Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

China number of cases and deaths

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

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

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

No. And express.co.uk is a tabloid and unreliable (see WP:RSP). Also, tweaktown looks like a random website. There is no confirmation of what you said in reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:SharabSalam we need proper sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious as the numbers are, that's pretty much the only remotely reliable source we have. The other ones are often just citing sensationalist/straight up fake-news sources like Taiwan News or NTD. Juxlos (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wall Street Journal...42,000 dead[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• • I agree with the initial comment and Ozzie10aaaa. There are now reports in multiple, respected U.S. newspapers, and Kyodo News in Japan, which describe the number of urns being returned to family members, the numbers and hours of crematoria in Wuhan, and efforts to stop identifying infected persons or treating them. There is also a report of U.S. government intelligence information. All that is more than enough to present this information emerging about significantly higher numbers than the Chinese government has published. Additionally, the table should be edited to include a footnote on the 3,000 person death toll, which notes this figure may not be reliable.Jaedglass (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I support adding a note of a short sentence that there is doubt about the number of cases in China but I wouldn't up t a hard number on it. — RealFakeKimT 07:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree that we need to make it clear that the Chinese figures are likely BS. This should be done in the table, too. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Many of the numbers are not the current infections due to many reasons. Does not belong in the table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple independent reliable sources (from various countries) reporting on the controversy of the Chinese figures. From the perspective of Wikipedia policies there's really no choice but to include this information. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@CRGreathouse: But certainly not as to inclusion on the urns story on this main page (file it under Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), which multiple users have refuted below. From the perspective of Wikipedia's reputation, conspiracy theories should be labeled as such. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should even give the urns story oxygen. I can see how a reporter would pick up on it, but I don't see value in passing that along. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"That tweet came amid allegations that the coronavirus numbers reported by China were not accurate, but manipulated to make the country's response to the pandemic look stronger than it was"...WHO director faces calls for resignation over handling of coronavirus, China--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post uses "Wuhan funeral homes have returned 3,500 urns a day" to prove its opinion, but based on the 0.8% annual death rate in China, there should be at least 2400 deaths a day normally in such a city with 11 million people. The margin not only reflects confirmed coronavirus deaths, but reflects deaths indirectly caused by it and deaths untested. It is rather a global problem, not in China only. I don't think there's a need to stress doubt about China's number. DrizzleD (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is some pretty simple math, and DrizzleD's post above doesn't fit with the math. If we assume a 70 year lifespan, then 11 million/70/365 = about 430 deaths per day. Obviously it will vary based on people's age and so forth. Alternatively, we could go with 7.2 deaths per thousand population per year per Demographics of China, which would come to 7.2*11,000 = about 80,000 deaths per year, or 220 per day, for Wuhan. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I miscalculated. But I still think underreport is almost everywhere, especially in those hotspots like Wuhan. Brazil [2], Iran [3], Russia [4], US [5], UK [6], India [7], Italy [8], etc. DrizzleD (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Adoring nanny's figures should be about correct. Based on China death rate, and assuming homogeneous death rate across the country and for the whole year (which is not true), there should be around 235 deaths/day in Wuhan (mind the WP:OR). But keep in mind that funeral homes were closed in Wuhan for around two months. The urns are being distributed, presumably, to keep up with the backlog after funeral homes opened (SCMP: Coronavirus: Wuhan opens its funeral homes, cemeteries so families can bury their dead). Some media outlets are omitting this "small" detail, leading to bogus extrapolations. --MarioGom (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And to give some perspective: in the metropolitan area of Madrid, with half the population of Wuhan and less than 3 weeks in confinement, our local Government just opened the third temporary morgue, and further morgues are expected to open soon. This is not something extraordinary about China. --MarioGom (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg is explicit. Both Chinese dissidents and US intelligence says China concealed the extent of the epidemic. [9] Adoring nanny (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: That Bloomberg piece does not mention Chinese dissidents in any form, and the one you cited from 1 Apr is irrelevant to the "3,500 urns / daily → 40K+ COVID-19 deaths" exorbitant claims being regurgitated un-critically throughout US / UK mainstream media, refuted above and by Jeremy Konyndyk, who was involved with pandemic preparation in the Obama administration. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

All these news reports of "42000 deaths" are all based on the same report, and merely repeated by various media outlets. There is no substantial proof of those large number of deaths, and those reports are merely conjecture, it looks like the standard case of cherry-picked statistics to obfuscate and start conspiracy theories. Mopswade (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally someone has placed the 42,000 death number into the article very recently, while we are discussing this an editor should not have unilaterally put it in. Mopswade (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Removal of hatnote with link to other coronavirus outbreaks

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

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

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

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

"Coronavirus outbreak" gets a few hundreds visits per day ([10]). --MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MarioGom for the guidance. By my math, in the last 7 days, there were 2,300 hits to "Coronavirus outbreak" and 6,203,000 PVs to this topic. Assuming generously that 10% of those visitors were not looking for the current outbreak, and assuming for simplicity one PV per visitor, then the hatnote possibly helped 230 visitors, or 0.004% (1 in 26,600) visitors to this topic over the last week. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It looks like a ridiculously low amount. It seems to me that retargeting the redirect to Coronavirus § Outbreaks would be the most correct. After all, there are only 21 links to it from the default namespace, which can be easily fixed ([11]). But even if the redirect is not changed, the hat note looks like overkill to me. --MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree no hatnote needed. Moving to talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both! I've also gone ahead and corrected most of the direct links to the redirect that were included in a number of topics identified by MarioGom. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Digital billboard in Shibuya expressing support against coronavirus.jpg

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

Templates

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

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

To fix, you have the following options:

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

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

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

References in columns on wider screens

This change[12] by User:Ahecht

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

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

Great that is perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Transmission

Proposed revision of the Transmission section

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

I propose revision as follows:

Para 1 - Brief introduction; severity of symptoms, droplets (main), feces (possible)

Para 2 - Airborne droplets

Para 3 - Droplets on surfaces (fomites)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Drbogdan your opinion will be welcome.Robertpedley (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

---

OK - here's my first draft.

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the WHO still state “The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales“ but the ECDC as of 31 March has removed the word exhale —Almaty (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• ECDC now state “ There is also some evidence suggesting that transmission can occur from a person that is infected even two days before showing symptoms” and they changed exhale to being within 1 m of anyone —Almaty (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• also the main route is inhaling the droplets, not contact with the face —Almaty (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• still think we can call them small droplets and remove airborne as They all have virtually done now —Almaty (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• I just did it concerning my thoughts around there is no need to be technical, I really like the who wording of fall to the ground —Almaty (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• • 1) We had a massive RfC about this.
  • 2) The claim that "None of the sources give talkng or breathing as a source of droplets." Breathing is mentioned in "when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales" exhaled means breathing out...
  • 3) User:Robertpedley unclear were this text is coming from? For example "Respiratory droplets may remain in the air between 1 and 2 metres (3.3 to 6.6 feet) under normal circumstances" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Doc James

Point 1 - sorry, I missed that. I know there has been extensive discussion about the wording of the lead section, but I'm not editing the lead; this section has room for more detail. My proposed edit has been here for about 4 days, no-one pointed that out before.

Point 2 - OK I was wrong again.

Point 3 - It's my attempt at a synthesis of the 3 main sources - CDC, ECDC, and WHO. So far as I know the edit doesn't violate WP:MEDRS, WP:CITE, WP:PLAG, or WP:SYN

I'd be very happy to accept constructive suggestions, or if someone else would like to edit the proposed revision so that it incorporates the extra details I have missed.

Robertpedley (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Robertpedley this stuff is critical important. I am wanting to see what reference and what text supports each sentence as it was before. This bit belongs under prevention not cause "In order to avoid infection, minimum physical distancing of 1 metre is recommended by WHO and ECDC, while CDC recommends 2 metres."

Close contact is also listed as a primary method of spread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A recent research paper suggests to increase the recommended distance from 3 to 6 feet to 23 to 27 feet.

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

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

References

We should follow WP:MEDRS and use high quality secondary sources. Once the CDC, ECDC, or WHO switch their recommendation than so should we.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

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

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

ps done, as I believe that being a major contributor to the previous rfc, this still is consensus. Also we need to avoid technical language. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to reply to this new rfc. —Almaty (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the prior consensus as noted at the top of this page. The sources support primarily coughing and sneezing and less so simple talking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

yes but we can get rid of the technical words . —Almaty (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to go with "small droplets" rather than "respiratory droplets". Addressing airborne if we are talking about simple breathing was the balance we agreed to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I bunch of people agreed on the prior consensus including you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

But no numbers ? !

We can be timid, I guess, if we want to. But this is just too important a topic to be anything other than very straightforward. We have numbers from WHO, CDC, and medical journals regarding what is “close contact,” and we should use those numbers.

WHO says at least 3 feet social distance. U.S. CDC says at least 6 feet. Yes, this is awkward, perhaps even embarrassing. But I’ve come around to embracing it. With a new disease, it’s to be expected that authorities will have differing views. Even if views later converge, we should still probably include this as an example of the initial uncertainly surrounding COVID-19. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about it, or try to paper it over.

And regarding coughs, we have at least two medical articles saying, quite a bit further than 6 feet. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:FriendlyRiverOtter no numbers in the lead or in the body? We could have them as a hatnote in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I want distance recommendations matter-of-factly in the lead itself, just like we include dates of emergency and then pandemic. Is a hatnote a parenthetic comment? I’d rather just mention a few numbers in the sentence itself. I prefer going light on use of parentheses. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay so what do you propose? The sentence is currently "The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when people cough or sneeze."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay added the numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: When I closed the last discussion, I made sure to mention that if someone wanted to discuss further changes they could start a new discussion (that one had grown very large and any hope of getting new participants to read it all was going to be small). I see nothing wrong with addressing the changing landscape our sources are providing too: I know a number of media outlets (including CNN on their front page today) has said officials are starting to think it was a mistake to advise people not to wear masks. That goes hand-in-hand with noting what the WHO has noted since our last discussion: you can spread this by simply talking. Consensus can change. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have no problem discussing consensus changing. But do not think it is fair to everyone involved in the discussion to change everything without discussion and a new consensus.

The recommendations around people wearing masks is somewhat separate from the discussion on how it spreads. IMO wearing a simple cloth mask should be recommended for everyone. Keeps people from beathing out / coughing and contaminating their environment. Expecially with the 72 hours on surfaces. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: and simply by talking . . . certainly sounds airborne to me! (over short distances and brief time periods) And yet, WHO are other public health authorities, like a band of 1st century Christians, seemed to have gone the route of dogma. The public health “establishment,” as it were, seems to be insisting that COVID-19 is not generally airborne. And this seems to turn on a purely linguistic issue that in public health circles “airborne” is taken to mean highly airborne. Wow. And that is just really confusing. I mean, it’s bad to take a common word and use it in a restrictive, technical sense. That’s a lot worse than just introducing and using a pure technical term. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The WHO has emphatically said it is NOT airborne. The part where they mention talking is that those who are contagious can inadvertently contaminate surfaces by normal talking. NOT that it lingers in the air. That's where the use of masks earlier, as in a number of Asian countries, could have helped significantly slow the spread. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: when WHO says it’s not airborne, they are not speaking English. When they say not airborne, they mean not highly airborne in the fashion of measles. Don’t know how they’ve made such a muddled mess of the whole thing.

I’m going to post a link to Wired magazine which nails it. And sometimes you need someone outside a field to nail a problem or issue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

They Say Coronavirus Isn't Airborne—but It's Definitely Borne By Air, Wired, Roxanne Khamsi, 14 March 2020.

’ . . When health officials say the pathogen isn’t “airborne,” they’re relying on a narrow definition of the term, and one that’s been disputed by some leading scholars of viral transmission through the air. . ‘

I believe that this "Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not generally airborne." balances the fact that it can spread via simple breathing but is not technically airborne.

Anyone object to changing respiratory droplets to "small droplets"?

What about changing "not generally airborne" to "not generally highly airborne"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We’re better off telling what COVID-19 is, rather than what it isn’t, especially in the lead. And @Doc James: I thought you ER Docs were a very plain-spoken bunch, for example, “the patient injured his penis because he stuck it into a vacuum cleaner,” although I suspect rather in less genteel terms.

And yet curiously here, we’re going to parse “airborne” to the 10th degree, become English scholars, in fact, attempt to re-define English. I just don’t get the upside. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Advice from public helath bodies is based on risk. For 2 people separated by 1 foot, a cough would almost certainly cause transmission. Increase the distance to a yard, it's less likely. 2 yards, you would need a really projectile cough so risk is further reduced, but it's not 0.000%. I'm sure that if you coughed in a hurricane, droplets would carry downwind for quite a distance further. The guys who write guidelines for CDC and WHO have to draw a line somewhere. Robertpedley (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It may not need that much of a projectile cough.

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

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

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

—>This study, which took a fluid dynamic approach, found up to 8.2 meters (27 feet). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We should really be sticking with sources per MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I’d rather say, “On April 2, the U.S. CDC recommends . . . ” And the CDC now gives this reference a “last reviewed” date of April 2. Unfortunately, many of our references are buried in a huge list in the “References” section itself, making them very difficult to update. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure to what text you are referring? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Studies of how far a cough travels.

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

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

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

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

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

We should stick with high quality secondary sources rather than primary sources. And please can we keep this stuff together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

But didn’t our norms and practices evolve for relatively static situations, and not a dynamic, fast-moving situation? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The CDC, WHO, and ECDC are adjusting their recommendations as they feel the evidence supports it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes 1

What do people think of

• The virus is mainly spread during close contact, and by small droplets produced when people cough, sneeze, or talk.

Versus

• "The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.

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

References

Notes

Changes 2

Wondering what people think of

• "These droplets may be produced by breathing but rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through air over large distances."

Rather than

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

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

References

I think it’ll be a definite improvement, and I go ahead and make that change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay will give it a couple of days and than update the "current consensus" if no one raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

The sentence:

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

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

Debated at length elsewhere on this talk page. Robertpedley (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@85.193.250.200: all the same, you’re correct. Please read at least some of the discussion and then just jump on in there and make what you think is a positive change. The discussion is currently located above at:

6 Transmission

Move here to group topic. What wording do you suggest?

I do not read the fall to the group ground bit as just applying to the ones produced during breathing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doc James Wow. Thanks to you I don't feel ignored. But... I can't fully understand you.

1. You wrote: "Move here to group topic."

It can mean: "You should move here to the group topic." or "You should move here to group the topic."

2. What do you mean by "the fall to the group bit" ? I know a "group bit" only in information technology ;-)

English is not my mother tongue but I read NY Times articles without any problems. So please, give me a chance to understand you :-) 85.193.250.200 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes working to keep topics together. Mis-typed, meant "the fall to ground" applies to all the respiratory droplets.

"What wording do you suggest? "Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Doc James I suggest something like: "The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. Even smaller droplets may be produced during breathing, and the smaller the droplet, the slower it falls. Droplets below 200 microns can drift considerable distance, unless they are smaller then 100 microns because then they tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface. When humidity rises that process slows down and stops when humidity reaches 100%." The numbers 200 and 100 microns are not my invention - there are sources to be found. 85.193.250.200 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first two sentence. The rest I would need to see supporting evidence. And do not believe it belongs in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the decision is yours. But look at this:

• Respiratory droplet: "If not immediately inhaled, droplets smaller than 100 μm tend to completely dry out before settling on a surface."
• The size and the duration of air-carriage of respiratory droplets

85.193.250.200 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

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

References

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

•  Not done This only appears to refer to two countries (the USA and India) and would be best added to, for example, 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Religious_services. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I can cite more references but it would become, "overciting", isn't it (see WP:Overcite)?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only is the sentence nonsensical with respect to the English language, it is non-neutral as well. The sources that User:Souniel Yadav has cited make reference to religious exemptions allowed in some states, such as Flordia, that allow congregations to gather for worship; additionally the majority of churches have suspended meetings in houses of worship, instead airing prayers online or offering drive-in worship. Anupam^Talk 17:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've marked this edit request as answered as per reasons below:

a) the content that's requested to be added in does not fit in the main article

b) there seems to be a consensus as such

c) there's no need to have seven sources to support a single claim.

Additionally, some of these sources aren't necessarily the most reliable. Fortunately, the existence of these seven sources means that we can trim it down to (maybe) the NYTimes and WashPost article.

Souniel Yadav, please post your edit request in a more appropriate article's talk page, and trim down the number of sources being cited.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § Recoveries

 – u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Value of wearing a mask

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

Jeremy Howard (entrepreneur), research scientist at the University of San Francisco, made the statement: "What we now know, or strongly guess, is that if eighty percent of people in a community wear a face mask, any kind of cloth cover, it can actually stop the virus in its tracks." and "each person wearing a single mask has a value of four to six thousand dollars due to the huge impact it has on transmission." [13] starting about 4:30. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time watching a video. YouTube is NOT a reliable source for most things. And are you sure you're linking to the right Jeremy Howard? Entrepreneur? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like him, on CNN; maybe post the time he says what he said. DMBFFF (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll save you some time. How abut this: "Protect your face during coronavirus with these easy DIY face covers : Medical professionals weigh in about DIY face covers to use during coronavirus". ABC News. April 6, 2020. Research supported by Nobel prize-winning virologist Harold Varmus tells us that placing a layer of cloth in front of a person's face stops 99% of the droplets. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The UK government has apparently advised Britons that there is no benefit in wearing face masks in public, despite new US medical guidance advising Americans to do so.[14] -- DeFacto (talk). 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A close relative who is a doctor told me that masks collect moisture from your breath, which condenses in them. Unless you can change them frequently (every hour or less), they become a breeding ground for some pretty nasty bacteria which can kill you in other ways. Anecdotal, I know, but it seems to make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, you are experienced enough to be familiar with WP: NOTAFORUM so please follow that guidance. Certain construction workers, painters, industrial workers and landscapers have worn N-95 type facemasks for 8 hour shifts for decades. Where are the medical journal reports about these alleged bacterial infections? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledged the anecdotal nature of my comment, but also note that something similar is noted in the linked article. And your comment seems as anecdotal and unsourced as mine. I see neither comment as forum style posts, but more in the vein of guiding ourselves in the direction of better information to include in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea who those people are and what those abbreviations mean. I'm guessing it's a little US-centric, so this non-American can't quite keep up. How about some sourcing, and elaboration for the other 95% of the world's population please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not from the US, but the IP user is probably talking about HCQ = hydroxychloroquine, and Didier Raoult, who is a French medical researcher with senior administrative responsibilities who has been strongly promoting the using of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and making claims that up to now would have had no chance of all at surviving WP:MEDRS. I suggest that 24.152.216.213 should take a look at COVID-19 drug development#Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and if something is missing there, suggest on the talk page there that it be added. I don't think that adding MD or PhD to researchers' names there would increase the encyclopedic quality of the research discussed there. It wouldn't pass WP:MOS, in any case.

If you're reading this 24.152, here's an informal summary of COVID-19 drug development#Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine: it's definitely good at killing SARS-CoV-2 in vitro (Nature paper), and it's definitely good at killing human hosts if the dose is just a little bit higher than the amount that is good against mosquitoes. See that section on that page for details. Boud (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We’re not staying sleek and streamlined

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

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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

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

What, exactly, are you trying to suggest? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 to User:Liz Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That we have our references within the text like a regular, normal article. And that we not subsume whole paragraphs in some weird template.

And in general, that we go with our regular skills in this important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

...I think you're trying to suggest that editors shouldn't need to learn how to cite their sources to edit this article? Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not! :-) In baseball terms, I want our rotation to be very good at the standard pitches, just try not to learn fancy pitches during the heat of a pennant race. ;-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with FriendlyRiverOtter that excerpts mixed with Template:Main look weird. The standard way has always been Template:Main in such cases, so we should use consistent style. Even featured articles generally use Template:Main instead of excerpts. Brandmeister^talk 08:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yah I am not a big fan of excerpts as it make it difficult to figure out were to edit the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. So please, step-by-medium-step, let’s start moving away from excerpts. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I changed some of our lead from excerpt back to text with this edit:

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

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

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

@FriendlyRiverOtter: thanks for the ping. Sophivorus has been the main editor adding excerpts, not me, so they are the one to talk to. As you'll see if you read above, I had strong concerns about some of the excerpts that they added, which introduced negative changes that they did not fix (they've since addressed some, and I addressed some others myself). Regarding the portion of the paragraph in the intro, though, the text there was nearly identical, and once I made changes at one that should've been made at both, they were completely identical, so the case for an excerpt there is very strong. If you want to remove some of the detail in this article that's in the coronavirus article, I support that, but the part that remains the same (which is still substantial) should be an excerpt, so that updates at one are reflected at both, and they don't start to drift apart again. For addressing the confusion, just add a hidden comment telling editors to go to the other article, since any change they'll want to make should be made at both. I'll note as well that your transition back has re-introduced some errors, such as having 2 as a numeral rather than spelled out, and removing some wikilinks. Regarding excerpts vs. {{Main}}, the latter does not actually transclude any text, so they're very different. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But I thought there was an advantage to having separate articles. For example, Coronavirus disease 2019 for the health effects on a human being, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic for scientific and medical responses, and broader societal effects, and then Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 for the virus itself. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Using the fragment parameter makes excerpts difficult to understand and implement. I always disliked fragments, they suck. I recommend the Template:Excerpt be used just for transcluding entire lead sections of subarticles into sections of this article, such as for example in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Education. Check the wikitext there, I think it's nature (and benefits) should be clear to any editor. Sophivorus (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I want low hurdle, so that maybe we get 20 editors activity participating over a two day period, and not just five. After all, the decentralized approach is the whole Wikipedia way, right? Within reason of course.

And then, we might have longer, more detailed coverage in our Coronavirus disease 2019. And shorter, briefer, crisper coverage in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic since it has to cover more topics. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I just made a few changes to the intro layout, which at the end have resulted in the excerpt being its own paragraph. That and the hidden comment should make it very clear what it's doing. (For further improvement, I'd recommend making changes at coronavirus disease 2019 to make it a separate paragraph there as well; that'll prevent the need to use a fragment.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Make a secton: Challenges, with subsection: Testing Capacity

Also make a bar graph of united states new infections per day, with overlay bars of the number of tests performed per day. Testing capacity has reached or is nearing capacity and it will make it look as if daily new infections is constant when in fact it is increasing. In reality tests performed per day will be constant and the backlog of tests (to process) will be increasing. The time to receive test results is also increasing due to the backlog of tests (to process) increasing.

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

China (mainland)

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

To distinguish between Red China and RoC. DMBFFF (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not the reason at all: it is because Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Therefor (mainland) should be removed and a note put into the notes section. 50.101.52.133 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Not going to happen when the relevant article is at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, and a recent requested move to remove the "mainland" there failed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Than France (mainland), Netherlands (mainland), United Stets (mainland), etc. should all be added for consistency. Why only pick one country to list (mainland) and not all the others with other jurisdictions? 50.101.52.133 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Those articles aren't titled France (mainland) (the term is Metropolitan France anyway), Netherlands (mainland) etc. The move request failed, time to move on from this total non-issue. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Who are you to call it a "total non-issue"? I think you're having trouble grasping the subject. I know it's not called France (mainland), i was being deliberately ignorant. I thought that was obvious. That wasn't the point. The point was that to be consistent, they should all have it, or none should. 50.101.52.133 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The author said about 2 viruses in 2008 in her book, one virus attacked in 2010 and another virus attacked in 2020 , How the author says about the feature viral attacks in 2008?

About "flush eating disease" really happened in 2010

https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/get-the-facts-about-necrotizing-fasciitis-the-flesh-eating-disease/

About "pneumonia like disease" really happened in 2020

https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/this-book-predicted-2020-coronavirus-outbreak-12-years-ago-trending-now-1652433-2020-03-04

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sylvia-browne-coronavirus/ Please open this link for the above books page , the paragraph one really happened in 2010, the paragraph 2 rally happened in 2020 , its is really a mystery.

Please start discussion about this issue

(Yshari (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Need proper sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

may i suggest renaming this page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

for the sake of factual correctness and professionalism, may i suggest saying COVID-19 in the title, although, yes, the year does technically provide specification, the current title appears as if stating that "coronavirus" is the name of the virus, thus reinforcing said problematic misnomer

it may also be a good idea to change "pandemic" to a more professional and factual equivalent with, yknow, some actual stats behind it — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllieTheLilac (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

{see top of page, 'no moves' until end of month/April 26, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Treatment section

Moving the treatments to another page, then moving from that page to another page, then from that page to another page ... means that nobody can get any information about treatments. This critical information has been lost in the bowels of Wikipedia.

You guys are idiots. People are dying and you are more worried about editorially "correct" Wikipedia articles rather than making it as easy as possible for people to find information about cures. If putting cure information in this article directly saves even one life, then it belongs in this article. What might have been "right" a month ago, maybe not be right NOW. Any information that can save even one life needs to be as easy as possible for people to find the information. Playing editor Gods, in this case, could literally cause somebody to die that did not need to die. Do you editor Gods really want that on your conscience?

Combination treatment of the following 5 items has shown almost 100% success with patients who are just starting to have the symptoms of shortness of breathe, either at a doctor's office or right when they get the hospital. Preventing people from having to go to the hospital in the first place or worse, being put on a ventiltor, will reserve much needed ventilators for people who this treatment does not show signs or working or have other conditions that make this treatment not the appropriate choice.

• Drug: Hydroxychloroquine (anti-malaria drug)
• Drug: Azithromycin (antibiotic)
• Dietary Supplement: Vitamin C (boosts immunity)
• Dietary Supplement: Vitamin D (helps with respiratory viruses)
• Dietary Supplement: Zinc (helps Hydroxychloroquine work even better)

There are no specific treatments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Xenophobia and Racism

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

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

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

This is discussed on the Xenophobia and racism pandemic topic page. The related section in this topic is just meant to be a brief summary of that topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's a racist, but the term isn't. I'd call it the "PRC virus" or "Xi Jinping Virus" or maybe the "XJV." In wikt:Wiktionary:Requested entries (English), I've requested wikt:Trump virus. DMBFFF (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on Trump's own accounting of his motivation for using the term, it was more political than anything else. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole Trump-CNN-opinion triangle is thoroughly documented in most articles about Trump, if you're looking for agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump may well be a racist, but his reason for calling this the Chinese Virus is to pander to the racists who think he's on their side. Fomenting racism and division wins votes. It's an old strategy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also can't think of it as the American virus if it's the Chinese virus, making America (seem) great again. Older strategy than the slogan, even. Passing the buck, the kids used to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a very old strategy. I mentioned Trump, but politicians in almost every country have used it and still do. I see it as similar to politicians play the Law And Order(!!!!) card. We do mention when politicians do that, in a diplomatic way. There is no reason not to say they are playing the Race card. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason. The kids now say "race" to mean skin colour, nose shape and dick size. The Big Orange One is playing a more social, economic and cultural race card here. White supremacists may get on board that train, but only because it's compatible with modern racist views, not flat-out appealing to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's already there: U.S. president Donald Trump has faced criticism for referring to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", a term considered by some critics to be racist and anti-Chinese. That wording is fine, and any proposed significant changes to it should be discussed and consensus reached before being implemented. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I did just make one small tweak, removing the word "some" that someone had added, as it's redundant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Could be tightened to "Critics called U.S. President Donald Trump's term 'Chinese virus' racist and anti-Chinese." Trump "facing" it isn't exactly an activity. Mostly dodges it, truth be told. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Students

Perhaps finding an accurate number for the amount of students currently enrolled and comparing it to the number on the UNESCO site would work Sam1370 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There is still the number of total students affected on the site, so doing some arithmetic should allow us to get the correct number Sam1370 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb Thanks for the info. Sorry — should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We need an accurate source for the number of learners affected by the coronavirus

This number was previously reported as 97% on this page, and 98% on the impact of coronavirus page. I don’t know where these figures came from, so in an earlier edit I corrected the data using information from the original UNESCO source. However, I reread the UNESCO page and it said that this 91.3% figure only corresponded to the number of nationwide learners and not the learners in total. If you find a way to get accurate information on this topic please reply immediately.

Sam1370 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: Alright I fixed it using cross multiplication. Someone let me know if the explanatory footnote is too unprofessional and needs to be edited. Sam1370 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: I was the one who updated it from 91% to 97%. I forget exactly what my source was — I think it was UNESCO at the time — but it was in the body in the education section, and that section has since been turned into an excerpt, so it's hard to tell the history (I just spent too long trying haha). Anyways, I see you've interpreted the UNESCO current data and come to 99.4%, which seems a lot closer to the mark. It probably depends a bit on what you define as "affected", but any number below 95% I'd be skeptical of at this point as out of date or incomplete. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the info. Sorry — should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: No worries! And re the note, it's not ideal, since it's more targeted at editors who might be tempted to change the number than readers. Could we change it to a hidden comment instead? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Sure, I’ll do that. Sam1370 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Herd Immunity

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

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

You’re very right. This is a glaring oversight, and I went ahead and made the change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But there is no vaccine (in reality, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've undone you. Sources don't mention an alternative. BBC didn't mention immunity. Does the Drosten interview really mention 70%? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that right now, right here, it’s a pipe dream. But I’ve read some estimates of a year and a half, which compared to older times, ain’t bad.

And I’m going to invite the other people who have commented to this discussion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Two million years of catching the old coronaviruses colours me less optimistic. But yeah, fingers crossed! For now, though, let's reflect current outlooks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Actually, there is theoretically a third option: Cross-immunity (not yet detected for SARS-CoV-2, but not to be excluded).

The article mentions only one way to get to herd immunity. The question is: Sticking with the article, or give all the possible ways how to achieve eventually herd immunity. Stefanhanoi (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

How about listing the major ways, backed up with references? As our article currently stands, even if an elementary school student were to read this part . . I think you see what I’m saying. To me, a glaring oversight, but maybe not every feels this way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

————

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

I'm a bit confused, because I was about to say we need to account of natural immunity in the population, I read a research that postulated 20% and I'm expecting even more immunity. But I just fell on a WHO conference where it is said "no one have immunity" is that backed by any solid evidence ? Iluvalar (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the research has been done, nor has there been time or resources to test a sufficient sample of the non-infected population. There is also the fact that it seems some people can be infected, but show no symptoms. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, we should wait for further research on vaccination (the vaccines currently in development are in Phase I trials, so we won't know for some time whether they work on humans), while herd immunity has been extensively covered. But I'm not a medical expert, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Our opinions are great, don't get me wrong, but maybe we just look for a published expert opinion on whether up to 70% of some population or another could, should or must be vaccinated for herd immunity to do its thing, then cite that publication (alternatively, don't make any such claims up through consensus). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the current sentence intended to be a general explanation of how herd immunity is achieved? If so, then yes, it's a large percentage of a population gaining immunity through infection or vaccination. See measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pertussis, diphtheria, etc. Or is it intended to be some kind of a solution? If so, I haven't heard any reputable medical sources endorse this as a good idea without factoring in vaccination. I'd recommend deleting the paragraph and rewriting with better sourcing. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence to be Patrick Vallance's specifically British advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Vallance's advice was never mainstream and it seems like he has backed off the idea. If we're presenting his old ideas, we should qualify it with the current general consensus that it was considered by many to be a bad idea. Good article here explaining this a little more. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't attribute anything to "many", though, name names. On that note, Matt Hancock backed off in your article. He's not Vallance. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There are about 500 here and another 680 here. Another letter from the British Society for Immunology here. In contrast to herd immunity, the current mainstream recommendation is to gradually move from mitigation to control by dramatically expanding rapid testing. Then ultimately solve this with a vaccine in the next two years. I don't believe this is a pipe dream given current technology and the resources going into vaccine development. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There might be some herd immunity here: 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships. DMBFFF (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Some readers will read article in a very here-and-now frame of mind and want a good deep dive of the present. On the other hand, with the current statement “estimated that 60% of the British population will need to become infected,” well, even a 10-year-old child might ask, how about vaccine? So, we do both.

And if different scientists give different estimates, that’s real world and a good thing and we include the range.

And if this Patrick Vallance guy gives wild card advice, we should say so, whatever his position with the UK government. I mean, if there are people speaking against his predictions, we should cover that as matter-of-factly as anything else. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, he's not crazy. But from a public health standpoint, a government policy based on his counsel would be. Because unlike in natural science land, civilized peoples put their dying in intensive care units, near overwhelmable and essential medical pros. So acting naturally like the country's top scientist suggests Britain could would destroy civilization. That's the major gripe from the "vaccines are possible sometime later" crowd. Civilized people don't want to die alone, disconnected from technology. And public health officials are overwhelmingly pro-hospital, so herd immunity is controversial, not merely bonkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes think people from a more academic background run into trouble because they feel compelled to list every possibility. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Azadi Tower lights in support of China against coronavirus 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• withdrawn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Countries/Territories

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

Can you please provide a source for this? We are currently using worldometers.info.

Sam1370 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ships don't count as their own respective territories, they belong to the territory they are currently in. There is no reason for it to be placed in the infobox. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that it makes no sense to show 209 in the infobox and 225 in the table, it should be the same number in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Picture from U.S. in the Infobox photomontage?

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but does it not seem out of touch to anyone else that the infobox photomontage (which is otherwise excellent) has no photo from the country with by far the highest number of cases? Perhaps a photo from the U.S. placed further down in the article could be substituted in, if appropriate? (This wouldn’t be at the expense of any of the images already there, of course.)

Food for thought. —RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 12:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

its not necessary...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC — Should we stop the use of excerpts?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we stop the use of excerpts which take material from Coronavirus disease 2019 and copies that same material into 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?

For example, the second paragraph of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic uses . . . . Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread|nohat=y . . . . , with double braces at both ends. 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

——————-

@Liz: @Doc James: @Juxlos: @Brandmeister: @Sdkb: @Sophivorus:

I’ve started this RfC (Request for Comment), and as persons who have previously commented, you are each hereby invited :-) as are other interested persons. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, let’s please stop the use of excerpts. The two articles have different areas of focus. For example, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic might evolve a longer, more extensive coverage of economic effects. In addition, excerpts add another hurdle even for seasoned editors. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be a consensus not to use them and, as of now, the excerpts are gone in the article. Brandmeister^talk 15:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral No super strong feelings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Partial yes First of all, I think there's no consensus. This discussion has three users against (FriendlyRiverOtter, Doc James and Brandmeister) and two users in favor (Sdkb and myself), but this other discussion shows three users in favor (CFCF, Sdkb, myself and maybe Ozzie10aaaa) and none against. That's not consensus. Furthermore, in the first linked discussion I replied saying that I totally agree to stop using excerpts with the fragment parameter (the only example you mention, and the only using the fragment parameter, coincidentally) but I also mentioned that plain uses, such as the one at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Education are much easier to understand and implement, which no one replied to or seems to acknowledge. So for now I stand my ground: I agree about stopping the use of complicated excerpts with the fragment parameter, but not about stopping the use of plain excerpts, since they seem to me overly useful and simple enough. Sophivorus (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pets and tigers

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

Here is a source [15]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The direct source is this. Rather belongs to the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The cats appear to be asymtpomatic. Brandmeister^talk 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, these cats were infected directly with syringes. Unless you have a cat who can work a plunger and has serum handy and hates you, your species should be fine. Fine sucking up its cats' faces, anyway (but if you kiss two cats, have the decency to wash up between them). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Just seen this: "Pets or other livestock may test positive but can't pass on coronavirus to humans". I've checked both sources and they don't state this as far as I can tell. The statements I do see are:

• Coronaviruses that infect animals can sometimes be spread to people, but this is rare.
• We do not have evidence that companion animals, including pets, can spread COVID-19.
• Pet cats and dogs cannot pass the new coronavirus on to humans, but they can test positive for low levels of the pathogen if they catch it from their owners.

None of these statements equates to saying that no species of pet or livestock whatsoever can possibly pass the virus onto humans. Clearly there's no way every species can have been studied in sufficient detail to reach this conclusion. Furthermore, there are warnings out there that inanimate objects can carry the virus; if this is true then surely almost any animal could carry it just the same? — Smjg (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just modified the section header above to include tigers, as the Bronx tiger has come and gone several times over the last 48 hours. I think it's a distraction, it doesn't belong on a page which documents a disease which has (so far) killed a hundred thousand humans, and there is no evidence that this event is significant. But I don't want to start a war! User:-sche, User:RayDeeUx, User:Mx._Granger please comment! Robertpedley (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Robertpedley. I feel that we could touch upon the Bronx Zoo tiger in the main article (it is a first for confirmed cases of animals with COVID-19 after all), and if the situation for COVID-19 worsens for pets/animals, we could make a See also notice leading to a smaller article focusing on COVID-19's effects on pets and animals above it and add more content in there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx_contrib^{talk page} 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe the information would fit better in the Coronavirus disease 2019 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I had cut the mention of the tiger down to a three-word parenthetical (which could alternatively be reworked to e.g. "Pets, a tiger and other animals..."), since I respect the argument that a tiger being sick is not per se relevant to transmission (the justification I saw for it being removed), and not "due" three whole sentences. I did leave the three-word mention, since people had kept adding mentions of it, but I don't mind it being cut out. I did, as a separate matter but using some related sources, add a clause and some references which are on-topic for a "Transmission" section, briefly noting that transmission from humans to animals infrequently seems to occur, complimenting the existing statement that animal-to-human transmission is not evidenced. I do think having a single sentence about both of those kinds of transmission is appropriate, for a section on transmission. -sche (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, there is no evidence that cats, dogs, or tigers have contributed to the transmission of the pandemic, so any mention on this page should be kept to a minimum, at least until more evidence is available.[[16]] The tiger, in particular, grabbed the headlines for a couple of days but no-one cuddles a tiger.

I agree with Granger that it's a characteristic of the virus so it's worthy of a mention in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

COVID-19 is a human disease, it doesn't belong there.

So I propose to trim the sentence back to "pets and other animals" if no-one objects. Robertpedley (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Cross-linking a related discussion, #Animals, where someone has pointed out that the UK advises handwashing after animal contact (I'll add that with the ref given there) (because, it seems, animals may not transmit the virus to humans themselves, but an infected person petting an animal and them an uninfected person petting the animal could). -sche (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian laboratory Vector

There are some reports that there could be connection between an outbreak in Wuhan and spike of pneumonia in Siberia in late 2019 after a blast at the Russian viral laboratory Vektor in mid September 2019.

• Co-student of Putin Shvets: The blast at the Novosibirsk center of Virology "Vektor" became the Russian Chernobyl (Сокурсник Путина Швец: Взрыв в новосибирском центре вирусологии "Вектор" стал российским Чернобылем). Gordon. 4 April 2020. (in Russian)
• The Coronavirus in Russia: from a blast in the science center of Virology "Vektor" to the isolation of Moscow (Коронавирус в России: от взрыва в научном центре вирусологии “Вектор” до изоляции Москвы). Antikor. 27 March 2020. (in Russian)

Back on 19 September 2019 Dr Filippa Lentzos, an expert in biological threats and a senior research fellow at King's College London, said that while the Russian story was “consistent”, she would not be surprised if more details later emerged because of the country’s track record. (Sarah Newey. Russian lab blast: smallpox facility passed WHO biosecurity inspection in January. The Telegraph. 19 September 2019)

signed Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Outbreaks of pneumonia were reported in several regions of the Russian Trans-Ural near Siberia, in particular in Orenburg Oblast, Chelyabinsk Oblast (An outbreak of pneumonia is noted in Orenburg Oblast (Вспышка пневмонии зафиксирована в Оренбургской области). Channel One Russia. 19 November 2019 (video footage (in Russian)), For the third year in a row in Chelyabinsk schools are being closed down for quarantine (В Челябинске третий год подряд из-за вспышек пневмонии закрывают школы на карантин). Rosbalt. 16 October 2019 (in Russian)). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Several dozens of groups in kindergarten were closed on quarantine, there are lines to polyclinics. In Novosibirsk Oblast began an epidemic season. Viruses this year are especially cunning, the most common complication after acute viral respirator infection (AVRI) and flu is pneumonia (Несколько десятков групп в детских садах закрыли на карантин, в поликлиниках - очереди. В Новосибирской области начался эпидсезон. Вирусы в этом году особенно коварны, самое частое осложнение после ОРВИ и гриппа - пневмония)". (The epidemic season began in Novosibirsk Oblast (Эпидсезон начался в Новосибирской области). VN.ru. 1 November 2019. (in Russian), There implemented quarantine in dozens of kindergartens of Novosimbirsk Oblast (Карантин ввели в десятках детских садов в Новосибирской области). Izvestiya. 28 October 2019. (in Russian), The pneumonia of strict regime: The Siberian about how he after treating himself at home ended up in a strange hospital (Пневмония строгого режима: сибиряк — о том, как долечился дома до воспаления легких и попал в странную больницу). NGS news. 20 October 2019 (in Russian)) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In late October of 2019 in Wuhan took place the 2019 Military World Games, which consistent with Chinese claims about the fact that the virus might have been brought by military. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I shall repeat the opening of this thread with some emphasis of my own. "There are some reports that there could be..." We cannot base content on anything that vague and speculative. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Pneumonia is super common. We need better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Confliction between number of territories reported by Worldometer and number of territories reported by Wikipedia data

The territories affected by coronavirus as reported by Worldometer conflicts with the number of territories affected we have on the page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory. Since one links to the other on this page, which do you all think we should use? Sam1370 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No strong opinion, you? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

China number of cases and deaths

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

Shouldn't China's numbers at least have this added: [dubious – discuss] ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. I already added this info and it was archived, but I can't find it anymore. Besides it's not solved yet. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 28#China number of cases and deaths. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Not quite true. On April 1, the number of cases was reported as 81,589 and it's steadily increased to 81,802, that's an increase of 213. Whether that is exactly what the article has said all along I'm not sure, but that's the data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/. Chris55 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Copypasting the argument of a previous discussion is not going to change the outcome of the discussion. Yes, it is extremely likely China (and others) is lying about the number of infections and deaths. But unless reliable sources start making those claims, it's not relevant to this article. Additionally, for things like the data tables, we can only use the data we have. Assumptions and guesses will not fly. Resolute 15:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious that Chinese data are unreliable. It's pretty obvious they stopped measuring or stopped including the measurements in the official statistics. The best source I have found so far is this:

  Coronavirus: Why China's claims of success raise eyebrows, Apr 7, bbc.com

  --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• One could introduce some reasonably stringent standards for case count publishing: no case count and death count reporting without test count reporting. You don't give us test count => we report your case count as N/A, since we do not know the key number to make the very basic sense of it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We should just go with what Johns Hopkins or Worldometers does. We should not be making up our own criteria for how to count cases, which numbers to disregard, etc. Just pick one reasonably reliable authority and stick with it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Officially confirmed cases are increasing, just at a low rate at this point. Regarding reliability, there are ongoing discussions at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Is there something in this article relating to the concerns about accuracy of number of infected/deceased? and Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § Possibility of under reported cases. --MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • None of those sources are very good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Video

Video summary (script)

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

• video is very good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think there is any consensus to incorporate the video into the lede of the article at all, nevertheless it was added by Doc James twice, which is not covered by WP:BRD any more).

We are an encyclopedia, not a video site. Foremostly, our medium is text enriched with static illustrations. While an occasional animation is okay (as is, IMHO, a link to a quality video in the External Links section), many people consider "moving" contents a distraction and annoyance. If a video would be actually needed to convey the message, it means that we failed in our core discipline to explain the topic in prose.

In the case of videos, users not having suitable plugins installed and scripting enabled may f.e. just see a large empty box instead of a video. This looks very odd, in particular in the lede of a high-profile article such as this one. It completely ruins the page layout and makes people stop reading the article beyond the lede. I would appreciate for the video to be removed again. (A link to it under EL would be fine with me.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure that I was part of the development of the Videowiki platform. We've never had a moratorium on videos in articles nor is this replacing what exists. My argument continues to be that a significant portion of the population either needs to, or prefers to, digest the initial information in video format. This is the perfect example where the En language article is rapidly improving and a video format will be more inclusive of the population in need. My understanding is most devices will play the window so I don't agree with the technical limitation. Last, we have lots of high-profile articles with Videowiki's (pneumonia, dengue fever, tuberculosis) where they have been maintained, are updated, and are being slowly improved staying well aligned (rather than at odds) with the principals of the Wikipedia movement. Ian Furst (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Heading

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

RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

And instead of “not generally airborne,” we’ve currently decided to go with the phrase “are not generally spread through air over large distances.” FriendlyRiverOtter (talk)

Changes 2

I'll update that consensus a bit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

The consensus was also about the other bits like contact and asymptomatic spread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Website requesting to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention Subtitle: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention

Sentence requesting to edit:"According to the WHO, the use of masks is recommended only if a person is coughing or sneezing or when one is taking care of someone with a suspected infection."

What to replace it with: "With the continuum of maintaining the 6-feet social distancing, the CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and not know it from transmitting it to other individuals."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html Aspencer0522 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence you are requesting to edit does not exist but in a paraphrased form. Also, your replacement request is close paraphrasing. Instead, I have made my own edit that should satisfy this request. The CDC is an agency in the U.S., and the WHO is a global agency, so I left the WHO part there. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 18:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Referenced the CDC directly rather than the LA times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Table showing cases by country is gone

The table under Epidemiology has been replaced by the map showing total cases. The table was MUCH more easier to understand the number of cases country-wise than the map. I don't see the need for the map to appear again as it is available in the infobox too. Any chance we can bring it back? Thundermage117 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And it's back, that was quick. Thank you very much. Thundermage117 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be gone again? I agree, it was MUCH easier to understand. --LatinumPulchrum (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And... it's back. Whats going on ? --LatinumPulchrum (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone deleted it and I restored it a couple of times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request title change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To change name to 2019-20 Covid-19 pandemic Vonwin (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lethality in a study in Germany

Can anyone cite this? https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona-studie-heinsberg-101.html It is a study in Germany that considers the lethality of the covid-19 as low as 0.37%. Thank you. --83.38.50.205 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Current stands at 2.2% Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Much lower. 0.37% sounds about right. The estimations of infected people not tested keep growing. Some source talk about herd immunity at 70% of all population. I think that is crazy atm, but yeah some source does say crazy things. Unless Doc James talk about CFR, in that case 2.2% sounds about right. Yeah... I agree with both of you. Iluvalar (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

To help a bit more with this discussion, while I believe numbers will still drop and 83.38's source could be right, the current consensus seems higher. Canada's gov. today made an estimation at 1.1%. Unless it's a game changer, like the WHO who give an estimate, I think we have to go with what the bulk of the sources seems to say no matter what the WP:TRUTH is. So thanks for sharing the source 83.38 . I don't think we can go with the lowest estimate to date. Iluvalar (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine and Vague Use of 'Cases'

There is increasing scientific opinion of Hydroxychloroquine as an emerging antidote against SARS-COV-2. So, should we mention that? Also, I think we should distinguish 'cases' into 'active cases' and 'recovered cases' instead of vaguely using the term cases .Sitaphul (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul

No evidence but being studied and we say this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Animals

Related discussions: pets and tigers & in animals

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

it may be more appropriate in the disease article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And I'd want to see a truly reliable source saying it's a scientific fact, not just "reports", or ""claimed", or anything weak like that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Over a million animals have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. What's more interesting is whether or not non-human animals, in particular non-human vertebrates, have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. But that would be more likely to be relevant to an associated page, such as the disease article, not this one. Boud (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There should be a section about coronavirus in animals in both coronavirus disease 2019 and this article. It's part of this outbreak as well as the disease. Jim Michael (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Animals don't have a choice. If they're not happy with their place in the world, too bad. They have to live the life they've been given. Humans, on the other hand, don't have to. We have a choice." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, the idea of "pandemic" is what separates us from them. They don't get the social deal, even if they catch the disease. And if they're not contributing to the human numbers, they should stay the hell out of our pandemic, sorry-not-sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If animals are infected, they're part of the pandemic. Jim Michael (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Are they counted in the confirmed cases, the hospitalizations, the deaths or the recoveries like "we" are? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually not. However, I'm not suggesting that they be included in the article's table on those stats. I'm saying that now we have mainstream, reliable sources (such as the BBC) stating that animals have tested positive for COVID-19, our article should have a short section about this pandemic having spread to animals. Without it, the article gives the impression to readers that only humans have it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm still sceptical. While on most matters the BBC is an excellent source, this is a medical matter, and all the BBC will be doing is quoting somebody else. What matters is who that "somebody else" is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Tiger at Bronx Zoo tests positive for Covid-19 Jim Michael (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"...experts have stressed there is no evidence they can become sick or spread the disease." Just like us, right? Start a new article for the supposed beast pandemic once WOAH declares it, Jim, leave the WHO stuff to the humans. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, we have for some time already had one single (referenced) sentence noting that while animals can test positive and there is a low but documented possibility the virus can be transmitted to them, they cannot transmit it to humans or thus spread the pandemic. IMO, having this one short sentence in the "Transmission" section of our 345,000 byte article is reasonable. (See also discussion above.) I do not think we need a whole "section", though. -sche (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both american CDC and OIE (WOfAH) have advises about animals:

• https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fprepare%2Fanimals.html
• https://www.oie.int/en/scientific-expertise/specific-information-and-recommendations/questions-and-answers-on-2019novel-coronavirus/

Also with British cats it is needed to wash (human) hands before and after any cat contact https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-people-with-animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.241 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point; I've seen other sources note that an infected person touching an animal and then an uninfected person touching it could transmit the virus like touching any other surface could. I'll add a brief mention of that with your last source and one other. -sche (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Do readers really need examples of surfaced objects? Seems like a slippery slope into a theoretically bottomless pit. Do we even mention human exteriors as such, beyond their breath and hands? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

We did not. I added "including skin" after "contaminated surfaces", should cover all skinbearing creatures adequately. Maybe your part is redundant now, but that's for you to decide. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please find the best permanent reliable source for date of origin. Changing dates periodically seems nonliable to some readers. The Supermind (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

highly inaccurate death number

Hi. The stats of India are a little off than the provided source [17]. I would have updated it myself, but I dont know the template name, and because of the mediawiki software update, i am unable to edit sections on mobile. Kindly edit as soon as possible. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

First identified

It was first identified in December 2019 per CDC and WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: It was first identified in Nov per several solid sources I was STILL WORKING ON that you RV'd WITH NO EXPLANATION, but since you're probably part of the privileged wiki elite that can RV with impunity, have at it. And wiki wonders why the general population laughs at wiki. I don't need this. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

When CNN says "as early as November" this does not actually mean November.[18] It could be after that. Also not as good a source as the CDC and WHO.

And it does not says it was this virus. Could have been swine flu.[19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Serious Mistake in the Pandemic Date

Serious mistake in the pandemic date- "17 November 2020-ongoing", obviously should be "17 November 2019-ongoing".

NEEDS TO BE URGENTLY FIXED! I can't edit because the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.14.95 (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. the wub "?!" 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was first identified in Dec, with the Nov 17 questionable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Date of origin

The problem still exists that there is changing date of origin, Dec 1 to Dec 2019. The Dec 1 the true one. Please do not change periodically that seemingly vandalize the article. The Supermind (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for pointing this out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Supermind and Ozzie10aaaa: I haven't been following this super closely, but if one of you have, could you add an item to the current consensus list establishing what the prevailing consensus is? (Unless discussions have been formally closed or are otherwise very clear, please use the "prevailing" qualifier, and if consensus has been established mostly through editing patterns, please use the "informal" qualifier.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear, Sdkb, I have understand your reason but there is confusing with some portion of the Epidemiology section.

1. Why you couldn't still you remove the " The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster."

2. Why you couldn't remove 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China (the epidemic initial outbreak) still says December 1, 2019. The Supermind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ref says "The cluster was initially reported on 31 December 2019"... "Symptom onset of the 41 confirmed nCoV cases ranges from 8 December 2019" So I think Dec is sufficient. User:The Supermind [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

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

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

Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I favor Option 2, with the wording changed to "and there have been incidents of". I was going to favor #1 because of the much greater numbers of reported attacks against Asian and Asian-appearing people, but I was looking at it from a U.S.-centric point of view. The article List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic straightened out my perspective. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Iswearius and Sapah3: You both need to stop making changes to the sentence and come here to discuss per WP:BRD. I'm going to revert to what I perceive as the WP:STATUSQUO while discussion takes place. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))

• Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))

Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))

@Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 Concise and avoids WP:UNDUE weight issues. Some1 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Expand on my vote: Option 3 fails to adhere to WP:WEIGHT. Due to the pandemic, the large majority of the discrimination and xenophobia has been and is being directed against Chinese people and Asians (Asians can be narrowed down later). Coverage of xenophobia/racism (against Asians) by major and reliable news sources: [21][[22]][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] More can be seen at List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or if you google xenophobia and coronavirus/Covid-19. Xenophobia exists against other groups too, no one is denying that, but the common theme in the majority of these countries is xenophobia/ racism against Chinese people/Asians/people who look Chinese e.g.'Chinese-looking' Indians targeted in racist attacks". Per WP:WEIGHT, the sentence should balance that, not lump it all together like Option 3. The current wording of the xenophobia sentence/ status quo provides the right balance. Some1 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'd go with option 3, the broadest possible and short. If it gets longer, there is a danger of it being given WP:UNDUE prominence. Certainly when you look at the section on xenophobia now, it is WP:UNDUE, and could be trimmed to half. Hzh (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 the discrimination against what groups depends on were you are obviously Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And looking at reliable sources and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article, the common theme is discrimination against Asians in a large number of countries. Some1 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes initially for sure. And in the English language communities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Source for "initially"? And also not "in English language communities" only, as you can see if you actually read through the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‎‎ article (Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Philippines, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, just to list a few). Some1 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So in China there is discrimination again foreigners generally.[38] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, xenophobia is happening in other countries (that's why Option 2/the current lead includes others from hotspots); but the majority of the xenophobia has been directed towards Asians. Literally from the article you provided: "One of the most unfortunate twists in the ongoing COVID-19 emergency is the racism and xenophobia it has unleashed across the world. To be sure, much of this has been directed at Chinese and Asians generally." WP:WEIGHT Some1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not "Asians". It's ambiguous. In the UK it means people from southern Asia, i.e. people of Indian or Pakistani appearance. The discrimination has been directed against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating. The word "Chinese" is important. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Doc James: "against various ethnic groups" is accurate and has the generality required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, as the best concise summary of what the sources are saying (with or without narrowing "Asian" as proposed above); option 1 would be a second choice, still better than 3 (or the suggestion of downplaying it out of the lead entirely). -sche (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 because (in most instances) the xenophobia and racism existed prior to the coronavirus pandemic and the disease has either fanned existing fears (phobia = fear) or racist people use the disease as another avenue to rationalize their hate and violence. In other words, while Chinese people were the first to encounter significantly worse prejudice and hostility, xenophobia & racism quickly spread to other ethnic, racial, or religious groups. For example I just added this sentence to the xenophobia and racism section: "Discrimination and violence directed against Muslims in India has escalated after public health authorities identified an Islamic missionary group's large gathering in New Delhi in early March 2020 as a source of coronavirus contagion."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Why are we even mentioning anti-Chinese racism in the lead paragraph in the first place? Surely it's WP:UNDUE to specifically single out anti-Chinese/anti-Asian racism in the lead paragraph, since it places excessive attention towards one nationality/race over all other cases of coronavirus-related discrimination? Especially since now there's a mountain of evidence gathering that China is forcing foreigners to sleep on the streets, fearing that they are carrying coronavirus, that the overwhelming number of foreigners being denied accommodation in China are Africans, and that Chinese microbloggers on Weibo are overwhelmingly in support of "expelling and killing all niggers" so that they don't spread the coronavirus? The excessive focus on Chinese people being the victim is a huge breach of WP:NPOV. What makes discrimination against Chinese/Asian people so special that it needs a highly visible mention in the lead paragraph, while everyone else can be conveniently ignored? --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly right, as far as I can tell. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  I actually do think this is an important issue that needs to be mentioned in the lead. There has been a lot of high profile coverage in the media (e.g. New York Times, NBC News, The BBC describing England and Kenya), and it's a major concern for scientists as well (e.g. this Nature editorial). -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  You're speaking to the initial question of the RfC, so there's no need for this to be a separate section. I'm going to merge it to there. (update: done) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)

Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))

I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See [39], [40], [41] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

"as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [42]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [43]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [44][45][46][47][48] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [49] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove Southeast Asian. The same argument against Asian would apply to Southeast Asian, since the vast majority of Indonesians and Malays don't look anything like the Chinese (same for many other Southeast Asians) and they form a significant part of Southeast Asians. Note also that Asians in Britain typically refer to South Asians. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating that UK perspective. It seems a lot of people who think "Asian" is a nice way to refer to people from China and those who look a bit similar are completely aware that in Britain the word doesn't mean that at all. It means someone from places like India and Pakistan. It's like that with political correctness and euphemisms. They come into use without formal definition, and remain that way, with quite confusing results. In this global encyclopaedia we must not use "Asian" in any form to mean people who look like they might have come from China. And it's the latter characteristic that this is all about, people who look like they might have come from China. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say drop the subject and pick any sentence that is approximately accurate. How many covid-linked deaths from xenophobia are there? People are dying, economies including small businesses are taking a massive hit (possibly an unnecessary one), and we are discussing xenophobia? Come on, people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Currently, the last paragraph of the lead summarizes notable impacts of the pandemic (such as panic buying, closures, misinformation, xenophobia, and environmental impacts). The xenophobia/ racism part is relevant and notable, and its current placement in the lead is appropriate and fitting. In addition to the 3 links provided by Wtmitchell above and the links in my previous comment [50][51][52][53][54][55] above, here are some more coverage of xenophobia/racism (against Asians) by major and reliable news sources: [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] There's more examples at: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. As for "pick any sentence that is approximately accurate", the current wording/ status quo does the most decent job at summarizing all this. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For most who care about human lives and livelihoods, xenophobia is under the radar screen. Let's get serious. Xenophobia is probably to stay in the article for the lack of consensus, but let's waste no more discussion time on things that, when related to the huge impacts, are negligible. And on the linked page I read "An online petition to prevent people from China from entering the country was signed by more than 18,000 people" as an example of xenophobia, which is ridiculous. Let's get real. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This xenophobia topic might not be a big deal for other editors (which can be expected since Wikipedia has diversity issues and the majority of Wikipedia editors are "white men" [67][68][69][70][71][72]), but we should go by what reliable sources state and reliable sources do establish xenophobia's relevance and notability (particularly against the Chinese and Asians) in regards to this pandemic. Some1 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, mainstream media are not reliable sources on epidemiology, and actually not much on anything. Mainstream media have been shown to systematically misreport on science, shown e.g. by Ben Goldacre, and people who know some science and are paying attention can attest to Goldacre's conclusion. I do not know how Wikipedia plays this game, but, as a matter of fact, fairly reliable sources on science are scientific journals, not mainstream media. Mainstream media are in the business of creating a constant stream of news and issues since this is how they earn their living; accuracy, balance and intellectual honesty usually suffers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure how useful what I wrote above really is. Mainstream media are fundamentally unreliable but they are used by Wikipedia, and they are probably more reliable on some matters and less reliable on other matters. Maybe Wikipedia needs a reform in that regard; I don't know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• See the RfC above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a preview of what's to come - article "The Coronavirus Is a Preview of Our Climate-Change Future"

Seen in this article as something that should be seen "as a test run for all the diseases that will be unleashed in the decades ahead by warming. The virus is a terrifying harbinger of future pandemics that will be brought about if climate change continues to so deeply destabilize the natural world: scrambling ecosystems, collapsing habitats, rewiring wildlife, and rewriting the rules that have governed all life on this planet for all of human history."[73] If there are more sources discussing this aspect I thought this source might be useful - this isn't an article I edit however. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing factual or scientifically verifiable in the above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the point that the article was trying to make; if anything, it's telling us not to underestimate diseases, even the ones that we are managing. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to archive period

Whoever is changing the period where discussions without comment are archived absolutely needs to stop, or at least have the decency to bring it up for discussion first. We've survived fine with 24hrs for many weeks, and that's the firmly established status quo at this point. If you really think it needs to be less (or more), make an argument for that, don't just do it unilaterally, deleting the hidden comment telling you not to do so. I've had to unarchive way too many still-active discussions, which is a pain. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Environment sentence in intro

This sentence was added to the intro sometime in the past day: Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there has been a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions, which has had a beneficial effect on the environment. Is it important enough to stay there? (And anyone feel like writing a Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment article?) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

is doing such an article important?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much every other section of similar size (and quite a few smaller ones) have their own spinoff article, so I'd say absolutely. I think I'm going to go ahead and launch it. But as for including in the lead here, that feels pretty borderline to me, and I'd at least want it shortened, perhaps wrapped into the impacts sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the last paragraph of the lead summarizes the impacts of the pandemic, I think the environment sentence fits in just fine. Some1 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Aye, no point leaning into the negatives. Smog's down, frivolous consumerism's harder, some nonviolent inmates are free, fewer animals are getting run over, students are learning how government works and protestors aren't bothering anyone on the streets anymore. That's not to call this a good thing, just a grey thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not so much the good/bad as just whether it's important enough for the lead. The thing that gives me pause is that the climate experts I've heard have all been emphasizing that a few months of reduced emissions is not going to do anything substantial to slow the march of global warming, and perhaps they're just saying that as activists, or perhaps it's really not that big a change and is just getting blown up since people are looking for some silver lining. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the big picture, a few months or years is a blip. But in the context of an article about this pandemic, even two weeks of rapid change is major enough. The markets will bounce back, too, and the crowds, and the racism and the music (movie theatres are extinct). Same with smog. But the dip's a big deal, relative to now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In India, a species of Malabar Civet that hasn't been spotted for a very long time, was seen walking down a street in the middle of the virus. Sitaphul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)