provided data. I used "allegations of a cover-up" as per some international sources, and also as it has a similar connotation to "less than transparent".
- www.sciencemag.org - even though it is clear the country has been less than fully transparent about the outbreak’s early stages, and perhaps still is.
- National Post Just as everybody knows the Chinese government lies through its teeth as a matter of public policy, everybody knows World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been less than candid about the coronavirus crisis from the beginning. He’s had to mimic Beijing’s propaganda, just to ensure Beijing’s co-operation in mounting an effective global response to the outbreak, which has spread so far to at least 24 countries. An online petition calling for his resignation had garnered more than 369,000 signatures by Tuesday night, mostly to protest his delay in declaring the outbreak a global emergency until Jan. 23, well over a month after people started dying in Wuhan.
- The Standard HK More than 200,000 people have signed an online petition to the United Nations for the World Health Organization (WHO) chief to resign over what the petition calls his improper handling of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. "On January 23rd, 2020. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declines to declare China virus outbreak as a global health emergency. As we all know, the Coronavirus is not treatable at the moment. The number of infected and deaths has risen more than ten times (infected from 800 - close to 10,000) within only 5 days. Part of it is related to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus under estimated the coronavirus." "A lot of us are really disappointed, we believe WHO is supposed to be political neutral. Without any investigation, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus solely believes on the death and infected numbers that the Chinese government provided with them. FobTown (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The SciMag article explicitly states the cover up is about the CCP not the WHO, I don't know where you're getting the idea that the WHO covered something up, or even by your alternative wording that WHO has been criticised for transparency. The petition, not that it is as you agree due, to address it anyways, it directly states that the criticism is based on the idea that the "WHO is supposed to be political neutral" It's clear the WHO's handling of the situation is based on the criticism of the diplomacy with the CCP, and the second sentence of "relationship between the agency and Chinese authorities" even refers to this? What exactly is your argument on why the sentence should be shuffled around? The section, and the various reliable sources I've cited, all directly characterise this as the WHO being stuck in a "political corner." Why precisely wouldn't that be valid when so many RS state it, when the majority of the section is criticism towards the WHO related towards it? Sleath56 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC concerning COVID-19 navbox
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace to participate. Bait30 Talk? 00:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
James Bond Films, Concert & Trade Fairs Postponed or Cancelled
https://www.abendblatt.de/themen/coronavirus/?page=1#fwid1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
new cases
Detected cases in Argentina and Chile
One case of a man in Argentina and one case of another man in Chile. Update information, please! --PetrixImmanol (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- these mortality rates are a complete farce. When last month they reported 2%, it was the actual dead vs the actual total cases, even though 70% of cases were unresolved. As they resolved , the rate has naturally increases. Today they are reporting 3.4% which again assumes that EVERY unrecovered case recovers. If you take the resolved cases of 54K (recovered + deceased) the number is about 6% , which means the death rate is bound to increase. What we are seeing is a natural mortality about equal to SARS but with better health care systems (especially in China) . In Iran for example, almost a quarter of cases have died. Gegu0284 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Belarus confirmed cases data.
Not sure how to edit the table in the article, so someone, please, update it. It's 4 confirmed cases now in Belarus, not 1: http://minzdrav.gov.by/ru/sobytiya/o-rezultatakh-testirovaniya-patsientov-na-koronavirus/ It's a government source. "Google translate" would do the job, I suppose. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
New case in Liechtenstein
They came from Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:69D9:B800:A97D:A964:81AE:7D1F (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James, Dekimasu, and Mikael Häggström: Changing the language to Case Fatality Rate or mortality Rate is original research . The WHO mortality rate is itself farcicle. When 2.3% of all cases had died they claimed a mortality rate of 2.3% though 70% of cases were unresolved. Today when 54k cases are resolved (of which 6% have died) they are saying 3.4%. This number would be the correct mortality rate if EVERY active case recovered. They have used the language that "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died", specifically to avoid this issue. We cannot turn this into a mortality rate, CFR or other interpretation. 3.4% of all cases has died, but 50% of all cases are still active Gegu0284 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The order of columns in the graph Cases in China
The order of partial columns should be from the bottom: Deaths, Recoveries, Under Treatment. The reason is that Death and Recoveries reflect the situation certain time back and can be compared to the sum of diagnosed people some time back. The subcolumn Under Treatment represent mainly younger cases and should be on the top. Smutny (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. The current arrangement lets you see at a glance the course of the epidemic in China: the number of active cases peaked in mid-February and has been declining steadily since (according to the Chinese government). Putting the yellow on top would require a bit of effort to get that, by estimating the changing height of that segment of cases while both its top and bottom are drastically changing.
- —WWoods (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are other problems with that graph (see [[1]]) which include my complaint about these columns being arbitrarily reordered, and another's plaint about it possibly not representing the underlying stats. The creator of that graph has not responded to the questions on this despite producing a new graph apparently with the same possible faults.
- I tentatively propose this graph be discarded as unreliable. Feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.218.161 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Edit: further discussion [[2]]. I am strongly coming to believe this graph should be removed.
Main chart bug
With "Last 10 days" and "February" options it displays all days of February and March but with "Last 10 days" and "March" options it displays only 7 days from February. Not to mention this whole idea of hiding parts is lame in my opinion. I am a programmer but it seems not so easy to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus death rate at 3.4%
In the lead paragraph it states "WHO updated the mortality rate to 3.4%, giving it a higher fatality rate than seasonal flu, which has a mortality rate of 2%." The linked article does not say that seasonal flu has a mortality rate of "2%", it says "In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected, he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.149.140 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the following sentence from the lead pending discussion:
- WHO estimates the mortality rate at 3.4% as of 3 March 2020, giving it a higher fatality rate than seasonal influenza, which has a mortality rate of 1%. (citation)
- As noted, the seasonal influenza death rate is not 1%, it's 0.1% (at least in the United States). Further, from what I've read, the numbers are heavily skewed by early deaths in Wuhan. NPR recently published a good summary of death statistics showing a dramatic decline in deaths. We should present the death rate in a more nuanced manner.
- @Doc James, Dekimasu, and Mikael Häggström: any thoughts on a clearer way to phrase? Or just correct the influenza number and restore it as is? Just seems needlessly scary and incorrect though to leave out the big caveat about the post-Wuhan statistics. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- The exact quote is "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected."
- https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020
- I would simple summarize it as "WHO estimates the mortality rate at 3.4% as of 3 March 2020, giving it a higher fatality rate than seasonal influenza."
- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- First, the 2% flu figure is clearly incorrect. As has been pointed out previously, though, a mortality rate is a measure across the whole population. What we are going for is something about the case fatality rate, which using clearer language here would result in something like "WHO estimates the percentage of patients who
diehave died from COVID-19 at...." or the like. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- First, the 2% flu figure is clearly incorrect. As has been pointed out previously, though, a mortality rate is a measure across the whole population. What we are going for is something about the case fatality rate, which using clearer language here would result in something like "WHO estimates the percentage of patients who
- Do we not need to qualify the number as including Wuhan deaths that skew the numbers? I guess if the WHO didn't feel the need to do that, it's fine. However, all of the subsequent cohort studies show substantially lower rates. Diamond Princess having an 0.8% mortality rate of those infected. This WHO statement and NPR chart and Medscape article do a good job of explaining the drop.
- WHO estimates the COVID-19 case fatality rate at 3.4% as of 3 March 2020, giving it a significantly higher fatality rate than seasonal influenza. (citation) However, the rate is seen to be falling following the initial outbreak in Wuhan. (citation) - Wikmoz (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I do not have much of an opinion as to whether this should actually be added. I have edited my phrase above to clarify that this is a "to-date" thing. Dekimasuよ! 06:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I guess the counterargument is that the cChina CDC stats are unreliable and we should just report the official WHO number without editorializing. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We could say "About 3.4% of reported COVID-19 ases as of March 3rd 2020 have died" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James, Dekimasu, and Mikael Häggström: Changing the language to Case Fatality Rate or mortality Rate is original research . The WHO mortality rate is itself farcicle. When 2.3% of all cases had died they claimed a mortality rate of 2.3% though 70% of cases were unresolved. Today when 54k cases are resolved (of which 6% have died) they are saying 3.4%. This number would be the correct mortality rate if EVERY active case recovered. They have used the language that "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died", specifically to avoid this issue. We cannot turn this into a mortality rate, CFR or other interpretation. 3.4% of all cases has died, but 50% of all cases are still active Gegu0284 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I found the source data in 03 March Situation Report. The number is 3.4% globaly (3,112/90,870), 3.7% in China (2,946/80,304), and 1.6% outside of China (166/10,566). So how about something like:
- As of 3 March 2020, WHO data shows the percentage of patients who have died from COVID-19 is 3.4% globally (1.6% outside of China). (citation 1) (citation 2) - Wikmoz (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone went to sleep. To preempt someone else misrepresenting the data, I ran with the above text. It appears under 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Deaths. Feel free to edit further as you see fit when you're back online. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC
- As I have since January, I strongly oppose any mention of a "death rate" without at least 3 qualifiers. There is no "death rate" known. --Almaty (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone went to sleep. To preempt someone else misrepresenting the data, I ran with the above text. It appears under 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Deaths. Feel free to edit further as you see fit when you're back online. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC
Creation of a Stock Market article
With the problems with the stock market now, I think a separate article should be over the stock market impact from the Coronavirus. Anyone agree or disagree?Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip:I most certainly would agree with you because the markets around the world have gone down >10% this week. This really needs to be created and added to ITN/ITN ongoing. NoahTalk 17:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is some text about this in Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. I think a lot more could be added there. I had added a short summary here, but it got removed somewhere along the way. I support having something brief here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: thing is, the stock market crash likely deserves its own article and the socioeconomic can have a brief summary there and deal with the other items. NoahTalk 18:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would advise against rushing to create a new article. You can, right now, go add material to the Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak article. If the relevant section gets big enough that it warrants its own article, that can be done later. That's the recommended approach under Wikipedia guidelines: expand, then split off when there's enough material. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Beginning the Official Vote for the new article here.
- Support enough information over the last week to create an article. The Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak focuses on China mainly, so a global stock market impact article would be useful. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm with Bondegezou: don't jump the gun. Stock markets go up and down – it's what they have a vocation of doing. If you seriously think there's enough material out there, first expand Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and then break out only if there's sufficient encyclopaedic content for the article to stand in its own right as a notable toopic. -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ohconfucius: I hope you realize how much material there is to cover. We have had similar articles in the past. Considering the global extent of this, there is a ton of coverage that needs to be done. You have the selloff in the Hang Seng index from Jan 17–31, Shanghai index from Jan 22–Feb 3, and then selloffs on three continents. In addition to discussing the major indices, specific companies most impacted by the selloff need to be mentioned (closures in China led to stock decreases for tech as an example). There is also the selloff in commodities such as oil. You have the significant decline of US treasury notes and bonds to an all-time record low. That in itself is notable enough for an article. Heaven forbid that this continue. NoahTalk 21:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Of course the economic issues are important and plentiful. We have two issues: firstly is the way in which we fork articles; secondly, how the close links between economy and sociolgy can and ought to be disentangled. The epidemic is far-reaching and some issues will be difficult to dissociate. Our respective economies are tied up in matrices that are now under great pressure. Due to the inevitable shortages and breakdown of chains of supply, there is already discussion about re-evaluating the precepts of globalising liberalism, just-in-time production, and the undoubted questioning over-reliance on arguments principally of efficiency and cheap labour through delocalised production. There will be consequences on jobs and communities that result from the probably reversal of the economic linking. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hurricane Noah, why don't you stop telling us how much material there is and start adding that material to the existing Socio-economic article? If you're right, it will soon be apparent a new article is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ohconfucius: I hope you realize how much material there is to cover. We have had similar articles in the past. Considering the global extent of this, there is a ton of coverage that needs to be done. You have the selloff in the Hang Seng index from Jan 17–31, Shanghai index from Jan 22–Feb 3, and then selloffs on three continents. In addition to discussing the major indices, specific companies most impacted by the selloff need to be mentioned (closures in China led to stock decreases for tech as an example). There is also the selloff in commodities such as oil. You have the significant decline of US treasury notes and bonds to an all-time record low. That in itself is notable enough for an article. Heaven forbid that this continue. NoahTalk 21:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with the above stated recommendations to build out the content within Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Stock market. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support US stock market indices set a new record for fastest time from new highs into correction territory (10% below a recent peak). Overseas, other countries (including China, the origin of the coronavirus) registered similar losses in their respective stock markets. Also, this article is way Wikipedia:TOOBIG. 9March2019 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- The content fits perfectly in Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Stock market, which is still one paragraph long and the whole topic is not WP:TOOBIG. The stock market, treasury yields, and commodity prices are at the center of the economic impact of the virus. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Expanding it in Socio-economic impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak instead is enough for now. A stock market article could be spun off in the future from it if it becomes developed enough for that. Sleath56 (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Support. On the current trajectory, this will develop into an economic depression. Robertpedley (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Two times inverted yield curve during the trade war signals a recession is incoming this year. Couple that with a massive possible-pandemic (affecting the world's biggest economies). Well I'm not surprised if this year we go 2008 again or even 1929 again. If we don't need an article about this, there is a huge possibility we will need a page about a monetary crisis.—SquidHomme (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support and I am making a draft to see how much can be made about this. If it isn't enough for an article, it can be merged. Help with it would be appreciated as usual. NoahTalk 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- @SquidHomme, Robertpedley, Sleath56, 9March2019, Wikmoz, Ohconfucius, Bondegezou, and Elijahandskip:Draft:2020 stock market selloff - this isn't saying we absolutely need an article, but information can definitely be collected here. We need to see what we have with all of the stuff going on globally. Note if the global banks decide to lower rates (mentioned in recent news articles), that would be a reactory part of this. NoahTalk 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't you put any content in the Socio-economic article? It makes no sense to put content in a draft that could go in a live page.
- Respect what other editors are saying to you, as per WP:CONSENSUS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- "We would like to draw your attention to the following important investment warnings:
- The value of shares and investments and the income derived from them can go down as well as up;
- Investors may not get back the amount they invested - losing one's shirt is a real risk;
- Past performance is not a guide to future performance.
- YMMV -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- "We would like to draw your attention to the following important investment warnings:
- Support but instead of exclusively limiting it to "Stock market", the article could be Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Considering central banks have cut rates, stocks have been the most volatile they've been for 10 years or so, and massive government stimuli has been implemented, surely the content available to write can at least fill up a Start/C-class. Juxlos (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, what happens to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak? - Wikmoz (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. @Elijahandskip: I think a stock market-focused article of the Coronavirus impact can be especially useful if you (a) include the pertinent data from all major exchanges (US, Europe, Asia) including gold and oil, (b) properly correlate and parallel the financial with the epidemiological news/developments in order to best illustrate any reported cause-and-effect phenomena, and (c) properly contrast and compare the current financial-epidemiological situation with past outbreaks (especially the related SARS I and MERS) in order to best illustrate any reported historical patterns, similarities, and trajectories. Also, please don't forget to keep at least one paragraph or small section about this in the main Coronavirus article. History DMZ (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support My nose tells me that plotting the inverse Market with the COVID increase will show that the Market precedes COVID, that is, the Market drops ahead of a higher COVID, and rises when COVID slackens a bit. Not meaning to make light of a serious theme, there is precedent of that kind of thing in [[3]] (of course, whaty happens is that the Market gets data, and reacts ahead of the rest of us) YamaPlos talk 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: A DRAFT MAY BE FOUND HERE. It needs serious work to get all the required coverage (to-do list on talk page) and I don't have the time to do it all. Yesterday was quite clearly the definition of a sucker rally and the continual decline of treasury yields is quite alarming (just my analysis). That being said, any future declines in stocks whether a lot at once or small increments (that add up substantially) over time need to be added to this article. NoahTalk 16:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just at a glance, the current article seems to be going too much into details about daily stock market movements and is too focused on the NY exchange. I would recommend compressing the details but expanding the geographical scope. Juxlos (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- That isn't the case per past articles on stock market selloffs which show the daily movements. As for the other part, that is solely due to a lack of help on the article. The talkpage explicitly states that is something that needs done. NoahTalk 11:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Table Correction _ Germany 262 | Brasil 3 | Hamburg 5
Discrepancies Koch Institute must consider for HH more, 5, not only 3 Sources: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Fallzahlen.html You can put Brasil 4 / 588 cases https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2020/03/04/ministerio-da-saude-confirma-terceiro-paciente-com-coronavirus-em-sp-um-quarto-caso-aguarda-contraprova.ghtml Hamburg https://www.abendblatt.de/themen/coronavirus/?page=1#fwid1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
THIS CAN BE ARCHIVED; SOLVED
Airliners Stop
Can someone do a short statement about the Aircraft Airliners Stop ? I heard 75 % of Cathay Pacific is on floor, Lufthansa did not fly Asia & Italy anymore, Latam does not do Milan, Chinese Airlines seems to be all on floor. Where to find such group of information more precise ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/coronavirus-what-airlines-cancel-flights-china-south-africa/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingapluck (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
(Wingapluck (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
- I will add a statement to the socioeconomic section. Tsukide (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please, add some of table listing all airlines affected, according those sources lists, so | Airline | Note | Country | City Terminated | Until Date ... many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Please include more Flights cancelled from LH https://www.abendblatt.de/themen/coronavirus/?page=1#fwid1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Add coronamapper.com in the maps
Coronamapper.com contains information that no other map has: infected, cured and death per million inhabitants, new confirmed case growth and many more.
Coronamapper.com - Detailed statistics on the virus spread — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montetennis (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- their ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
BMW FIZ Infected - 150 Workers under Quarentine
Under Economic Section, the Engineering Department of Automobile Constructor had a positive Case in which all was evacuated and sterilised under dubious handle. München is the 2nd city in Germany affected, initiated at Webasto https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/weitere-corona-faelle-in-bayern-auch-bmw-betroffen,Rs4roqI — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus origin in infobox
Note: This is related to the individual country articles (e.g., 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Switzerland), but since it relates to all of them, I though it was worth asking the question at the most relevant, centralized place.
The IP 87.8.124.110 just went through a bunch of country articles and changed/added the origin to Wuhan, China. Previously, the ones that already had one had the origin of their first case, e.g. in Switzerland, their first confirmed case was a person that traveled into the country from Milan, Italy, and consequently that was listed as the origin. I think the latter (e.g., Milan, Italy for Switzerland article) is most useful and makes more sense, since the section just above in the infobox is the date of the first documented case in the country (not the date of the first confirmed case of the virus in the world). However, what's correct? Is it the first origin of the virus (Wuhan, China; as promoted by 87.8.124.110) or is it the earlier version where it was the origin of the exact first documented case in each country? Whatever the case, it should be done consistently throughout all the articles. 62.107.211.90 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020 - Amend reference to the virus to reflect the correct naming of the virus as distinct from the resultant disease
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the heading "hand washing" change the reference to the "Covid 19" to "SARS-CoV-2" the correct name of the virus which causes the Covid 19 disease, or otherwise edit the text to indicate that Covid 19 is the disease resulting from the virus and that hand washing may help prevent the spread of "SARS-CoV-2" (despite the fact that the virus is in large part spread via the air-borne mechanism). 2A01:4B00:EA57:A700:79E9:9811:2CE4:B74A (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done Changed to have name of virus instead of the disease Mkwia (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Duplication of content
These two show the same thing. We do not need both in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I would keep the first and drop the second. Bondegezou (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely agree --Almaty (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When discussing the root causes of the virus, the financial crime expert Veit Bütterlin argued that viruses which crossed over from wild animals often relate to illegal wildlife trafficking which is mainly orchestrated by organized crime groups which are bribing officials and launder the proceeds of a sizable black market for illegal wildlife products. [5] 109.40.130.158 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ 国家卫生健康委员会办公厅 (5 February 2020). 新型冠状病毒感染肺炎的诊疗方案（试行第五版） (PDF). 国家卫生健康委员会办公厅 (in Chinese (China)). Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2020. Retrieved 5 February 2020.
- ^ 2020年2月11日湖北省新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情情况 (in Chinese (China)).
- ^ Woodyatt, Amy; Kottasová, Ivana; Griffiths, James; Regan, Helen. "China changed how it counts coronavirus cases again. Here's why". CNN.
- ^ 湖北省武汉市新冠肺炎疫情数据订正情况. National Health Commission. 2020-04-17. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
- ^ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6640191481502019585/
- the "about" pop-up says that it is a student project. Robertpedley (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done No reliable sources given. Mgasparin (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair reason is needed for revert
Material that doesn't add more info into the article (most of them are fake news were published by Biased sources) and was removed per disscusion was reverted with no fair reasons. @Almaty: Can I ask you to leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is only you who thinks that material "doesn't add more info into the article". All sources are perfectly reliable and correct, the result of the linked discussion is not a "remove" consensus to me. Your reversions and lies here and on 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran alarmingly suggest a relationship between you and the Iranian government. Think twice before making any further step with this respect. MS 会話 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hzh:, I think stored material by Ms96 doesnot add much important information to the article. most of them are based on fake news which was deniyed by Iranian official, but he reverted them for two times (one time with no fair reason) and now he reverted material just because I am liar person and there is a relationship between me and the Iranian government. Would you leave a comment. I remove info that not be important for this article and moved important ones to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran article. Also I removed material based on Iranian goverment disscusion.Saff V. (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Consistency!
Every day I come to see the graphs in this article, and just about every day the format, or their accessibility, has changed. Is this a case of 'too many cooks spoil the broth', or is it editors trying to fix non-existent problems? Regardless, the whole thing is frustrating. Today I can't find the detailed China breakdown. When I did find the template, much of the earlier data was missing. Come on! Lets have some consistency here. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it's been noted before. Why some graph format keep changing is an interesting question in itself. Please see[[4]] and your thoughts welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.211 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies. I didn't see that you'd already raised the issue. I see the big graph is now back. It just needs a little tweak so that the "Last 10 Days" option clears the "Jan", "Feb" and "March" options. I guess someone will come along shortly. What would be really good here - similar graphs for S.Korea, Italy and Iran. Obviously it would be too much for the main article page, but links to such graphs would be enormously helpful. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- The reason is not because the data isn't reliable, its because the general reader can make incorrect or misleading inferences from any graph. This is why I now always suggest that the graphs have to be replications of medrs compatible content, rather than graphs from raw data. --Almaty (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, there are too many questions about this graph; it's accurate representation of the values, whether those values are indeed reliable, whether the graph is ambiguous - should it be deleted or not? Cos I say yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.211 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are indeed many questions about most graphs. I hope that new graphs are made that replicate the format and content of WP:MEDRS compatible sources. Not just using excel or wiki code to graph raw data from the agencies, replicating a meaningful graph published in reliable sources. Because the general reader may infer much from these graphs that reliable sources don't use. --Almaty (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, there are too many questions about this graph; it's accurate representation of the values, whether those values are indeed reliable, whether the graph is ambiguous - should it be deleted or not? Cos I say yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.211 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- The reason is not because the data isn't reliable, its because the general reader can make incorrect or misleading inferences from any graph. This is why I now always suggest that the graphs have to be replications of medrs compatible content, rather than graphs from raw data. --Almaty (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies. I didn't see that you'd already raised the issue. I see the big graph is now back. It just needs a little tweak so that the "Last 10 Days" option clears the "Jan", "Feb" and "March" options. I guess someone will come along shortly. What would be really good here - similar graphs for S.Korea, Italy and Iran. Obviously it would be too much for the main article page, but links to such graphs would be enormously helpful. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
More confirmed uk cases
Uk cases to 85
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51741001)
2A01:388:205:156:0:0:1:242 (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the mad panic continues. I guess someone will be along soon to update the table. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't there a way of giving wikipedia a table of raw data and have it graph it for you in any assortment of way? It must be possible, for such a sophisticated system that simply has to be there somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.211 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that the Wikipedia website is "sophisticated"? <wowie zowie!> Or, that a sophisticated piece of software is out there that could be incorporated to make the graph you want to see? 50.111.9.62 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't there a way of giving wikipedia a table of raw data and have it graph it for you in any assortment of way? It must be possible, for such a sophisticated system that simply has to be there somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.211 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
First case
First case is in Poland but the non-animated map has it and Italy cases now rose up to 2058 people affected with the virus. 2A00:23C5:9489:6901:28B0:9414:BB61:9A7D (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that link but that IP address is mine because I created a account on 04/03/20. Hi poland (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change number of infected people in Iceland from 16 to 26. Reference: https://www.landlaeknir.is/um-embaettid/frettir/frett/item39455/frettatilkynning-vegna-covid-19-a-islandi this is the official site of the Directorate of health in Iceland and as such is the most reliable information available for the country. 194.144.176.48 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, Romania is now at 6 CONFIRMED CASES of COVID-19 https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/informatii-oficiale-despre-coronavirus-ministerul-de-interne-26-de-persoane-sunt-in-carantina-2077-sunt-monitorizate-la-domiciliu-1266261 Lucastefan123 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
First case in Slovenia
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Information to be added or removed: Add Slovenia to the epidemiology table
- Explanation of issue: One infection has been confirmed by Slovenia's prime minister Marjan Šarec on Twitter.
- References supporting change: https://twitter.com/sarecmarjan/status/1235296264268451840
RStular (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
DYK nom
Thoughts welcome on the related DYK nom. --Almaty (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Austrian Infected amount
Here is the website that shows the amount of infected in Austria: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html It's the website of the department for social, health, care and consumer protection of the government It get's updated every time new infected are reported
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
update
Required alteration
The total confirmed cases for Switzerland and United Kingdom needs updating. BlackSun2104 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, 60 proof = 30% alcohol Gegu0284 (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Attention : updating
Italy confirmed case figure needs urgent updating BlackSun2104 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Too behind
The animated map is too behind from this day and why is it behind and not in March? Hi poland (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Likely because that map takes quite a bit of time to put together. This situation is progressing so quickly that we sometimes fall behind. Don't worry, it will be updated soon. Mgasparin (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Palestine to countries infected and number of infected, it is already on the same source listed [38]. Dquomsieh (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: Template has been updated — RealFakeKimT 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
New deaths
Iraq to 3 deaths. Someone update? XmeggiewX (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Part Done: the primary source ([5]) says 2 so I have updated it to 2. If you have a source to back up that it is 3 I will change it. — RealFakeKimT 19:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please check the updated positive coronavirus number in Italy on 05 march. You have a wrorng number. Thank you 87.8.129.61 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The source used shows no difference. If you have a source that shows a change I will update it. — RealFakeKimT 19:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not done No sources provided. Mgasparin (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Egypt to 3 cases Faefae122 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Edit United States Confirmed Numbers
I believe the numbers in the chart are outdated, citing the numbers from this page and the John Hopkins map. It might be unreliable so I'm asking the community for help. MJVAccount (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is this Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data the chart you mean? Well you should go edit the numbers there. Good lock doing that because the people there aren't so welcoming.—SquidHomme (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- What source do you want to use? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- The numbers have already been updated. I've wanted to use this source but it seems it has been just used recently. MJVAccount (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- What source do you want to use? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a biological reason for the higher mortality rates in the USA and Iran than other countries or is it just due to the substandard healthcare that's generally available to poor people? 64.231.91.97 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I assume you're calculating (number of deaths) / (number of cases). That's hard to compare across different countries due to all sorts of factors, including differences in how aggressively people are tested for the virus. But in any case, in the United States most of the deaths occurred from an outbreak at a nursing home/rehabilitation center in Washington state, so many of those infected had previous medical conditions. Since the total number of U.S. cases is still relatively small (around 150 compared to thousands in some countries), one outbreak among people more vulnerable to the disease can have a big effect on the statistics.
- For Iran, see the article 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran; essentially many experts have questioned Iran's officially reported data. 68.7.103.137 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Error and inconsistency in figures
There is an arithmetic error and inconsistency in the epidemic confirmed case table. BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yup. Numbers changes so quickly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Required correction
The global tally of confirmed cases for COVID-19 need to be changed. BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- We're getting to the point soon when agencies are going to stop bothering counting cases. It looks like this will be a pandemic that sweeps around the world, infecting billions. The precise numbers of cases or deaths doesn't matter, so maybe we should stop worrying about them, stop worrying about trying to do a running tally. That's not what makes a good encyclopaedia article (WP:NOTNEWS). Bondegezou (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- As a bit of context, Australia's health care systems still count case notifications of influenza as well as numerous other conditions - its called a surveillance system, most countries do it all the time in the background. --Almaty (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but no-one thinks that's accurate, that that is the actual number of flu cases. Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- looking to far into the future here tho User:Bondegezou - this is some of the most active surveillance the world has ever known. As you know, I believe that most "cases" and "deaths" will remain to be credible and reliable for some time, but not recoveries. But as we agree, we are doing the encyclopaedia a disservice to put the raw data from the agencies in graphical format when that format doesn't directly replicate a format that has been published in a WP:MEDRS compatible source. --Almaty (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- It made sense to have this very active surveillance when efforts were focused on containing the outbreak. We're moving past that now. When you're looking at a third to two thirds of the world population becoming infected, it will be impossible to collate precise numbers and it will not matter.
- We should focus on writing a good encyclopaedia article more than we try to keep up with daily, rapidly changing statistics, as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. We should have more text on why all the figures going around are certainly wrong (transmissions are occurring without any known chain, ergo there are significant numbers of unrecorded cases). That would be more useful to the reader than worrying about whether we have the latest San Marrinese reported figure. Bondegezou (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- looking to far into the future here tho User:Bondegezou - this is some of the most active surveillance the world has ever known. As you know, I believe that most "cases" and "deaths" will remain to be credible and reliable for some time, but not recoveries. But as we agree, we are doing the encyclopaedia a disservice to put the raw data from the agencies in graphical format when that format doesn't directly replicate a format that has been published in a WP:MEDRS compatible source. --Almaty (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but no-one thinks that's accurate, that that is the actual number of flu cases. Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- As a bit of context, Australia's health care systems still count case notifications of influenza as well as numerous other conditions - its called a surveillance system, most countries do it all the time in the background. --Almaty (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed cases in Greece have reached nine (9).
Please update the number on the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory table that is on the topic homepage.
It is verified from the 15th reference on the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Greece page.
--ContentReliability (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Required Correction
reinstate the above bar graph OK - oh gawd, haven't been here before and not sure whether i am doing the right thing or not but here goes. I came here because the graph that this post relates to has disappeared off the outbreak page and i am disturbed by that - i can see no information here about that decision to cut the graph from the epidemiology section. I complained to wikimedia and was put through to here. Weirdly the graph reappeared and with updated figures for one day and then disappeared again. I did notice it started to get a bit wobbly, field wise on my tablet at one earlier point. The reason the graph should be there is that it gives some balance to the epidemic - btw - i disagree with one of the former speakers - i don't believe it is a pandemic yet and i think it will be contained and wear itself out as the previous sars did. So that graph or perhaps i should say this graph as it appears here, is important because it shows the fluctuation in the daily rate of increase. Admittedly, it is somewhat general as it is worldwide but the important thing is that it reveals the original growth pattern in wuhan and then its subsequent decrease and the increase rate is now very low. Please reinstate it. Sydneygrrl2 Sydneygrrl2 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Informal requested move to "Coronavirus outbreak"
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Closed. There is another request that moved the page to outbreak. (non-admin closure) CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Per the spanish flu precedent. Although it is my instinct to be pedantic and want "COVID-19 outbreak" or "Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak" I doubt those will gain traction. This is the commonest name, and in fact what has been on the front page updated in February. --Almaty (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- for clarity as nom I weakly support "coronavirus outbreak" and strongly support "COVID-19 outbreak", but this is the question I'm informally asking today. --Almaty (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also I would follow spanish flu and say "The outbreak of COVID-19, colloquially known as the coronavirus outbreak..." or similar --Almaty (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- There have been multiple coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS being two others) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ambiguity: as Doc James pointed out, there were other coronavirus outbreaks, and MERS is ongoing (but started earlier than 2019).
- Too early: The head of WHO is still hoping for "containment"; in ten months' time, the development of treatment medications and vaccines and their mass use is reasonably likely to reduce the lethality of the outbreak/pandemic (even though the head of WHO is being conservative and stating 12-18 months); and in ten months' time, I would be surprised if the media still case this an "outbreak" rather than an "epidemic" or a "pandemic", no matter how much WHO discourages the use of "pandemic". Personally, it seems to me ridiculous to continue calling this an "outbreak", but I see no point in proposing a name change away from "outbreak": expending editing energy into a name change proposal would be a distraction. I would suggest waiting at least six months - until Sep/Oct or so 2020 - before considering a title change, unless WHO decides to officially use the word "pandemic". Boud (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't read past this without commenting - I see that your critical of the WHO's language, but I'm not aware of anyone (who is in the know) seriously talking of containing this. I mean, even the UK government (absolute shambles that that is..) is making clear that in all likelyhood we're going to see a first peak (in the northern hemisphere) this summer, and probably with around every second person infected... (jaw dropping as that admission / fact is in many ways).
- So - I guess I just wanted to say that its going to take far less than till September for this thing to really strike terror into people (more due to the economic impacts than anything else I guess, but that's just my estimate), and to have a name that is going to stick. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. This name is good enough and we have better things to work on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Good, as stated, I agree.. Can I sound out COVID-19 outbreak as succinct, precise and the most common name that is not ambiguous? --Almaty (talk)
- I'm partial to any name changes. My tendency is to agree with Doc James - the name changes your suggesting seem more cosmetic than substantial to me (sure it would be nice to have a shorter name, but is it really important? The current one seems to have a good balance of precision and commonness, I think). Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- There have been multiple coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS being two others) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support a change to "COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak" now, since the newer name may not be fully recognizable yet, but I expect that within a few more weeks "COVID-19 outbreak" will be as recognizable as "SARS" or "MERS" Mergy (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Required updates
The total confirmed case figures for Germany, France and Spain need to be updated urgently. BlackSun2104 (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No source provided. — RealFakeKimT 16:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg#Confusing_graph){kind=link}
Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Sixth case Reported in Pakistan.
- One of them has recovered 119.160.118.167 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
9 CASES IN ROMANIA
| This edit request to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hey there, Romania is now at 9 CONFIRMED CASES https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/informatii-oficiale-despre-coronavirus-ministerul-de-interne-26-de-persoane-sunt-in-carantina-2077-sunt-monitorizate-la-domiciliu-1266261 Lucastefan123 (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Urgent update required
Most of the confirmed case figures are a day old, urgent and prompt update is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackSun2104 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
New Zealand's fourth case
NZ has its fourth confirmed case. The table needs to be updated. Newshub: Fourth coronavirus case confirmed Lord A.Nelson (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done J947 (c), at 04:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
French Guiana is fully part of France and it has 5 Coronavirus confirmed cases
Considering the image on the infobox, there is someone constantly putting French Guiana in gray, considering that it doesn't have coronavirus confirmed cases. This is twice wrong:
- There are 5 confirmed cases of Coronavirus in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, French Guiana. Source: Cinq cas de Coronavirus confirmés en Guyane (France Info).
- French Guiana is fully part of France, its status is the same as Alaska or Hawaii with the US. It's NOT a semi-autonomous territories like would be Guam or American Samoa. As such, French Guianese cases are counted in the total of confirmed cases in France. There will NEVER be a specific line in WHO situation reports specifying "French Guiana" as a territory or whatever you guys imagine.
I insist on the fact that, just like Madeira and the Azores are part of Portugal, the Canary Islands are part of Spain, Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US, France can't be divided and the French regions of Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion and Mayotte should be coloured the same as the rest of the country. Because it's indeed at that scale that confirmed cases in France are counted, both in communications from French official authorities and from UN WHO reports. Metropolitan (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The USA is a bad example, as it is comprised of 50 states, and Alaska and Hawaii are two. They are not "island possessions" or some such rot. 50.111.9.62 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The USA is the perfect example. France is divided in 18 regions, 5 of which are not located in the mainland (see Regions of France). Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion and Mayotte aren't "islands possessions", but integral part of France. Metropolitan (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The analogy is fair: the US marines helped overthrow the government of Hawaii to help "possess" it for the USA, and movements for more autonomy or independence exist both in "distant" parts of the US and France, and in "mainland" parts - strict adherence to legal treaties would lead to many independent countries in what is now the contiguous United States (and Bretagne, Alsace, Corsica, the Basque country could hypothetically secede from France). Wikipedia won't intervene in these: the present legal situation, with parliamentary representation, full national constitutional rights and so on apply to a fair degree (not absolutely) in both situations. Boud (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The USA is the perfect example. France is divided in 18 regions, 5 of which are not located in the mainland (see Regions of France). Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion and Mayotte aren't "islands possessions", but integral part of France. Metropolitan (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Saint Barthélemy
In the case of Saint Barthélemy the JH source lists it separate from France. But are they double counting? We do not have this in our table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
More reliable source for case number by territory?
Most of the data in the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory table currently links to [6]. The data published there appears questionable to me, because it is hard to verify. For example, Germany is currently given 545 cases by that page, without any source (I checked the sources given on the page, none contain that number). On Twitter, they give [7] as the source, quote: Germany's Morgenpost is reporting that, based on figures from the health minister, the number of coronavirus cases has risen to 545, which would be a sharp increase from 400 about 9 hours ago. No official confirmation so far.
There is no such report by Morgenpost.[8] The only thing that Morgenpost did report was that the projected number of cases was expected to rise to more than 540 by late Thursday based on their own calculations,[9] while the official number was 534 by Friday morning. Wouldn't it be good to stick to one reliable - ideally to the official - source?[10] Renerpho (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm nominating for deletion "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg"
It's confusing [[11]], it gets arbitrarily reordered [[12]], the underlying stats are very questionable, and the author has not replied to a request 3 days ago to clarify anything [[13]] It's hard to credit the graph represents the underlying statistics well, or that those stats are credible anyway, so I will delete it shortly - but I would really like some input on this! 85.211.195.108 (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- You can't delete it. Only admins/bureaucrats can delete files/articles. If you mean removing the graph, well you can't do that either as you can't edit the article as an IP. Oh well. Mgasparin (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, you're right, it is protected and I forgot that (edit: changed title). I am nominating it for deletion. I've tried to start this discussion before and it didn't happen, now I'm being blunt to try to really get some talk going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.195.108 (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- You don't offer any RS's that dispute the information in the file, so that may be one reason you are being ignored. Remember, it is Verifiability, not Truth - personal doubts don't enter into the equation on their own.50.111.9.62 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- My disputation is given in the original links - is the Chinese government to be considered a reliable (as in Werifiable) source of these statistics? I really don't know - pointers welcome. I raised doubts about the recovery rate - next day the graph was reordered, hiding this, and the graph creator still hasn't explained why. The graph is considered confusing and possibly even wrong (as in, not correctly reflecting the statistics) by another commenter (that link again [[14]]). Those points have likewise not been addressed.
- The top post in this section provided links to all these, I believe I've tried to go beyond "I'm not happy with it" which I agree would be inadequate. 88.108.208.53 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You don't offer any RS's that dispute the information in the file, so that may be one reason you are being ignored. Remember, it is Verifiability, not Truth - personal doubts don't enter into the equation on their own.50.111.9.62 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, you're right, it is protected and I forgot that (edit: changed title). I am nominating it for deletion. I've tried to start this discussion before and it didn't happen, now I'm being blunt to try to really get some talk going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.195.108 (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since the file is actually on commons it is useless to try to delete it on English Wikipedia. Since the graph is used on many pages don't expect others to support its deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- So it should not be deleted not because it might be wrong/confusing but because it's widely used? That makes no sense. 88.108.208.53 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Update number of coronavirus cases in Slovenia
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Number of cases in Slovenia is now 6.
- Information to be added or removed: Update the number of confirmed cases in Slovenia to 6
- Explanation of issue: STA (Slovenia Press Agency) has reported six infections as of 2020-03-05.
- References supporting change: https://english.sta.si/2735610/coronavirus-cases-in-slovenia-increase-to-six
--RStular (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Cases, Deaths & Recoveries
I apologize if this is self-evident, but do Cases (C) include Deaths (D) and Recoveries (R)? If so, if we had a column for currently sick/positive (S), would the formula be S = C-D-R? This is a serious question which I have been wanting to know the answer to for a while now. Thank you for your answer in advance.Juve2000 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- They do. The consensus has been to avoid trying to count currently sick/positive, as not everyone reports recoveries, and what is the difference between asymptomatic and recovered? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. Once a case, always a case, whether that person passes away or recovers, so the case number will only go up and, hopefully, level off at some point. I am not advocating changing the chart, just suggesting that the definition of 'case' be clearly explained for all users.Juve2000 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Cases as of 6 March 2020
- 100000 cases was reached in 6 March 2020
- China Cases was declined at over 80000 cases
- South Korea, Iran and Italy will be hitting over 10000 cases this month and other countries less than 10000 cases
- Germany's first death coronavirus will be confirmed this month
- Belgium's first death coronavirus will be confirmed this month
- Netherlands's first death coronavirus was now confirmed
- Greece cases jump to 45. Schools, universities, theaters, cinemas shut from March 4 to March 15th in the affected areas. Sport events to take place without spectators in the affected areas from March 4 to March 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.252.139 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- European countries expected to have more coronavirus cases and Italian cluster.
- Middle East countries expected to have more coronavirus cases and Iranian cluster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.244 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please state what you want changed? — RealFakeKimT 16:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)