Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Please move the daily chart of infections and deaths to the beginning and expand timeline information

For almost every other country's wikipedia entry, the article has the daily chart of infections and deaths at the beginning of the article, usually with the timeline. It's weird that the timeline is an entirely separate article for the US and that statistics are buried at the end of the article.

Is it possible to provide more timeline info at the beginning of the US entry (e.g., like what's done for UK, Italy, Spain, and France)? And definitely move up the chart (i.e., "COVID-19 cases in the [country name]") to the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.171.16 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The archive explains it better, but there were complaints about the table being too big so it got pushed to the bottom. In addition, some users expressed disappointment with the article as a whole along with its size, hence the timeline being a separate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bleak episode of The Daily

One of the better encapsulations of the overall situation that I've heard so far. May be useful as a citation for a "duration" section similar to the one at the main pandemic article that cites informed predictions on the future of the pandemic. Sdkb (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How do we change tables and maps for deaths?

I have this source for North Carolina.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Count associated deaths?

An Arizona man died after improperly self-medicating due to fear over the coronavirus - e.g. [1]. Should this be added to the death tally?

There's some precedent - e.g. it's been alleged that many of the deaths recorded from the 1918 flu epidemic were instead caused by massive aspirin overdoses [a recommended treatment at the time]; regardless, they're still included in the death toll. 2601:641:480:70B:4AC:D238:1C8A:E732 (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, count them per anon user above. -- Veggies (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
If we do include these counts, the breakdown of direct deaths versus indirect deaths needs to be spelled out in a footnote. The state and county death tolls are generally being sourced from county health departments that probably aren't including indirect deaths, so there could be inconsistencies in the totals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we should mention this in the text but not in the totals, unless the official totals include them. We can't go making up our own totals per WP:OR. There will be other indirect deaths (people who couldn't get respirators or hospital beds for instance) and they are unlikely to be included in the official statistics. For one thing there may be varying or vague descriptions of what constitutes an "indirect" cause. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Elbow bump

Requesting additional input at the discussion Talk:Elbow bump#Responsible usage. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong data in charts

No. of Deaths 24 March - must be 156 instead of 128 (according to COVID-19 cases in the United States table )92.247.60.126 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 25 - Minnesota's number for 'deaths' and 'cases' is reversed. User:Sabiona

The percentage increase in cases for 2020-03-26 looks wrong. An increase from 64,916 to 85,435 is a 31.6% rise, not 26.5%

Trump's it will disappear like a "miracle" and "natural ability" quotes

My edit added notable quotes concerning his response to the pandemic and was removed by Light show. The quotes were namely Trump saying it'll disappear like a "miracle" and that he has a "natural ability" to understand the epidemic. Before we revert each other, I'd like to know why these quotes shouldn't be consider notable enough to be in the article. Also, does anyone else have objections or support to these quotes being added? A broader consensus wouldn't hurt either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note my most recent explanation here. But thanks for the offer.--Light show (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

CDC’s “Confirmed cases” includes ”presumptive positive cases”

There’s an inaccuracy with claiming “confirmed cases”. Those are not all “confirmed”. The best non-serology test has a 5% false positive rate. This means that the statistical chance someone with flu-like symptoms actually has SARS-Cov-2 after a positive test result could be as low as less than 2%. Because the onset symptoms of this virus mimic a much more common annual flu.

Please read my more thorough explanation here:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8627#comment-2389258

Can something be done to clarify this current misinformation?

Additionally, presumptive positive cases appear to include those which may even be pending a test result or even a negative test result? 2607:fb90:d75:8f51:4c47:8871:8ed8:f796 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We could keep current wording, and add (the above as) a caveat. We'll need a RS, maybe not ibiblio. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The official CDC page states that the “total cases” includes both “confirmed cases” and ”presumptive positive cases”. I provided a link to a comment which links to the CDC’s definitions page that provides the (somewhat ambiguous?) operational definition of a ”presumptive positive case”. As for the best case false positive rate (FPR) of these non-serology tests, in the comment trail I linked to, there’s a link to the following source, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/18/the_perils_of_mass_coronavirus_testing_142693.html. I explained the elementary school level math. It doesn’t even require algebra. Note I’m not attempting to compute an exact statistical range employing distributions, etc.. The rough math is sufficient to demonstrate that absent some other statistically significant clinical manifestation, then the false positives (not the FPR) will be extremely high based on the simple math involved. The FPR can be 5% but the math is such that if the incidence in the population is very low, then most everyone who tests positive will be false positive. This is a sort of sleight-of-hand in the reality of the situation and appears to be deceiving everyone including especially the media and perhaps even Trump. The implication is that the mortality may be much higher than we think. Perhaps 10+%.
2607:fb90:d75:8f51:4c47:8871:8ed8:f796 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Be wp:BOLD. X1\ (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

medical supplies status, and Trump response; add?

Some emergency rooms, hospitals and clinics have already run out of supplies, while others are rationing personal protective equipment like gloves and masks. Trump, meanwhile, has resisted appeals from state, local officials, and hospital administrators to invoke the Defense Production Act to compel companies to make face masks and other gear to protect health workers. The American Medical Association called the shortages of protective gear for medical professionals treating coronavirus cases "unacceptable."

X1\ (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Medical supplies. X1\ (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Medical supplies' prices, add?

X1\ (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

Trump promoted two unproven drugs to treat coronavirus, which has lead to shortages for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who depend on them to alleviate symptoms of inflammation, including preventing organ damage in lupus patients.

X1\ (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi X1. Off topic, but I thought it might please you to know that X1 was also the name of the jet that Chuck Yeager, one of America's still-living patriots, flew when he broke the sound barrier in 1947. I apologize if you already knew that.--Light show (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The fact that it had not be unproven by FDA is not relevant, as no drugs existed today that had been approved by FDA against the coronavirus. All treatments are experimental. SunDawn (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, Trump should not promote any unproven treatments. X1\ (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not like he's a professor of medicine and epidemiology, or of emerging infectious diseases, or a chief medical officer at Oxford. Then it would be fine. --Light show (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is an EXACT REMARK from Trump : Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. ...... When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen. You have to see and you have to go — long test. But this has been used in different forms — very powerful drug — in different forms. And it’s shown very encouraging — very, very encouraging early results. And we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that’s where the FDA has been so great. They — they’ve gone through the approval process; it’s been approved. And they did it — they took it down from many, many months to immediate.
We see here Trump is not emphasizing that the drug would work, but that the drug could work. And as it had treated malaria before, it is safer than using any other experimental treatments. It is unproven against coronavirus, but the drug itself has been proven to be safe for use. Nothing wrong in your statement, but staying neutral is so important. SunDawn (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
An Arizona man died after eating the chemical that Trump promoted as a possible cure for the coronavirus, a common aquarium cleaner, chloroquine phosphate. His wife, who also swallowed it, is currently in critical condition. Trump repeatedly suggested that the drug is a “game changer” when it comes to treating COVID-19, even while members of his own administration consistently contradicted his assertions.
X1\ (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
X1\ (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

On Friday, March 20, Trump argued based on “just a feeling” that, despite no scientific evidence yet, an anti-malaria drug could cure the coronavirus. He complained that he has not been credited for fixing a nationwide testing system that clearly is still broken; and when asked what message he had for Americans who were scared, he lashed out.

X1\ (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § President Trump, in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Communication section.

And see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Research into vaccine and drug therapies. X1\ (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump said a Hydroxychloroquine treatment shows promise. Hydroxychloroquine is NOT Chloroquine Phosphate, which the individual ingested. This is a mistake made by the individual who thought Hydroxychloroquine is the same as Chloroquine Phosphate. With that said, Hydroxychloroquine is not federally approved either. But a distinction should be made here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2020‎ (UTC)
Per above:

The two are not the same. Chloroquine, also known as chloroquine phosphate, is used in anti-malarial drugs available in the U.S. by prescription only, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A variant, hydroxychloroquine, is an arthritis medicine that can also prevent malaria.

Trump has touted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as potential coronavirus treatments, and he tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, combined with an antibiotic called azithromycin, could "be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."

Note: Chloroquine phosphate currently redirects to Chloroquine. X1\ (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper reliance on primary sources

The guidelines seem fairly clear that reproducing statements, with or without quotes, is a violation of proper editing requirements. For example, the rules state in part:

  • Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
  • All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

In addition, one of WPs main policies against original research states:

  • This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

That type of violation is implied throughout the talk pages, where some editors explained why they added what they did, ie. "through his amazingly wrong-headed statements over time," "Whatever they say, the current US administration is guilty as sin, and it will be held responsible," or "They show direct evidence that the president has not kept himself informed in a time of a major national crisis, he has disseminated harmful untruths, and by doing so, he has worked against US preparedness." Such OR has even been stated as a rationale for the edit: "But still notable and is part of his problematic response to the pandemic".

The article contains close to 100 primary sourced statements which have not been interpreted or analyzed by secondary sources, as required. Most are simply cut-and-pasted quotes or paraphrases from articles. Simply reading sections such as President Trump and Administration officials, which include over 1,200 words (not including cites), they are overloaded with Trump said this, Trump says that, he commented, he remarked, etc., many with quotes, ie. "China tried to say at one point — maybe they stopped — that it was caused by American soldiers. That can't happen." That includes statements put out by the White House, such as "He also stated that America will achieve total victory against the 'invisible enemy', and called on Americans to sacrifice together."[139]

Therefore, the improperly sourced text that is not supported by secondary sources, should be removed until they are properly sourced. If someone wants to move them to Wikiquote.org, feel free. But this article shouldn't be turned into a book of quotations during the pandemic. Does anyone agree? --Light show (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad at least no one disagrees. But some of us Yanks in the eye of the storm may be curious why this article has been placed under severe restrictions, now surrounded by "Do Not Touch" warnings, with the rationale that it's been subject to "disruption." I've worked on this article for many weeks and don't recall a single incidence of edit warring or disruption. Can someone post examples of the so-called disruption to this article? --Light show (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I also see that there were 15 unanimous supports to the quickie proposal, all with no discussion, all within just 2 hours, then immediately closed. And it seems that none of the people who made the proposal or voted to put it in place, have actually done any editing to this article. In the past, even with petty AN proposals, like an edit war for a trivial article, they go on for days, where many comments are submitted pro and con. This one came down out of the blue like a heavy gavel. Nor was there any hint or discussion on the talk page here that it was being considered, to allow editors to comment. Did I miss something? --Light show (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing "Current Event" cleanup tag

Should we follow the example of 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic and remove it? Sdkb (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming response to my question,[sarcasm] I have brought it up at the COVID-19 WikiProject. Sdkb (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This video could be migrated, it's PD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Herpw5ZUHc8 Victor Grigas (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size exceeded

This article is currently at 2,097,149/2,097,152 bytes, or 99.999% of the post-expand include size, as determined by Wikipedia's technical limits. The templates at the bottom of the article are breaking. Please keep this in mind when adding to the article in the future. Mgasparin (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously guys, try to trim the number of citations/transcluded elements in the article. References 956–973 have stopped working. Mgasparin (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think we should work to move claims specific to U.S. states to their respective Wikipedia articles. The Timeline section doesn't need to be a collection of claims about states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A good chunk of the article might need to be broken off since citations past 335 are not fully working. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Not a Special:LongPages problem, as currently number 6496. X1\ (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
As of this hour for sure, we are over the limit again. Rank 4893 with 177,332 bytes at the moment, citations 336 to 361 are good with 362 and lower still being glitchy as clicking the caret or ^ fails, and editing gives "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This template {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases}} is too large. It has around 300 citations on its own. Since the section is breaking the citations, plus IMO goes against MOS:SELFREF (by referring to itself as “this table”) and WP:NOTSTATS, I am going to remove it from the article.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

−

Bait30 I see why it need to be removed because too many citations. But can we have a link to it? All the numbers are sourced to the state department of health report for the day. How does it go against MOS:SELFREF just because it says 'this table'? How does it violate and WP:NOTSTATS? Everything is sourced. The Italy page has a table like this too. But granted the way the citations are done is breaking things. No where else is showing what state departments of health were posting each day. Seatto23 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seatto23:Yeah, I'm just being nitpicky with MOS:SELFREF. And with WP:NOTSTATS I'm referring to the part where it says that lengthy statistics that impede readability should be split into a new article. I went ahead and added a link. As a side note, since it is somewhat related, you should contribute to this RFC.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Bait30 I clicked on 'this RFC' but it took me too a blank talk page. With WP:NOTSTATS, I would argue that a table is not 'lengthy statistics'. Which is not an argument about not having the table in the main article. I totally understand that. But I would argue that a simple table of what each state health department is reporting is crucial information (and not in any way original research since are just posting what each state reports). But we do need to figure out a better way to do the daily sources so they are not showing up as citations. Ideally the CDC would post a daily summary pdf like Italy does. But they don't. So we have to post each state reference separately. Seatto23 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Seatto23, sorry about that, I fixed the link. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. I definitely that is helpful information and not out of context. But like you said, something needs to be done so that the citations don't break.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Bait30 Thanks for link! That works. Seatto23 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the detailed table of cases per state??? This was by far the most useful part of the page and the only such table I can find anywhere. Please put it back! Doashen (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)d

I agree. It is the most useful table in the entire article. dudzcom (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    This table is now riddled with errors.  Can someone please fix it, or else remove it?  12:34   26 March 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.207.45 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sports

I propose forking out Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess you could do that, but I think the larger priority should be splitting 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Additional information on cases due to the sheer number of citations involved in those templates.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Another Believer, I should've pinged you earlier. What do you think?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding forking out sports, I would say that it might be better to fork out the whole "Other reactions" section. There have been a few things that I would like to add, but have left off given other priorities. A split would be nice in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

INFOBOX issue

sorry to shout but the "Official website" linkage to the CDC for this article or for any of the official state departments of health in any of the coronavirus state articles...it ain't working for me. Is it just me/my laptop or is something wrong with the code. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the State Department websites should be located on multiple different servers depending on how each state has their website hosted. Regardless, the CDC link worked on my end. The only things I can guess would be that your internet had an issue or a large domain holder like Alphabet-Google had some outage. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

the useful, data-driven table of cases by state has been removed

The table by state has been removed on 2020-03-25 21:36:41 by SquidHomme@

This is a degradation of quality and transparency for this page, which used to provide quick visibility and navigation to the current pages of the states of interest.

Such an edit needs reversal. Johnson.eric.d (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Done for now. this talk section will contain the follow-up. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a degradation of quality and transparency for this page? Oh? How so? So it's better to show the inaccurate numbers?—SquidHomme (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
It's confusing to come to the page looking for the table, see a link specifically for it at the top of the page, and then then find nothing after clicking the link. 106.161.203.71 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please place statistics at the top of the page

All pages of other countries about covid-19 have the statistics on the top section. For example Germany has the "COVID-19 cases in Germany" bar-graph right up after the header. Same for Italy, Spain, France, Iran, Greece, Romania. For USA, the same bar-graph well hidden at the bottom of the page; one has to scroll a lot to find it. Especially on the phone this is hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceigel77 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Why and from where was the March 26 death total updated?

Normally it's not till next day, correct? The visual discrepancy of a +16% day over day increase for March 26 is a major tip off of error. The rate wouldn't magically cut in half on one specific day. What happened? LsreiHaglund (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The template is updated as results come in. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Interstate quarantine requirements

Some states are imposing mandatory quarantines on arrivals from other states, which may be unprecedented in US history. I'd say this deserves a mention of some kind in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/coronavirus-united-states.html —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The user experience has degraded re: navigation. The numbers were using source data that may have been in flux -- like much of the coronavirus pandemic. But some visibility, even if understood as approximates is better than no visibility, which is what SquidHomme@'s multiple removals have done Johnson.eric.d (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

table should be sorted by number of cases from high to low

table should be sorted by number of cases from high to low Marvin8228 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You can sort it by clicking on the arrows at the top of each column. Having it default to alphabetical by state makes more sense than having default to number of cases, especially since that will change rapidly. Carter (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In the table, the cells for "deaths" and "recov." for Minnesota need to be swapped. It should read (as of now): 1 death and 122 recov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.246.218 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That table of cases per state seems to be edited out as of Mar 26. I found that table very useful. Why was it removed, and can it be restored? (and yes, I would also prefer to have it sorted by number of cases, in decreasing order). Thanks for awesome work on this, wikiepdia beats the entire federal government when it comes to delivering the goods!. Ceolas (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Counts/tally by state

The numbers in the template is totally wrong and misleading. Please do not add it to the article until it's corrected.—SquidHomme (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a request, but could you link the template in question? We have more than a few of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Scratch that. Someone made a new section that ended up pointing out two edits that you made. I would like an explanation for their removal if you still want them removed. Mainly, how are the numbers wrong? Are they inaccurate to their source or is it just that they are not the JHU numbers? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: This [2] one. Go there and see for yourself. 800++ recoveries? 100+ deaths? Compare that to this as cited here as the main source. They are not the JHU numbers!—SquidHomme (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@SquidHomme:, alrighty I will take a look at the template. But to note, that template does not use JHU as a source and instead uses Worldometers, which is still up for discussion on if it is a reliable source. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page of the template about the use of worlometers. It does not use worldometers. And also, the numbers. 800+ recoveries compared to JHU and worldometers' 616. This is misleading at best.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I will rephrase then. Worldometers is used as a citation for 34 of the 54 listed areas. But, yes, I will note the talk page discussion that links to W:RS. Anyways, while you already know what happened, for anyone reading this an odd situation has occurred. As noted on the talk page, a user swapped the deaths and recoveries for the template. An admin has restricted the template to require template editor access, which means that most people cannot edit it. So I will revert myself. (What was the problem with the other template?) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, turns out you're right. But still, the contents does not reflect the worldometers right? Ok by that, can you correct the numbers in the template first before adding it here?
What was the problem with the other template? No, there's no other template other than this one.—SquidHomme (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@SquidHomme Some users were switching the headers for deaths and recoveries without switching the actual columns, leading to those numbers being swapped. Then people accidentally updated both columns with numbers that should have been in the other column. The issue has now been fixed and the table should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay:I'm glad you understood the issue. Put it back once it is corrected. Also, note that the template is protected. So, it will be under-updated and therefore become misleading (in numbers).—SquidHomme (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

U.S. cut CDC expert job in China months before virus outbreak, add?

resident adviser to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China ... Dr. Linda Quick ... a medical epidemiologist embedded in China’s disease control agency, left her post in July, according to four sources with knowledge of the issue. ... when she learned...would be discontinued as of September... “If someone had been there, public health officials and governments across the world could have moved much faster.” ... No other foreign disease experts were embedded to lead the program after Quick left... The U.S. CDC said it first learned of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” of unexplained origin in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31. ...Trump dismissed the Reuters report...he described as “100 percent wrong,” without addressing whether the role had been eliminated.

X1\ (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

However, it may be more notable to add this detail, than about a nurse quitting. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Not relevant to this thread, Light show. See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China#Add update, or caveat?: The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It's in the beginning of the article you linked to: "The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November." --Light show (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Read my complete response above, Light show, and follow the internal wikilink. X1\ (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I just read it. So I guess it is relevant, but not to this thread. Who can read all the talk page comments?--Light show (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another related RS. X1\ (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Background and preparations. X1\ (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

47, down to 14

The Trump administration fired more than two-thirds of the staff working at a key U.S. public health agency operating in China leading up to the coronavirus outbreak.

Staff at the CDC’s Beijing office was slashed from roughly 47 people to 14 people since Trump took office. The CDC has worked in China for the last 30 years. The National Science Foundation and the USAID office, which helped China monitor and respond to outbreaks, also shuttered their Beijing offices on Trump’s watch.

X1\ (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Public opinion of state and national response, add here?

72% of Americans say their state’s governors have done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak.

50% say Trump has done a good job, while 45% say he’s done bad job; per https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_032320

...while governors and mayors are in a growing uproar over Trump’s lagging ("bystander") coronavirus response:

X1\ (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

57% of Americans say the nation’s efforts to combat the coronavirus are going badly, 51% call it a crisis, and 47% see a months-long process before it is contained. 88% trust medical professionals for information about the virus compared to 44% who trust Trump.

X1\ (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Related to #near-term forecast (not good), add?:

33% of Americans said the coronavirus outbreak has caused them or an immediate family member to lose their job. 51% said they’ve had their hours or pay cut. 92% said a recession is likely.

X1\ (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Public response. X1\ (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

near-term forecast (not good), add?

X1\ (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

X1\ (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ira Longini, professor at the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida, a leading epidemiologist advising the CDC estimates that the peak of coronavirus-related deaths in the U.S. will peak in three weeks, after which “most of the damage will be done.”

X1\ (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Missed federal opportunities:

X1\ (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § History. X1\ (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly useless charts

There are currently four U.S. charts in the lead, but I question whether three of them are essentially meaningless. The only one that may be useful, IMO, is the top one, which shows the U.S. states by cases per million population. However, the other three only show maps with totals, thereby ignoring the population sizes of the states.

The obvious result is that a map would only show that California, for example, has over 1,000 cases, while Nevada has around 90% less. But since the population of Nevada is under 10% that of California, the colors merely reflect population sizes. And of course the same map showing the counties is equally meaningless.

Can someone explain any clear and obvious benefit to having three colorful U.S. maps, besides filling space? --Light show (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The overall count map is hardly useless. It shows the raw data of overall cases, which best depicts the overall spread of the disease and is easiest to understand for the average viewer. For the other maps, my opinion is basically this: if people really want the other maps (beside the overall cases), move them out of the infobox and into other parts of the article, maybe to a section where they would be the most relevant. But the overall count map should definitely not be removed. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
But please respond to the issues stated, claiming that by ignoring the different populations in states, the color coding becomes meaningless. For instance, does it help the average viewer to see that Nevada, with 10% of California's population, has about 10% of the total California cases? That's why it seems the per million chart at least gives some additional information beyond the obvious.--Light show (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I love the username relationship between you too haha Sdkb (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Light show: Agreed. This is the same issue as at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#RfC_on_which_type_of_map_to_list_first; we should follow the prevailing consensus there. Sdkb (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the crucial chart is the cases per million population; the rest are noise. --valereee (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Chart for TOTAL US cases is grossly under-reporting compared to sites from sources such as John's Hopkins and Google. While Google is a new comer, Johns Hopkins is authoritative with far more experience and expertise in such matters. Per https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html at 22:41 PST, 22 March the US TOTAL known infections is 35,211. At this time this page is showing only 28,521 a 19% discrepancy!!!

Clearly a non-trivial problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.207.186 (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JHU could be over-reporting too. If you add all the state numbers (that are released daily) their number also didn't match JHU numbers. So where JHU get their numbers? The discrepancy between JHU and other data has been discussed, and as far as I recall there is no consensus on that. But for the state's infobox, people shouldn't be using JHU as their source, local news may have more authority than JHU.SunDawn (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the confirmed cases per million inhabitants is the potentially most useful chart. That said, it is from 18 March and should be either updated or removed from the page, as its relevance is gone. People glancing at it without actually investigating the date on it will be misinformed. Automeris (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Can Master of Time (if this is your graphic) or someone else update this chart? I added "as of 18 March" so people wouldn't think this was a current chart. I noticed Master of Time updated the caption, but forgot to update the chart, so I restored the "as of" date to 18 March pending the new graphic. Automeris (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like Ythlev is updating the file more than daily. For some reason the date listed for the graphic remains the date the graphic was first uploaded, and further looking is necessary to determine the actual date of the file. I am going to remove the listing of the date in the caption since Ythlev is now including that in the graphic, so the caption will not need to be updated. Automeris (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where did the state data, tables, and charts go?

They are all gone, why? Other pages for other countires have them and they are very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5807:E700:4153:5A3:F984:E46D (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this table should be restored unless there is a very good reason. I use it daily as do several of my colleagues. Ceolas (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ceolas:, Maps 1:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/coronavirus-maps.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/20/map-coronavirus-cases-in-california-by-county/
https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/
https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/communicable-diseases/disease-control/novel-coronavirus/data-dashboard.aspx
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/interactive-map-coronavirus-pandemic-track-outbreak-washington-united-states-world/
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/487469-here-are-some-of-the-best-maps-to-track-the
T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ceolas:, Some are update every few hours, they need to be archived frequently to Archive.org←←T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ceolas:, Maps 2:
—§—T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

Update maps of confirmed cases and deaths in the US Quincey Brendars (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 11:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 27Mar2020

Please update the "Current number of non-repatriated cases by state" list. Tennessee's "Active" cases does not properly reflect the actual number. The "Cases" and "Deaths" portion is correct per the TN Department of Health. Recoveries are not currently tracked but the "Active" portion is undercounting by over 900 cases even if the 15 recoveries listed are accurate. DHammon7 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - The table is a central template. Please make the edit request here: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we cut the economic policy part

I would suggest cutting most of the text out of the two sections "Congressional response" and "Other federal policy responses".

These sections really seem to be about economic policy, and not about the pandemic. Worse, much of the text is not even what was actually passed, but discussing what various entities proposed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think both of those sections could be trimmed significantly, as well as several other parts of this article. It is a bit overly detailed for an encyclopedia article. I have already done some trimming, including medical claims made by a newspaper and off-topic coverage of various research efforts into antiviral drugs. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

CDC Guide for those who returned from a country with an outbreak of COVID-19

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/COVID-19_CAREKit_ENG.pdf

I don't know how to best include the resource.

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have several links to the CDC. I don't see that this additional one is necessary. - MrX 🖋 11:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

Lockdown states need to be updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_government_response_to_the_2020_coronavirus_pandemic Grayson73 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 11:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 

DHammon7 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

“Social distancing” guidelines, and Trump/Pence, add here?

Trump is considering ending "social distancing" guidelines due to concerns about the economic damage from an extended shutdown.

Easing guidelines would run counter to recommendations by senior U.S. health officials, who have warned that the U.S. has not yet felt the worst of the pandemic. "WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF," Trump tweeted late Sunday. "AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!" The 15-day period ends on March 30. Administration officials said there is a growing sentiment that the White House went too far in allowing public health experts to set policy to "flatten the curve" that has hurt the economy. Pence, meanwhile, said the CDC will issue guidance allowing people exposed to the coronavirus to return to work sooner by wearing a mask.

X1\ (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump had not made a decision. The fact that he considered it could be added, though I think there are still not enough details what he intended to do. SunDawn (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
X1\, you really don't need to list every article on a subject that you find. And an article talk page is not a discussion forum. This listing and others might be more suitable for a site like social media discussion site like Reddit. Just a suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz, you don't really think this is every article on a subject, do you? X1\ (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe that something was brought up that has been archived about if things should be added to the article or not if they deal with Trump, hence the talk threads. A search of the archives will clear things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you referring to #"Trump administration statements" NPOV problems, Super Goku V? X1\ (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think that was the exact section I was thinking of, but it does kinda point out the tension on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Tense times. That being said, the Executive branches' behavior must be included in this topic. X1\ (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump’s private businesses have shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on social distancing.

and for a different viewpoint than WaPo's on Trump's expressed desire to lower health guidelines:

X1\ (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In contrast, health officials want Trump to “double down, not lighten up” on social distancing restrictions, contending that the fallout will be worse if the White House eases up now. “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down,” Trump said during a Monday night briefing as the U.S. entered week two of trying to contain the spread of the coronavirus. "America will again and soon be open for business," Trump said, "a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting, a lot sooner." Public health officials warn, however, that relaxing restrictions now could significantly increase the death toll from the virus. Trump’s comments on re-opening the economy came as the U.S. saw 100-plus fatalities and nearly 10,000 more confirmed coronavirus cases – in a single day.

X1\ (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Also see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Economic impact. X1\ (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say adding it for now would be fine given how many sources we have on it plus it being a major step. However, if the White House does not change course by the end of Tuesday as implied/considered, then we may need to reevaluate. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tables

That table provided quick navigation to state pages. It mirrors the experience users have on the world page. The "totally wrong" is opinion language and a misrepresentation of the table's overall usefulness in providing some visibility and ability to drive to source data. Johnson.eric.d (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The table, for navigation purposes alone added substantial value. Can we please add the table back? It has been removed twice by SquidHomme@ Johnson.eric.d (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "table" you're referring to. It's usually a good idea to include links or diffs in such requests. - MrX 🖋 11:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It was discussed above, but it was a different template instead of the table template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)
The content you are looking for looks to have been restored and added to the "Current number of non-repatriated cases by state" section. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Research

Much of what is currently in the "research" section should not be in the country-specific article. This does not make sense and should be moved to COVID-19 drug development -- what should stay here are policies and funding for research projects. It does not make sense to mention Chinese and French studies in an article about the US. --hroest 18:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree. I've removed some of that content already. - MrX 🖋 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Article overly and overtly politicized

Nearly half of the main part of the article before the effects on society and the economy are mentioned, are mostly political critiques, without adding any useful information beyond that. Very little about the ongoing pandemic. It's heavily quoted, dated, and extremely verbose, and can use some tightening, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes; the politics in this article are out of control, but worse, the medical basics are missing. It needs more than "tightening"; it needs massive trimming of off-topic content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed above, I agreed with the assessment. While I think some political content will be pertinent, lots of the current political comments here are not adding anything. Though I have to add that this page is getting better as there are less politics than few days ago. I think we should start by identifying political contents that are not pertinent to the pandemic. SunDawn (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Just looking at the media, the politics is at least half the story of this virus in America. And rightly so. Government handling of national responses has made a huge difference around the world. While initial impacts had a lot to do with luck and circumstance - a cruise ship, a flight from an infected area - once community transmission begins it's up to government to dictate the response.
Some places - Singapore springs readily to mind - get on top of the infection. Others - I'm looking at you, Italy - screw things up through inaction, delay, ineptitude.
Looking at the trajectory of America's ongoing infection, it's heading up exponentially. Three and a half more days and there will be more infections than China, from a population base a quarter the size. That indicates a shockingly inept government response, given that it's been over three months and the dynamics of this virus are now very well known.
Telling the story of this pandemic in America without devoting a large proportion to the inept early and continuing response doesn't serve our readers well at all. They come for facts, not a whitewash, surely? --Pete (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears from reading the criticisms and multiple cites, that in hindsight most will later be considered minor attempts at calming a potential panic. Of course a national leader is going to imply, "Don't worry, we've got it under control." Most of the criticisms are simply "Trump said this," and then "Trump said that," and a blitz of he-said she-said exchanges. Highly politicized and focused, turning a pandemic article into a platform to attack Trump.
And in the midst of what is looking like some kind of Martian invasion or War of the Worlds, to expect leaders to not over-react and make unrealistic statements, is silly. So far, none of the things Trump has said or done come remotely close to the kind of criticisms that other countries and leaders have received for what seems worse actions during this pandemic, (ie. from China or its own experts). Yet those criticisms of ineptness are not even mentioned in their own pandemic articles. --Light show (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no more faith in the state run media in China giving us real facts than I do that I can find any toilet paper at the store right now.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about the virus or pandemic in general. This is about the disease in America. Not China. Not Italy. America. As such, the story isn't about the disease so much as it is about the impact on the nation, and the national and sub-national responses. Trump, as the regime head, is in the story simply by occupying the position at this point in time. And also through his amazingly wrong-headed statements over time. The scientific and medical advice he has been receiving seems to have been at least as good as that provided to other national leaders, but instead he chose to broadcast a series of misleading statements seemingly intended to boost the stock market - and how did that work out, hey? - rather than enable Americans to position themselves best to weather the growing crisis. I don't see how we can justify leaving Trump out of the story, nor minimising his input. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you implying that the title of this thread is an understatement? The word "politicized", after all, refers to politics and Trump as a politician, and a politician is usually someone elected. But this focus on every public comment that Trump makes implies that most of the editors to the article see him more like a king, not an elected person.
Of course that kind of impression is wrong. He is not a "regime head," a term commonly used in a negative way for authoritarian governments or dictatorships. While it's true, as you say that he "broadcasts" his opinions, which can be right or wrong, yet the only actual orders he has given have been for things like travel restrictions, declaring a national emergency, or ordering some companies to produce medical supplies. He didn't even have the authority to prevent a dozen cruise ship passengers that tested positive from being brought to California. In fact his powers, although greatly magnified in this article, are much less than someone like UK's Prime Minister, for example, who can order, or decree, the entire population of the country to lock down and stay home. Trump could not do that.
By politicizing the pandemic in the U.S. with this overt attention to every word that the president utters, it's using the article to show the U.S. in a poor light, accentuating lateness in taking the pandemic seriously, for example. Yet few leaders seem to feel that way, and some have accused other countries of not taking it seriously. Which again brings up the question of why Trump's name is mentioned 126 times, or 10 times as often as Boris Johnson in the UK's article, for instance. It's A Question of Balance. --Light show (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
It's especially sad that some of the editors are displaying a total lack of understanding of some of his comments, many of which are made as an ironic attempt at humor. How else to interpret edits such as these in red? It implies that some people will take every word he says literally, not metaphorically or as dry humor. Shakespeare would have understood him better than most of the editors here. All his ironic comments are posted to the article like Breaking News stories taken from the tabloid rack. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You're free to propose any alterations to those edits. We can discuss them on the TP and build a broader consensus as to what changes need to be made, if any changes are needed at all. The idea that he has botched the pandemic response is important in assessing why America is going to be the epicenter of the pandemic according to WHO [3] (that's not to say he's the only reason). Readers will question how is it that it got to this point. And if government irresponsibility is key to that response, then that should be highlighted and laid out in detail. I do agree that overkill is never a good thing, so we can work on phasing out some of the needless overkill stuff. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
While it pains me to say this, your edits were overtly hostile, so I'm not interested in discussing them. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If you intention to edit is to show how Trump "botched" the pandemic response you are already violating WP:NPOV. There is a report by John Hopkins saying that the US is best at dealing with epidemics, but as it is NOT too prevalent I refrain from adding that to the discussion. Whether a government worked well or not, it is not your job as an editor to tell it. Lots of Trump's verbal statements are taken as he being unprepared, while his actions (such as closing borders to China, Iran) are NOT seen as his preparation for the epidemics. SunDawn (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Light_show, we have more than a bit of the archive devoted to talking about Trump as he has more power in the US as Head of the State than most other countries. That is why I believe that we have so many debates. Having the debates is fine so long as everyone is polite. But, we cannot assume that most of his comments are ironic without a source saying that they are. We must follow what the sources say. If a representative of the White House says something about Trump's comments, then we can use that. Otherwise, we drift into speculation by removing or altering content. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. No one can ever assume someone's statement was made tongue-in-cheek. Which leaves no choice for some reporters but to take them literally, since they make for a story. As one article commented: "His self-aware sense of humor is a powerful weapon. If you can spot the joke." --Light show (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands confirmed cases

Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands has two confirmed cases

https://www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2020/03/28/saipan-confirms-two-covid-19-positive-cases/2932326001/

https://www.kuam.com/story/41948492/2-confirmed-covid19-cases-in-saipan — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSWBB (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Companies making new products

Under financial and economic impact, including in the specific articles about that, it should be mentioned that companies are making products they don't normally make in response to the pandemic, as car companies contributed to World War II.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that at least some of the changes are mentioned in this article. time to decide where they go in related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States/Archive_5&oldid=1091451105"