Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Please add European Union as separate entity

I strongly believe the data should include the European Union separately. The rationale here is multi-fold. A few key reasons are

• It's very hard to look at data of the entire US and interpret it without putting it into context against a comparable sized entity like ie the European Union
• Comparing sub-regions of the USA make sense: NY State (19 million) vs Netherlands (18 million). It makes less sense however to compare ie Netherlands vs the USA. For that, you need to look at the wider context and the closest logical block here is the EU
• The virus does not respect borders. That said, the external borders of the EU have been closed. Intra-EU traffic is ongoing, but external-EU traffic has been reduced to a virtual standstill
• Finally, the same logics here applies as to why the CIA World Factbook and others have included the EU: Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN or Mercosur, and it has certain attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, currency (for some members), and law-making abilities, as well as diplomatic representation and a common foreign and security policy in its dealings with external partners.

Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has should be deemed appropriate as a separate entity. Rdeman (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rdeman: As far as I know, none of the reliable sources that publish worldwide figures does EU-level statistics. Also, given the high volume of updates, it is unlikely we would be able to keep EU-level statistics consistent. --MarioGom (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Free travel exists within the Schengen area, which does not include all EU member states but includes some countries not in the EU. And recently many countries closed borders within the Schengen area. The virus does not respect borders but we need to group the cases somehow, countries are the natural level for that. In addition the testing/mitigation strategy varies a lot between different EU countries. --mfb (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It would make no sense at all to jumble up the numbers of Italy for instance with Sweden. Not only do the testing etc. strategies vary by country but also the health systems. It's comparing apples and oranges to throw all these together and pretend they are on a similar level of comparison as US states. There may be a greater distance in terms of mileage between Connecticut and California than between Stockholm and Rome, but the distance in terms of politics, strategies and health systems is much greater between different European countries. So please do stick with handling this consistently on a national level.

In addition, maps or statistics that handle this inconsistently end up being very unhelpful. The Johns Hopkins map for instance, reliable as it may be, lists verified cases and recoveries for the USA as a whole but the number of deaths by state, or county even. What sense does that make? This makes it virtually impossible to compare percentages and ratios with those of other countries. --87.150.0.108 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To just answer by facts — rather than opinions — to the pseudo-candid statement "none of the reliable sources that publish worldwide figures does EU-level statistics": in fact the European CDC (ECDC) publishes both: on one hand the worldwide data (possibly the same than the WHO) and on the other hand "the EU/EEA and the UK" data. That may make no sense for some readers but make some sense for the publisher and some of its readers.

As of 09 April 2020, 665 778 cases have been reported in the EU/EEA and the UK: Spain (146 690), Italy (139 422), Germany (108 202), France (82 048), United Kingdom (60 733), Belgium (23 403), Netherlands (20 549), Portugal (13 141), Austria (12 969), Sweden (8 419), Ireland (6 224), Norway (6 010), Denmark (5 402), Czechia (5 312), Poland (5 205), Romania (4 761), Luxembourg (3 034), Finland (2 487), Greece (1 884), Iceland (1 616), Croatia (1 343), Estonia (1 185), Slovenia (1 091), Hungary (980), Lithuania (912), Slovakia (682), Bulgaria (593), Latvia (577), Cyprus (526), Malta (299) and Liechtenstein (79).

— ECDC [1]

As of 09 April 2020, 59 508 deaths have been reported in the EU/EEA and the UK: Italy (17 669), Spain (14 555), France (10 869), United Kingdom (7 097), Netherlands (2 248), Belgium (2 240), Germany (2 107), Sweden (687), Portugal (380), Austria (273), Ireland (235), Denmark (218), Romania (209), Poland (159), Czechia (99), Greece (83), Norway (80), Hungary (66), Luxembourg (46), Finland (40), Slovenia (40), Bulgaria (24), Estonia (24), Croatia (19), Lithuania (15), Cyprus (14), Iceland (6), Latvia (2), Slovakia (2), Liechtenstein (1) and Malta (1).

— ECDC [2]

Also with 59 508 deaths reported by the ECDC in the EU/EEA and the UK against 16,675 in the USA and 95,718 worldwide it is possible to say both:

• Most of the worldwide reported deaths (Around 59%) occurred in "the EU/EEA and the UK"
• More reported deaths occurred (to current date) in "the EU/EEA and the UK" than in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.241 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Problematic source - worldometers

I have a concern over the some of the figures being used on this page, specificlaly those sourced to "worldometers.info". Worldometers doesn't list its own sources but there's a prominent link to allow one to input figures oneself. This means it can't be classed as a WP:RS. As the likes of Google are using Wikipedia as a source right now for worldwide stats, we need to be even more careful than usual. I'll be removing those citations later when I've better access, if nobody beats me to it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Bastun: Indeed. Both Worldometer and JHU frequently report wrong figures. See Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force § Common errors for a list of the most common errors in aggregate sources. For the table ({{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}) we have stopped using Worldometer for most territories and we are relying on reliable sources instead. There are still some notable exceptions like Guinea or the United States. --MarioGom (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Highly agree. WorldOmeter's methodology is not independently verified and relies on crowd-sourcing of cases, which introduces a bias. WorldOmeter is a for-profit corporation that sells live-counters. It not be allowed to advertise on Wikipedia. I would much prefer Johns Hopkins University resource because it's a famous university and non-profit, than Worldometer. PLEASE replace all WorldOMeter references with Hopkins sourcing please.... we cannot allow Google to reference Wiki which contains WorldOMeter as a source. Rwat128 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Rwat128: Unfortunately, JHU has the same kind of errors as Worldometer. --MarioGom (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when you type in Google: "coronavirus cases", it now lists Wikipedia's table prominently. Now hundreds of millions of people are relying on Wikipedia to not mess up, so we can only rely upon reliable sources. If you had to choose between WorldOMeter (for-profit company) or JHU (non-profit university), which would you choose?Rwat128 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Rwat128: Definitely JHU, if no other choice is given. There was a discussion about it here: Template talk:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Source. --MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir please correct Italy death no Vikas payal (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

All cases have recovered from the infection

Greenland has recovered all cases from the infection. Can we add new section for these states and territories? Mircea (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Mircea: Do you mean a section for countries where all confirmed cases have recovered? I think that would be too unstable. Confirmed cases are usually a small fraction of actual cases and it is likely to change daily. --MarioGom (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For example, Nepal had 1 case and 1 recovery for a while, but now it has new confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, not having confirmed cases is different from being actually clean. Countries with no confirmed cases probably will bounce in and out.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberland etc.

Are terra nullius regions notable when they might be at least temporarily "inhabited"? In case of Bir Tawil there are actually nomads travelling through this area from time to time. By contrast, all self-declared inhabitants of Liberland are very likely to be counted by their home country already, or where else they are living - or is their any infrastructure in Liberland's claimed area where somebody could live for a longer time? The problem is that no definite number of inhabitants can be named, and there is no official institution that could confirm COVID-19 cases in terra nullius regions. So are these worth being mentioned? --2003:E7:7732:BF54:FC91:776E:77E7:FFDD (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberland is make believe based on a legal loophole, there really isn't any good reason to include when media haven't been paying attention to COVID there.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If:

1. There were actual cases in these territories.
2. Cases were not counted in their home countries.
3. And this was the subject of coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS).

Then it would make sense to mention them. I don't think that happened so far though. --MarioGom (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Guayana Esequiba

I see not any necessity to mark disputed territory of Guayana Esequiba under control of the Republic of Guyana in spite of all Venezuelan claims as separate entity. Such as all another disputed territories. If anybody wants to mark the fact of spreading COVID-19 in Guayana Esequiba, he/she can to add this information in the article "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guyana". CrazyRepublican (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

I want to add information on the first reported trace can be traced to: For example, in case of China, it can be traced to Wuhan, China in case of Thailand, Japan, South Korea, USA, Canada, ..., it can also be traced to Wuhan China. in case of Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, .. it can be traced to Iran in case of Algeria, Brazil, ... it can be traced back to Italy

I already prepared an excel file that contains the traceable to information by country. I can provide you with that information so that you can update the source.

Thanks Sw135792003 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This would be WP:OR and against Wikipedia policy. Apologies. doktorb _words^deeds 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Population

In Pandemic by country and territory table, is possible to insert total population for every countrY? Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree. We should be able to see cases and deaths per population, per 100000 would be a common statistic.

If I knew how to do this, I would modify the table myself B A Andersen (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Maths

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

 – MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, AustroHungarian1867: Moved the discussion to the page about the table. It will get more attention there. --MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference Error

After the Bonaire changes were made today an error message appears against what is reference number 297 at the time of writing "Update on Coronavirus (COVID-19) by Bonaire's Lt. Governor InfoBonaire". The Bonaire Information Site. Retrieved 16 April 2020. Cite error: The named reference "FirstBonaire" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." I can only find it defined once and can fix it by deleting the only definition. But as I can find it once I am not prepared to do that and will leave it someone more knowledgeable to fix it.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

By clicking on the "a" and "b" you can see where in the article they are. In this case Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data was producing the other reference with the same name, but an accessdate that was shifted by 1. To avoid future conflicts I renamed the reference here. --mfb (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank You - I had clicked on both the "a" and "b" but I had not realised that in one case the name was generated by a template hence I did not find it.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Change the link in the main table for Charles de Gaulle to 2020 coronavirus pandemic on Charles de Gaulle. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Updated the link, edit was made to the data table at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Jamietw (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonaire

Bonaire according to WHO have cases reported. https://covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/bq

Can this be updated to reflect this— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The tracker lists Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba as a single entity. There are sources indicating these cases are in Sint Eustatius and Saba, as already correctly shown on the page. See:

• https://cw.usconsulate.gov/news-events/covid-19-information/
• https://english.rijksdienstcn.com/covid-19/news/2020/april/7/statement-island-governor-edison-rijna
• https://www.tourismbonaire.com/news-flash/covid-19-and-travel-to-bonaire Nick Moss (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• https://www.saba-news.com/saba-now-has-two-covid-19-cases-vital-services-continue-during-mandatory-lock-down/

So for now, provided this article continues to list Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba separately, it is correct for Bonaire to remain on the list of territories with no cases. Nick Moss (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonaire has a case. --mfb (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we change "Cases" in the chart to "Reported cases"?

Treating the number of reported cases as the total number of cases is not supported by epidemiology, and invites comparison between "country X have more/less cases than country Y", which cannot be supported by reported data at all.

Fully agree. "Number of cases" is misleading. Ideally, there should be a table for tests per million Manish2542 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. This should be handled in footnotes with more clear explanation. Most figures for cases are not Reported cases. There are multiple ways to count cases, and all of them are "reported" by some countries. For example, "Confirmed cases", "Probable cases", "Suspected cases". "Confirmed cases", per WHO definition, are lab-confirmed. "Suspected cases" have some kind of clinical diagnosis but not lab tests. "Probable cases" per ECDC have inconclusive test results. All of them could fall in the category of "reported cases". Most of our figures are for "confirmed cases", with a few exceptions where "probable cases" might be included in some countries. WHO reports only "confirmed cases" ([3]) and it used to report "suspected cases" ([4]). For the body of the text we use "confirmed cases", "suspected cases", etc. For the main table we have a footnote: This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases is likely to be higher than reported. --MarioGom (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC

An error bar is a good fit for footnotes. When the error is ~10-100x, That begs the question on why have any numbers at all. 50.240.199.78 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Request removal of Administrative subdivisions of countries

Well we do not need too much data. I think it is not very important Vonwin (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - see Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#Inclusion of administrative subdivisions and disputed territories in Entities without confirmed cases. Nick Moss (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of administrative subdivisions and disputed territories in Entities without confirmed cases

Can we get a consensus on what should and should not be included in the section Entities without confirmed cases. For reference please also look at RfC: Criteria for territory listing on the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data template talk.

For sovereign states and most dependent territories, details of COVID-19 cases (and in this case the absence of them) should be readily available for almost all of these states and dependent territories through the World Health Organisation's situation reports, the sources given in the table 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table, and other reliable sources. This means the lists of sovereign states without cases and of dependent territories without cases can reasonably be expected to capture all such entities without cases.

For administrative divisions it is much more difficult to include all administrative subdivisions of the would without cases, given the lack of widely available data. Without this it becomes a list of administrative divisions that people happen to know about that have no cases - in my sense this is unencyclopedic. For example I know that the Chatham Islands, an administrative subdivision of New Zealand, has no cases. But I don't know if any other Territorial authorities of New Zealand also don't have any cases in their jurisdictions, so by putting Chatham Islands in am I then drawing undue attention to one such place without detailing others? In New Zealand cases are reported by District Health Board which would be hard to describe as an administrative subdivision in a comparible manner to, say, a state or territory of Australia or a province of New Caledonia. This renders this list somewhat meaningless. It is also possible to go ad inifinitum with this. For example if a suburb of a city has no known cases, should it then be included? Perhaps a street in that suburb? Perhaps a house on that street? Obviously that's ridiculous, but where does the line get drawn? Internal administrative divisions seem to be problematic from the point of view of creating a list of such entities without COVID-19 cases.

For places subject to territorial dispute it becomes even more murky. The list as it stands highlights a single area which is disputed - Guayana Esequiba which appears to be being inserted by a single user who has now even renamed the "administrative divisions" table to "administrative divisions and disputed territories". The single example of a disputed territory on the list actually demonstrates the difficulties inherent in listing such places: this disputed territory doesn't match up to Guayana's administrative regions, so data is going to be hard to come by. According to Guyana's Ministry of Public Health, Essequibo Islands-West Demerara, part of which is in the disputed area, has cases of COVID-19. Without consistent data, it is difficult to create a representative table; for instance the table as it stands implies Guayana Esequiba is the only place of territorial dispute to not have COVID-19. Even if disputed territories could be properly captured, I would also question how notable it is that an area under territorial dispute does or doesn't have COVID-19 cases, compared to say a sovereign state, a dependent territory, or even an administrative subdivision of a state.

I would suggest the following might be a good standard to use:

Include

• Sovereign states as per List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition
• Dependent territories as per Dependent territory
• Inhabited territories without permanent residents (though I am not sure how notable this is, and if it is sufficiently notable, whether it would be better to list them by territory than by subdivisions of the territory)

Don't include

• Administrative subdivisions of states or territories (unless those administrative divisions meet the criteria of Dependent territory above)
• Areas of a state or territory subject to a territorial dispute (for example one user continues to inset Guayana Esequiba into the administrative divisions table and has now renamed it the administrative division and disputed territory table.)

Keen to hear other views. Nick Moss (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Western Sahara is missing a flagdeco in the First cases by country or territory section, also there are parts of Ukraine that has been reported as if they would be independent states. Trizt (talk) 15:31, 9 Apr 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moss: I'm not sure that a section that is mostly unreferenced (WP:V, WP:RS) should be included at all. In practice it is original research (WP:OR). But if we do include it, I agree with your proposed criteria. --MarioGom (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in for adding the Chatham Islands, I've been thinking about it, i just couldn't get to it. In general, I see the table of administrative units of states and territories as an overview of outlying territories (islands, archipelagos and territories without road connections like Nunavut) with the possibility to prevent the spread of covid-19. Mircea (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

While I understand what your purpose is here, it is hard to say it is encyclopedic for the reasons given above. Assessing the possibility of whether a place has a better chance of remaining free of COVID-19 by virtue of geographical factors seems like original research ([[WP:OR]). Unless there is a source which can be provided which provides a reasonable overview of such areas and their COVID-19 status such that it would make such a list usable, I believe the best course of action is to remove it. Nick Moss (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Another entity which hasn't yet been added to the (already bewildering) list is Mount Athos - does anyone know whether there have been any cases reported there? Grutness...wha? 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I have commented out the list of administrative divisions and disputed territories. So far it seems we have had 2 voices talk in favour of this, and one against, not what I would consider consensus, so I've left it present in the article under comments pending further discussion. Given this article is regularly linked to by other sources including Google, I think hiding this section until consensus can be reached is the most responsible course of action. Nick Moss (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree to include the table administrative subdivisions and disputed territories. It seems relevant to me to leave this table, since some areas are being managed separately.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think collapsing is better solution then hiding for this section until consensus. (Anyone who wants to look and who doesn't want to look.) Mircea (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The Chatham Islands, Stewart Island and Lord Howe Island are inhabited islands with no coronavirus cases. Their 'administration status' is similar to that of the Faroe Islands, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Norfolk Island. IMHO they qualify to be added to the list. Nunavut [5] also has no cases as of April 11:

Dependencies with no confirmed cases

#	Territory	Population	Status	Country	Continent
1	American Samoa	55,191	unincorporated territory	United States	Oceania
4	Nunavut	35,097	dependent territory	Canada	North America
2	Bonaire	20,104	special municipality	Netherlands	North America
3	Cook Islands	17,564	associated state	New Zealand	Oceania
4	Wallis and Futuna	11,239	overseas collectivity	France	Oceania
5	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	5,633	overseas territory	United Kingdom	Africa
6	Svalbard	2,667	unincorporated internal areas	Norway	Europe
7	Saba	1,915	special municipality	Netherlands	North America
8	Christmas Island	1,843	external territory	Australia	Asia
9	Norfolk Island	1,748	external territory	Australia	Oceania
10	Niue	1,626	associated state	New Zealand	Oceania
11	Tokelau	1,357	dependent territory	New Zealand	Oceania
12	Chatham Islands	663	dependent territory	New Zealand	Oceania
13	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	544	external territory	Australia	Asia
14	Lord Howe Island	382	external territory	Australia	Oceania
15	Stewart Island	381	dependent territory	New Zealand	Oceania
16	Pitcairn Islands	50	overseas territory	United Kingdom	Oceania

References

--Ngātokimatawhaorua (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mircea (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with including Nunavut, the Chatham Islands, Stewart Island and Lord Howe Island under territories or dependencies in the context of this article, as opposed to under a list of administrative subdivisions of countries and territories. Nunavut is an integral part of Canada. Were there to be cases of COVID-19 there, they would be counted among Canada's cases, and not as a separate entity (although within Canada's cases there may be a count by each province and territory). Likewise the Chatham Islands are an integral part of New Zealand (and were there to be cases there, they would be counted as part of the Canterbury District Health Board), and Stewart Island is not even an administrative division (it is part of Southland District). Lord Howe Island is an integral part of New South Wales, and is not an external territory of Australia in the same way that Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are. These places would all be properly listed as administrative subdivisions of countries or territories. In the same vein, I would actually raise a question the inclusion of Bonaire and Saba since they are both integral parts of the Netherlands with the status of Public Body, rather than a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands like Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. That said, their status in the context of the European Union is the same as France's overseas collectivities, and they are listed collectively in ISO 3166-1, so I would err on the side of leaving them in unless there was clear evidence to not. Nick Moss (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the inclusion of a table of administrative subdivisions of countries and territories, let me ask this question: On a page entitled "List of Countries and Territories" would you expect to see, for instance, all 50 states of the United States of America listed? Or all 13 provinces and territories of Canada? Or the 22 provinces of Papua New Guinea? I don't believe that the average person navigating to Wikipedia would expect or want to be presented with such information when looking for a list of countries and territories. You would however definitely expect to find information about these administrative subdivisions in the page for each country. Likewise, this is a page about the 2019-20 coronavirus by pandemic by country and territory; it is natural to expect to find here countries and territories listed in ISO 3166-1, plus other states with limited recognition which would be similarly listed on other Wikipedia entries. It does not seem natural to me to expect to find administrative divisions of some countries (but not all) within such a page. It does seem natural that these administrative subdivisions would be covered in the page for each country.

I would ask the following questions for those proposing the list of sub-national administrative divisions be retained:

1. Why does a page listing countries and territories affected by COVID-19 require a list of sub-national administrative divisions of countries and territories?
2. If there is a requirement for the inclusion of sub-national administrative divisions of countries and territories, why is it only being applied to countries without COVID-19, and not equally being applied to countries with it?
3. If there is a requirement for the inclusion of sub-national administrative divisions of countries and territories only where they are unaffected by COVID-19, how is this list being assembled and referenced such that it is a reasonable representation, and not a haphazard grouping of places which someone happens to know are unaffected, which might then give the impression of other such places being affected when in fact they aren't?
4. If the intention of such a list is to present a list of any inhabited place from of COVID-19, is that in fact the purpose of this page, or should another page be created for that purpose?

Unless there is a good reason to retain sub-national administrative divisions here, I would propose they be moved to the relevant country's page, and if desired a new page be created for inhabited places which have not been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nick Moss (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Still not seeing any reason for retaining the sub-national administrative divisions on this page given the ones listed are mostly unreferenced, and this page isn't a list of sub-national entities. If there are no further thoughts, I'll go ahead and delete the section, and ensure the areas mentioned are noted on the country specific page, where they can then be appropriately referenced or deleted. Nick Moss (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the table of Administrative subdivisions of countries, and moved the information on it to the country-specific pages as follows:

#	Territory	Information moved to
1	Puntland	The reference cited is not in English and I can't see any indication of what it is referring to, nor have I been able to find a source which does state Puntland is free of COVID-19, so I have not transferred it to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Somalia.
2	Bougainville	Shifted to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Papua New Guinea#Prevention measures, added updated reference.
3	Lakshadweep	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India#States and union territories without confirmed cases. Have inserted the reference there, although it doesn't explicitly state locations are free of COVID-19, it can be inferred from their absence from the list.
4	Rodrigues	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Mauritius.
5	Nunavut	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada#Nunavut.
6	Loyalty Islands	Added sentence stating all cases were on main island of New Caledonia, along with reference, to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Caledonia.
7	Marquesas Islands	Added sentence stating all cases were on islands of Tahiti and Moorea, along with reference, to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in French Polynesia.
8	Príncipe	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in São Tomé and Príncipe#April_2020.
9	Austral Islands	Added sentence stating all cases were on islands of Tahiti and Moorea, along with reference, to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in French Polynesia.
10	Torres Strait Islands	Added sentence and reference to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia#Queensland.
11	Alderney	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey, note clarified to show just island of Guernsey with cases.
12	Rotuma	Added note that cases were limited to Viti Levu and Vanua Levu to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Fiji.
13	Gambier Islands	Added sentence stating all cases were on islands of Tahiti and Moorea, along with reference, to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in French Polynesia.
14	Barbuda	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Antigua and Barbuda#Timeline.
15	Chatham Islands	Added sentence stating no cases on Chatham Islands (with reference) and no cases on Stewart Island (with citation needed tag) to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Zealand.
16	Outer Islands	Undid revision at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Seychelles which incorrectly removed Outer Islands from places with no cases.
17	Sark	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Guernsey, note clarified to show just island of Guernsey with cases.
18	Stewart Island	Added sentence stating no cases on Chatham Islands (with reference) and no cases on Stewart Island (with citation needed tag) to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Zealand.
19	Lord Howe Island	Added sentence and reference to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia#New South Wales.
20	Agaléga	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Mauritius.
21	St. Brandon	Already noted at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Mauritius.
22	North Sentinel Island	I have not been able to find a reference that states North Sentinel Island is free of COVID-19, although it can be reasonably assumed so due to the isolated nature of the island; whether this is sufficiently noteworthy is something I think is best left to those editing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India article.

References

I'm also planning to integrate the territories without population into the dependent territories list at the level of territory, with appropriate notation for non-permanent residents. Nick Moss (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Good idea. --Shawnqual (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree thanks Vonwin (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of first confirmed cases by country or territory

On the table First cases by country or territory, we have some administrative subdivision that inserted separatedly from its main countries on the table, there are Ceuta and Melilla (Spain); Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom); Easter Island (Chile); Crimea and Sevastopol (Russia). My objection is, why did we should put them on the table? As far as I know any cases from territories that I have mentioned above has included in its governing countries count. So, I think we need to erase all of them and only including sovereign states, states with limited recognition and dependent territories as proposed by @Nick Moss in entities without confirmed case section. -Ibrahim Muizzuddin 💬 04:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ibrahim Muizzuddin, I assume we will remove them, per #Inclusion of administrative subdivisions and disputed territories in Entities without confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Additionally removed Guantanamo Bay. Nick Moss (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What can be done, so throw away the Aland Islands. ... Mircea (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What about people in space?

Article must also contain information about condition of people in space.Abutalub (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Abutalub, see #Space. MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants

Recently a table of confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants was added by Doc James. While a good snapshot, it seem to be unreferenced (WP:V, WP:RS) and appears to be original research (WP:OR) - presumably by running the numbers in the table Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data through excel. That template's talk page currently shows a consensus of not adding more columns to it. I'm wondering whether it is worth retaining this table here, or whether it should be something which is commented on via the template and added there should there be a change in consensus such as to include that data there. Nick Moss (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Showing_death_counts_without_per_capita_is_a_disgrace if further discussion.

IMO it is to details for that page and already covered by the maps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be covered by WP:CALC. I like the table, I don't mind so much where it is. Maps don't have numbers and don't cover smaller countries. --mfb (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove/Delete I came here to start a discussion about "Confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants", as I think the entire table breaks WP:RS and WP:OR, as detailed above. Numerous RfCs have landed on the decision to avoid adding any further columns. All figures in the original table have to be cited and sourced. Adding an unofficial table of "number x divided by number z" is bad enough. Adding it without citation, without sources, and directly beneath the heading is simply not good enough. We can ask our readers to divide x by z on their own, I really don't think we need a table doing it for them. doktorb _words^deeds 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CALC states that routine calculations are not considered original research; I don't see a problem there. I think the information is valuable, and providing it here is far more efficient that having a large number of readers sitting around with calculators when the data keeps changing as soon as they are done. The population figures are already available, presumably with proper sourcing, on the article about each country. The issue, in my opinion, comes in making sure that the number of deaths for each country used to do the calculations is all times the same as that reported in the "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table, and then making sure that those values are carefully sourced. If the data used for the two tables isn't updated at the same time, then the calculated values are not informative and could be misleading, especially since there's no indication in the current table of when the calculations were done.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While the table would in theory be useful, the data currently being shown is plainly and verifiably wrong. It states values which are a week out of date and now off by a factor of 100% - example USA deaths per capita still showing 51 when the current value has passed above 100 according to the colored map above! The 'Average Joe' reading the article cannot differentiate between accurate referenced data in one table, and outdated unreferenced data in the next, especially when the wrong information is given larger type and more prominent display on some devices. It absolutely needs to be removed to get rid of the misleading information. Whether it can be replaced with something better, more accurate, and useful is another question for later. But right now the misleading information needs to go. Please just delete it already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.31.224 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Nick Moss (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

*Courtesy ping to table creator Dan Polansky. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'd love to see this table come back with improved formatting and coding, since it's useful and covered by WP:CALC, as others have noted above. Perhaps I'll get around to recreating it myself at some point, but others should feel free to do so if inclined, since I likely won't get to it for a while. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  This feels like an uphill struggle. Anyone can have the table freshly calculated and the wiki markup generated using the script at Commons:File talk:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map Total Deaths per Capita.svg; feel free to do the calculation, make any changes required, and put it to the article. The sentence introducing the table probably has to state the date of the update, or maybe also some of the table header cells could have to state the date, and someone has to volunteer to update the table regularly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Dan Polansky: At the risk of bordering on strategizing a bit, I think this may be less of an uphill battle than it seems. Right now, there are two groups of editors presenting concerns: (1) those who object editorially to the inclusion of the table, and (2) those who want it but just have issues (validly, in my view) with some aspects of the implementation. Group 1 is mostly just at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, not here. The table keeps being removed because groups 1 and 2 together are a clear majority. But if you or someone else addresses the implementation concerns, it won't be hard to get it adopted here. Then let it settle in a bit and become something people are used to seeing, then take it back to the main pandemic page and introduce it politely, and I think you may find that the editors in group 1 are actually a minority when by themselves. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please correct New Zealand totals

New Zealand confirmed cases are 1112 and recovered are 1065 for today. The table has only been updated for the deaths as of today. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbananas129 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Greenbananas129, someone did it already. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Space

I have deleted the "cases in Space" section. I think that was something of a shark jump of an insertion. We need to keep focused as editors: on cases, on accurate figures, on making sure the information is verified and correct. Including a Space section comes across as frivolous and silly, an addition made for the sake of 'completion'. I can just about accept that we need to monitor the number of cases in those territories and administrations currently ruled by another country, as this holds to the idea that we are keeping up an accurate account of the figures around the globe of a worldwide pandemic. I cannot accept one which monitors the number of cases beyond the stars. doktorb _words^deeds 14:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the chapter was meant to include cases on manned space probes. As far as I know, no such cases were reported yet. It's also comparitively easy to prevent spread to the ISS and so, as the people there are highly isolated, and any new "visitor" can be quarantined for some time before their "travel". Manned space probes and stations are probably the last place where COVID-19 shows up. Should that happen nevertheless, it would be worth mentioning here. Of course, references to uninhabited places in space would be complete nonsense, as there are no humans (and even no life forms at all) which could be infected. "There are no confirmed cases on the planet Mercury." Really? --2003:E7:7732:BF77:E127:631C:8A6F:AB92 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should include all the manned missions in space during the pandemics. The only one, I know of, is the ISS and as the ISS is an international station, we cannot assign it to any country, so it merits to be separately mentioned. In my opinion, even if the ISS was e.g. an US-only station, it's so separate from the mainland USA that it would still merit a mention. Moreover, during the Expedition 62, which was during the pandemics, there were 6 people in the ISS, which is more than the 4 people currently inhabiting the Willis Island, which is mentioned in the article. Grillofrances (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Is it a country or a territory? If it isn't, then it probably doesn't belong on a list of countries and territories. If there were cases aboard that were not being counted in a country's numbers then there might be wisdom in it being counted in the table of case numbers, which currently includes a list of international conveyances, although that would only make sense if they were not being counted in a country's numbers. It doesn't make any sense to maintain on this page a list of international conveyances which do not have cases of COVID-19, be they vessels at sea, aircraft in the air, or spacecraft in space. Nick Moss (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are both missing the point. This is a global pandemic. The ISS is not on Earth. We should not include it simply on that basis alone. doktorb _words^deeds 21:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It is territory, extraterrestrial artificial territory. Its belong here: Inhabited territories without permanent residents. Mircea (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On how many other Lists of countries and territories is the International Space Station (or any other vessel, aicraft or spacecraft) listed as a territory? If there were to be a COVID-19 outbreak on board the space station it might be noteworthy in the same way outbreaks on other international conveyances are noteworthy (the ISS is very much reliant on earth for support and replenishment so I would suggest it couldn't be considered an entirely separate entity to the Earth in the context of global pandemic). However the absence of a COVID-19 outbreak on the ISS is no more noteworthy than an absence of COVID-19 outbreak on any of the vessels currently at sea, aircraft in the air, or spacecraft beyond the Earth's atmosphere, or for that matter territories on foreign lands (embassies, consulates, military bases etc.). Please tell us you're not planning on listing every ship, aeroplane, spacecraft, military base, embassy and consulate on this page... Nick Moss (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry again Mircea, I just have to disagree with your stance on this. The ISS is not a "territory", it's floating in space, tens of thousands of kms away from an Earth-bound, worldwide pandemic. Add reference to the ISS having no cases in the text, perhaps. But a separate table? No. I will have to delete again until we find consensus. doktorb _words^deeds 06:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source covering the lack of cases in space? --MarioGom (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You can find sources covering COVID & X, with X being any random variable you choose. Does not mean every little thing merits inclusion on Wikipedia because a bored journalist on a slow news day wrote something.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maps incorrectly show Crimea separated from Ukraine

Crimean peninsula is incorrectly shown separately from Ukraine on the maps - Crimea is presented in different colour with Ukrainian mainland.

It is absolutely incorrect as Crimean peninsula that includes regions Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol, is sovereign part of Ukraine. The Crimean peninsula is illegally occupied by Russia since 2014. None of the international organisations, including UN, OSCE, CoE, has never recognised illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and continue to condemn this aggressive act by Russia. Majority of states in the world further recognize sovereignty of Ukraine over Crimea and condemn Russian aggressive deed. There is no single act of international law recognising annexation of Crimea by Russia. The maps must be coreccted. Euroserhi (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is duplicated and currently going on at: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Maps incorrectly show Crimea separated from Ukraine. --MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but discussion is already archived there, without outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternative presentation of growth in cases by country

Animation of global growth in COVID-19 cases by country

Would this animation be considered useful as an illustration of growth in cases by country? Accounts for differences in population. E.g. India starts at beyond 1 case in 1 billion population and naturally needs to traverse further. Demonstrates that all countries will end near 1 case in 1 of population. How close depends upon the exact value of Herd Immunity Threshold for SARS-Cov-2. Daily growth is not absolute it is smoothed with kernel window of 3 days, to reduce noise in reporting process differences across countries. Daily growth lower limit arbitrarily at 0.05%. Shows relative immediate 'prospects' of each country, easily. E.g. high growth rates versus low and stable rates. EmptyJarM (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't demonstrate anything like that, and it's difficult to follow countries in this animation. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea, it doesn't show the country name... for the average dumb person, they have no clue what is going on.Rwat128 (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Title: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by ...

The title "coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" is not neutral because it does not say by Continent.

A more generic and shorter title could be "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by location" or "Geography of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.241 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Dataset is strange

Hey wikipedia folks,

I have a local ruby script which I manually update.

Some time ago I copy/pasted the data, and the UK has had 135 recoveries back then.

HOWEVER had, when I now look at the chart, there is a — instead. So what happened there? Why are the numbers suddenly different?

Note - I am not implying manipulation, there are many possible explanations, including erroneous entries. But either way, I think it should be changed so that the dataset is ideally correct at all times. That way we hobby-folks that work on that dataset downstream can rely on the dataset being accurate. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:7AE8:E1F7:6958:7F1C (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On the table notes it says: "—" denotes that no reliable or up-to-date data is currently available for that territory, not that the value is zero. You may wish to go to the talk page for the table to discuss this. --Nick Moss (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Anomalies

Please review and amend the figures for infected cases in France.

There is a persistent backlog of more than 30,000 cases approximately.

Please check these external sources:

174,918 Total cases on May the 8th - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101715/contaminations-heal-dead-coronavirus-france/

176,782 Total cases on May the 9th - https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2862:9300:556B:EF48:FF7C:AD33 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please review and amend the statistics on the table for:

Spain – Total Cases 216,582 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Spain shows 245,567

New Zealand - Total Cases 1136. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_New_Zealand shows 1485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.11.38 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Corona virus

do you think this virus will go Kapio vicent (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

CDC statistics

According to this CDC stat sheet based on certified Covid-19 deaths, the U.S. death count is, as of May 1, less than 40,000. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C083:4A00:9457:2DBB:2F8E:C250 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the difference is explained. I suggest reading the link which state: "Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our (CDC) counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons" (...) "most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.192 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• So far in the CDC website there are 38,576 COVID deaths. It's been widely known that the COVID19 death counts in the last 2 months have been hugely inflated - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm CDC website. Many states are inflating their death counts to get extra federal government aid to carry them forward after the virus pandemic subsides.F2Milk (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "No, The CDC Did Not Revise Down The Number Of COVID-19 Deaths"
  • The CDC also has this page with the more up to date death count. The page with the lower total comes with this explanation:
    • NOTE: Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. ... Data during this period are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction, age, and cause of death
  • The page with the larger total has this note (with me making some style changes to make it work in Wikipedia templates):
    • As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. ... A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by one of the following: (1) Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19, (2) Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence, (3) Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19
  • I hope this helps explain the discrepancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic by country and territory

It would be really nice, if someone could add links and flags to this list. --Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks so empty, the way it is. --Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gugulethu Chikapo (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The cases of covid19 in Gugulethu. Chikapo (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

please change External links to add coronatimemap because it includes unique data on global transmissions based on media reports.

External links

• Center for Disease Control, US data
• Corona MAP
• Coronavirus Timeline Map
• Epidemic data for COVID-19
• Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases and historical data by Johns Hopkins University
• CoronaMapper
• COVID-19 Corona Tracker
• Corona Time Map: See How COVID-19 Has Spread Coronatimes (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coronatimes:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Population density?

Would it be useful to add a column detailing population density in the table showing cases and deaths in each country per million residents? JezGrove (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths per number of cases

I think a good metric to show is the number of deaths as percentage of cases. This shows the capacity and quality of healthcare system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.213.108 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Or age/health of the population. Mortality is higher in areas with older people.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorting the number of recoveries in the table

Just wanted to report a bug that sorting by the number of recoveries (doesn't matter if ascending or descending) provides a wrong result. While countries without data are at the bottom (or top) of the table, countries that have more than a thousand recovered cases appear in between 1 and 100 due to a decimal place. Just a minor issue though! WhosJan (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been posted on the COVID-19 pandemic data template talk instead. -WhosJan (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Remove the WP:OR table of per capita cases and deaths and related prose: "Confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants calculated from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and List of countries and dependencies by population on 2020-05-08 17:39 UTC below." It's OR, not easily maintainable, and Wikipedia templates/articles are not proper sources (nor is that how sources should be cited). 174.114.91.136 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done. No mass removal of information without a discussion. Starzoner (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:CALC allows routine calculations. Dividing by population isn't controversial in any way. The sources are the sources of the articles, not Wikipedia articles. --mfb (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Big tables??

Why are there now two big tables, although the information could be put into one? 109.193.92.107 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Also the left table doesn't have the countries linked to their virus articles like the right does. Jidanni (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion about merging the two tables into one. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Countries with no more active cases of Covid-19

There are a number of countries and territories, such as Cambodia, Eritrea, Timor-Leste and Mauritania currently reporting that they no longer have any active cases of Covid-19 within their jurisdiction, so a table concerning these would seem sufficiently newsworthy. Of course, the danger of relapses is ever-present, but national controls and quarantines will remain in effect until the global pandemic recedes. Culloty82 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

These claims are as questionable as the claims to have no cases we have seen in various African countries for a long time. They could be listed in the continent sections. --mfb (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

World recoveries figure

In less than 24 hours, the figure for world recoveries on the COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory table has gone down with approximately 1,100,000 in total. Classic. Timflamink (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing last digit in this edit by Dellux mkd, I added a zero. The last digit changes too rapidly to make it meaningful anyway. --mfb (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@mfb Thanks. I agree with the last digit being more or less meaningless: as are masses of the figures for "confirmed" but untested cases and deaths on a world-wide level anyway; as are the probably millions of "cases" and "deaths" which haven't been identified, either. It would have helped if this virus presented as do Ebola, for instance - there's not much mistaking it for a headache. The weirdest are the countries where the sum of the "reported" deaths and recoveries surpasses the originally "reported" cases - the genuine miracle lies in being healed from an illness that you've never had. The "0" do add some perspective, though. Timflamink (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data#Proposal: Add a check box to display per capita data

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data#Proposal: Add a check box to display per capita data. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Western Sahara in the tables

There are six known cases of COVID-19 in the Moroccan-controlled part of Western Sahara (all counted as recovered by now), and the country is also listed in the Timeline by country or territory. However, it is not listed in the other tables. Has this a valid reason, or has it just been forgotten? E.g. will Western Sahara be added only when the first case gets confirmed in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic area, while cases in the Moroccan part are counted for Morocco? --2003:E7:7730:FF23:F830:AD2F:CBE2:C7CD (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bougainville

As what do we count Bougainville? Officially it is still an antonomic region of Papua New Guinea, but in an independence referendum the majority voted for it to become an independent state. So does Bougainville count under "States with limited recognition", like the SADR discussed above?

Right now this is not highly relevant as Bougainville hasn't yet confirmed any COVID-19 cases. But when this happens will we mention Bougainville cases independently from Papua New Guinea cases? --2003:E7:7730:FF23:B068:ECC6:99D8:D5B1 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

World total cases

Pardon my severe ignorance - however temporary. At 23:32 UTC on 21 May 2020 the world total cases figure in the table has been given as 5,076,846. At 21:32 UTC on 22 May 2020 the figure has been given as 5,180,982 - an increase of more than 100,000 cases (on this table, in a more or less 24-hour cycle), while the high figure for this is usually 50,000 - 65,000 (on this table, in a more or less 24-hour cycle). Not any one country shows an abnormally high increase in cases for the period in-between - the ratio between total cases and increase for Brazil being the highest. A sum of the cases for all of the countries listed in the table, gives a figure of 5,103,738 at 23:32 UTC on 21 May 2020 and a figure of 5,202,575 for 21:32 UTC on 22 May 2020. Something seems a bit weird here. I think Wikipedia editors should tread carefully when criticising inter alia Worldometer on the talk pages with the lot of odd stuff going on with the Wikipedia COVID-19 figures - as several users have pointed out by now. Timflamink (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

France's cases in 2019

In France, several medics are starting to talk about documented cases of COVID in december 2019, and even back to November the 16th in Colmar. ( see : 1 death and 30 cases in 2019 : the hidden Colmar Cluster An early Covid case in Colmar in Decembler ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur le Baron de Toponymie (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Up to date figures

This article usefully provides cases and deaths per million in total, but not a breakdown by time. Tables of daily or weekly figures for cases and deaths per million in each country would be very useful for readers to know which countries have got the pandemic under control and where cases and deaths are stable or increasing. Does anyone know of a Wikipedia article or other source which gives this information? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Add lockdowns

Would be great if the lock downs would be added like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747 --89.12.37.106 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the worldwide count yesterday (6.370M) and today (just 6.390M)?

Here's the article's worldwide count for June (rounded off)

• 6.140M
• 6.250M
• 6.370M
• 6.390M ? (but 6.480M, if counted via Excel)

Obviously, the worldwide difference between yesterday (6.370M) and today (6.390M) CANNOT be just 20,000 cases. If you do an Excel count of all figures by nation, you get instead for today the figure 6.480M with a difference of 110,000 cases from yesterday and consistent with the trend for many days.

What's wrong with the Johns Hopkin's database? I've been keeping track since March, and this is the first time they seemed to have screwed up.Titus III (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The "COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory" per million

The per million variant doesn't clarify disputed and occupied territories like another one. Must be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyShevchenko (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Cases and deaths per million

This table is a mess. Many of the sources are old and many are unreliable. Some of the figures do not make sense. Vatican City is shown as having the highest death rate with 5,000 per million, but the main table says it has had no deaths. Spain's death figure is shown as 1,034 based on Twitter but as of 11 June it should be 577. The note at the top says "Confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants calculated from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and List of countries and dependencies by population on 1 June 2020 16:41 UTC below." If the figures are calculated from the template and list then they should update automatically and there should not be a reference column. Could someone technically competent (which I am not) either get the table working or delete it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. In the row for Spain, the rightmost column gives two references for Deaths: https://twitter.com/sanidadgob/status/1266033169070985218 (for deaths) and https://www.ine.es/en/prensa/cp_j2018_p_en.pdf (for the population of Spain). The figures at those locations are 27,119 and 46,733,038, respectively. That gives 580 deaths per million, not 1,034 deaths per million, which is what the table currently shows. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This table is completely untrustworthy and page would be better without it in its current state. Calculation for France has 28 deaths per million, which is absurdly low. North Macedonia has significantly lower value of 33 compared to Slovenia even though population of both countries is about the same and North Macedonia has more than 50% more recorded deaths. Samastur (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Confirmed cases displays User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata which uses User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata/countries.json. Yapperbot is run by Naypta. The deaths for France is based on COVID-19 pandemic in Basque Country (Q87452683) but should be COVID-19 pandemic in France (Q83873593). The Vatican was changed from 5 to 0 deaths in COVID-19 pandemic in Vatican City (Q87222526) yesterday. This is reflected in the current version of User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata which says 0. It says 580 for Spain. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, Samastur, Misha Wolf, and Dudley Miles: Hello! Thanks for tagging me in here, and thank you for raising these issues. Previously, a sandbox version of the table existed that was using Template:Wikidata to generate bits of the table, but it wasn't working properly, so my bot took over the task. For the countries which had already been set up in that system, I copied their Wikidata entity IDs through to the countries.json file that PrimeHunter linked - France was already in the table, so I'm not sure how it was linked incorrectly. Regardless, at the end of the day, it's my bot and my responsibility, so I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

I've fixed the particular issue with France (the bot is just running now to update the table again), and if any other issues similar to that appear, please do let me know! For specific data issues, PrimeHunter is of course right that all of this is coming straight from Wikidata, but I recognise that (having done it myself!) trawling through Wikidata to find entries is not always an easy process. To that end, I have created a single page where you can look up the data that Yapperbot is using to update the table - under each country, click the relevant bit of data you're looking to verify, and you'll be taken straight to the relevant bit of Wikidata. Just like Wikipedia, Wikidata is open for anyone to update - if you have relevant information to update the Wikidata entry with, please do so! We need all the help we can get

You may also be interested to know that a bot over on Wikidata is supposed to be being made to start updating these automatically over there, but it's not quite there yet. I've offered my support to get that bot to fruition, because I, like you, think it's important that this data is as accurate as possible. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Naypta. If I understand the position correctly, the table should update automatically based on Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and a table of the populations of each country, in which case there would be no reference column, but the bot to do this is not yet working. Is that right? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Ah, no, sorry for the confusion. My bot on enwiki updates the per capita table based on figures from Wikidata. The reference column is then pulled from the relevant references on Wikidata. Pulling information from a table on Wikipedia like the one at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data is technically possible, but it would be an awful lot better to centralise that data at Wikidata and then pull the Wikidata data into that template too. Wikipedia is not designed as an open data repository, whereas Wikidata is. At present, the figures at that other template are completely separate, as they're just added by users updating that template manually. I agree this is a bit of a hodgepodge, and hopefully once the issues are resolved with this implementation, we can get the other template working in much the same way - directing people to update data on Wikidata as they find new data that's relevant. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Table still needs fixing. Finland shows 0 cases and yet deaths, Moldova shows more deaths than cases! and South Ossetia appears at the top even though there is no data- why not North Korea the same? USA shows casesdeaths BUT no reference, in the COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory by million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14bb:50:d419:c854:eee7:e9a:2025 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed These issues are caused for the most part by people setting preferred rank data on Wikidata, but then other people coming along, adding newer data, and not updating which data had been set as preferred rank. I've gone through and changed those manually, as well as adding North Korea to the table. Bot is now running to update. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. The table is better but still very inaccurate. US shown as 338 and should be 358, UK shown as 573 and should be 614, Brazil shown as 174 and should be 207, Russia shown as 22 and should be 48, Sweden shown as 412 and should be 473. I take your point that it is technically better to update based on Wikidata, but what matters in practice is that the table and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data use the same source, as editors will never update two different sources accurately and it is Wikidata which will get worse and worse. So long as the template and the per million table are based on different sources, the table will be so inaccurate as to be worse than useless. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Broadly, I agree that it's confusing to have different data sources for the same thing on the same page. I wasn't the one who put the table on this page, and wasn't aware that it was being used alongside the other table in the way that it is, to be perfectly honest. Switching the other table as well over to Wikidata may be the best solution, once the bot to update the data is set up on Wikidata, which should be happening within the next few days seeing developments over there. In the interim, I'm updating claims on Wikidata as I find them, but any help is appreciated - if you spot discrepancies like that, and have the time so to do, it'd be great if you could copy over the correct cases/deaths data to the relevant Wikidata entries with the appropriate references set. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now personally updated all of those datapoints on Wikidata, and the bot will shortly run to update the table from them. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Naypta Thanks for your efforts. I assume that the incorrect statement above the table, "Confirmed cases and deaths per million inhabitants calculated from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data and List of countries and dependencies by population, and the reference column citing Twitter posts etc, should now be deleted? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for flagging. That statement was invalid anyway, even for the other table, as the date on it was well out of date. I've removed it. As to the references column, that is still necessary - the references are pulled from the Wikidata entry. Wikidata in and of itself is not a reliable source, as it's user generated content, so, just like Wikipedia, it has references. When we use Wikidata content, it's standard practice to pull through the references as well, unless the same content is already cited on the page. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The figures in the table deaths per million do not match the map. I looked at Finland the table says 38 and the map says 59. Also that map has a category to 1300 - why this number when all the others are logarithmic in increments of 10 i.e. 1, 10, 100, 1000??? As no number is even close to 1000 this makes no sense. Also the table shows mre deaths in UAE than cases. Vietnam shows 0 cases, also wrong.

I feel that it is very wrong for Wikipedia to include a table relating to such an important topic which is so full of major errors. Please remove the table and restore it once the data is correct and once the mechanism for updating it is not so error-prone. Misha Wolf (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I appreciate Naypta's efforts, which have considerably reduced the errors, but it is not possible to duplicate the work of the many editors who keep the template up to date. The table has to be based on the same sources as the template to be of any use. A separate issue is the sources used for the population. These seem to be random, some on World Bank, some on UN, some on national sources etc. They should all be based on the same international reliable database.

I do however hope that Naypta will be happy to restore the table once the problems are sorted out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles and Misha Wolf: I'm perfectly happy for the table to be removed if that's what people think is best - as I mentioned above, I wasn't actually the one who added it here in the first place, I think that was Sdkb. I'm trying to think of some more creative solutions to this issue at the moment - I'm developing a COVID-19 specific tutorial on Wikidata, to make sure enwiki users can easily update the data, and will later start a discussion about moving the other template over to Wikidata, once I'm confident that the data there is being maintained up to date by a bot, and also easily updatable by enwiki users if they notice issues. This of course must be done by consensus, so any feedback is much appreciated! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the table being removed if there are still major inaccuracies at present. I'd ask that it be commented out rather than straight deleted, though, so that we remember to add it back (and so that no one is tempted to add it back before it's ready). Like Naypta, I think that the ultimate direction we should be going in is centralizing the data at Wikidata. This will not only allow non-English Wikipedias to draw from it and for the data to be pulled from Johns Hopkins etc. without editors needing to manually bring it over, but will also allow per capita maps and other entities to use it easily. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, that makes sense to me. Are you happy to make that change? I'd rather not risk editing the article in case I mess it up! Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, done. Also, to address the IP's comment from earlier, North Korea is left out of the totals table as well, along with other countries/areas with no confirmed cases (Turkmenistan is the other one I know of; there may be more or those may be it). I'd support adding in those countries, but when I proposed it here the other day, the one editor who replied wasn't all that keen. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb and Naypta. Thanks for your efforts. I would like to raise again a point I raised above. The table is inconsistent on what source it uses for population of each country, UN, World Bank, CIA, national sources, and for some countries no source is given. Even reliable sources give slightly different figures. I think one authorative international source, should be used. It does not matter which one, so long as all population figures are based on the same reliable source. I do not understand Wikidata, but if a separate table for the population of each country, based on an authorative international source, does not exist, then maybe it would be helpful to create one. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Older statistics

Hey folks - in the last ~3 weeks or so, I was always using this bookmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory#Confirmed_cases for accessing the dataset here. This was nice because on the left hand side I could click on "sort by cases" (clarify: sort by countries, in particular, that is how many cases we have per million individuals or so), and compare the individual countries that way.

Today as I am visiting the same link, suddenly the table on the left hand side is gone. Ok, that's quite bad but I thought I could find it again.

I looked at various statistics page on wikipedia but could not find it at ALL.

Please, whoever has been moving or relocating this page: could you at the least put up a quick link, so that we can then click on it, and have the same old statistics table available again? IF you are going to move or relocate something, then at the least think about those people who used a bookmark, such as I did, how random relocation events without referrers leads to breaking all of those old bookmarks.

I would not have complained here if I could find the old link again, but right now the table on the left hand side is just ... gone. Either deleted, or moved (and if it was deleted then I totally disagree with this deletion; it has been so convenient to use and now I am left with less information than before. Wikipedia should try to preserve useful information). 2A02:8388:1641:8380:1535:595B:9280:DF61 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page, immediately above your post, and you'll see what has been done and why. I also suggest that you create a Wikipedia username for yourself, so that people can tag you when they respond to your comments. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Until it's re-implemented, this remains the latest revision of the page to include the per capita table [6]. --Jonie148 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of first confirmed cases by country or territory not correct now

There are confirmed cases in December in France and Italy, yet this timeline does not list them for a month:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53106444

such cases indicate this timeline is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:52:1014:69C2:6BAC:F441:F189 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We cannot add them because there is no reliable source for the number of cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

122.171.105.215 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bold suggestion: rename article to "...by location"

[Side note: I have searched archives and have not found anything related to this]

As the article mentions conveyances as well, would it be more accurate to rename this to "...by location" to allow the title to be more broad in what it covers? Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)