Talk:COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Higher than 100% vaccination rate?

The table currently lists Gibraltar as:

   Gibraltar 	41,099 	122.0%

But this is confusing. How can you reach beyond 100%? Yes, I understand that you can reach this in THEORY if people who arrive there are all vaccinated too but not residents, possibly. But ... it's still strange from a DEFINITION point of view. IF the table lists only people that live in an area permanently, HOW can it reach above 100%? That is sooooo strange. And only Gibraltar shows this problem; the second entry has a rate of 100%, which is high but ... possible. Whereas 122% is just strange to me .... can someone dig into this and try to find out how that is possible? There must be some error in the definition; surely these can not all use the same definitions, as otherwise other small areas could also have above 100% ... 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The note in the column header says Percentage of population that has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. May include vaccination of non-citizens, which can push totals beyond 100% of the local population. It seems that Gibraltar's high number of migrant workers distorts the percentage considerably. Read our text at the COVID in Gibraltar article, which includes Gibraltar had completed vaccinating its entire adult population against COVID-19. As a result, Gibraltar became the first area in the world to do so. [...] over 90% of adults had at least one vaccine dose by 1 April [...] 85% of adults in Gibraltar were "fully inoculated" by 9 April. Additionally, most of the Spaniards who work in the territory have been vaccinated. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The old one dose vaccination definition is well out of date. The UK has vaccinated about 150% of it’s population (Edit: and almost 300% using the old one dose definition), Ireland the same with the original two dose roll-out and now 3rd dose with some people moving on to their 4th dose.BringBackTheStats (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@BringBackTheStats: No, this isn't the case. It's not ${\frac {\text{number of doses administered}}{\text{population}}}$, it's ${\frac {\text{number of people with at least one dose}}{\text{population}}}$. People who receive more than one dose are not counted multiple times. The reason that Gibraltar has a more than 100% vaccination rate is because of vaccinated non-citizens, who are counted as vaccinated people, but not as part of the population. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@User: Tol: I thought I made the point very clearly. I’m sensing that maybe you’re not taking the point seriously or else I’m not sure if you get the point or not. I didn’t really go into much detail. I’ll elaborate a bit. I’ve no idea who collates this table but maybe you know. I understand perfectly that ${\frac {\text{number of doses administered}}{\text{population}}}$ isn’t the case, that’s why I said that the old one dose vaccination definition is well out of date. It looks antiquated now. In six months this will look more antiquated, in two years even more so, to the point that this table, with this heading, with this definition of a ‘vaccination’ will just be peddling false information. The column heading is ‘Vaccinated’. It’s not headed ‘Proportion of a country’s population who once received one dose of a coronavirus vaccine way back in 2020’ or 22 or 23 for that matter’.

I would take the heading to mean vaccinated ( whatever that means anymore) or at least some sort of protection against coronavirus or at the very least against serious illness. It shouldn’t mean that you’re even more likely to get infected with coronavirus as is the case with Omicron, if you’ve had a previous infection coupled with one dose of a vaccine. I think that it’s in this report https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2021-12-22-COVID19-Report-50.pdf somewhere but it could be in another of their reports … somewhere, if you can take anything seriously when walking in the coronavirus information minefield. Tables on pages 7 & 8 are for re-infection rates comparing with Delta with Omicron.

Everyone under the definition on this heading i.e. those that have received only one dose or the proportion of a population who have received one dose, with the passage of time, between Dec 2020 and May-ish 2021 now have more or less no protection against Delta, Alpha, Beta, etc, as the antibody levels will now be too low, nevermind against Omicron. It’s misleading to define one dose as vaccinated as most of the vaccines required two doses to bring protection levels to an adequate level of protection.

Another reason why this heading is mis-leading is because there are so many variables between countries, speed of vaccine roll-out, start time of vaccine roll-out, infrastructure, etc this renders the ‘vaccinated’ heading, as a pure numbers who have received one dose metric, in this table meaningless. In the UK only about 50% of the population have had their 3rd dose ( see below) leaving about 50% of the population at present with little or no protection against infection by omicron => ‘unvaccinated’, yet the table says 75.7% vaccinated. (Edit: Make that 56.9% who have received a UK third dose now as I’ve just seen on the link below.)

Even with a 2nd or 3rd vaccine dose protection is arbitrary. In this Imperial College report from 17th Dec 2021 under the heading, ‘Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron’, ‘The researchers found a significantly increased risk of developing a symptomatic Omicron case compared to Delta for those who were two or more weeks past their second vaccine dose, and two or more weeks past their booster (3rd) dose (for AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines).’ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/modelling-suggests-rapid-spread-omicron-england/

What I’m trying to say is that this table, although perfectly adequate at the beginning is now not fit for purpose as it will be like a finished painting of the 1st vaccine roll-out for most countries with updates of countries on their 1st roll-out, but that’s all it is. What about all the other subsequent current vaccination programs around the planet? Are they to be ignored? What about any new variants and any new vaccines and subsequent vaccine roll-outs that may come along after that? None of this information is in this table. Even with all of this, this table is also totally out of date. The table says that Ireland is at 78% where as the Irish government’s vaccination website says that 91.97% of the population above the age of twelve have had a 1st dose. Scroll down about half way - https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations . The table says that 75.7% of the UK population have had a 1st dose. I’m sure that they reached this sort of level way back in the summer. (Edit: I’ve just had a look, the UK reached 75.7% 1st dose level about the 23rd June 2021.) If you scroll down near the bottom on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations it says on a graphic that the UK 1st dose level is currently 89.9%, etc.

What to do? The table could be kept as a record of the first dose vaccine roll-out with separate new tables for 2nd, 3rd, etc vaccine programs or the table could be added to, with the first column changed to ‘Vaccine’ 1st Dose’ numbers with %, and another column with ‘2nd Vaccine Dose’ numbers column and %, ‘3rd Vaccine Dose’ with % etc which could be scrolled vertically and horizontally with the Headings and countries frozen. BringBackTheStats (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It's good that you explained in detail, because you have what I consider an unexpected understanding of the table. You appear to equate (or you want to equate) "vaccinated" with "protected". I will agree that the table makes absolutely no claims about level of protection or risk of further infection/disease/hospitalization/death. We clearly say Number and percentage of people who have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, which I woud have thought was clear.

I'm not sure "level of protection" belongs in a by-country article like this one; perhaps some discussion would be appropriate at COVID-19 pandemic or one of the other related articles, if it's not there (somewhere) already. A by-country analysis of protection would probably exceed our abilities (verifiability, resources to maintain figures).

If you want to talk about correctness of the values that are shown, you should probably go to Template talk:COVID-19 data/Date, as that template is where the table is made.

Regarding your idea about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., dosage columns, I don't think we have that information from most of the countries. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@User: JohnFromPinckney: ‘It's good that you explained in detail, because you have what I consider an unexpected understanding of the table. You appear to equate (or you want to equate) "vaccinated" with "protected".’ - It could be that I may have a simple but unexpected understanding of the definition of the word vaccinated. The column is headed with the word vaccinated so that’s the information that I would expect to find in that column and I apologise for being so presumptive as to expect ‘vaccinated’ column to give me this information. The column heading should be changed to ‘Received One Dose’ or something like that.

‘Regarding your idea about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., dosage columns, I don't think we have that information from most of the countries.’ – I’ve yet to come across a country that doesn’t publish this information if they have rolled out a program that goes beyond the first dose. I stand by what I’ve said above.BringBackTheStats (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Map legend colour order are backwards

I noticed the colouring is in the wrong order in the map legends (the text beneath the maps) compared to the actual data in the map graphics. (Thankfully the correct legend is usually presented on the map itself.) RulesForThee (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Which map? Please link to article section. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

All of the maps where there is a legend is added below them.

The maps in the "By continent" section for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory#By_continent RulesForThee (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I might have found the problem. I have activated "dark mode" in the "beta features" and when I turn it off the colour order is correct, but when I activate dark mode it's reversed. RulesForThee (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting information

This page says Niue got its first case on March 8, 2022. The page COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania claims it was March 9 2022, and Portal:Current events claims it was March 10. Which is it? -184.56.75.144 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes showing up under wrong section

The first five footnotes, a through e, under the "Timeline of first confirmed cases by country or territory" section are actually for the Vaccinations table in the "Statistics" section. These are showing up under the wrong table, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Thought I'd alert other people so someone more competent than me can figure it out. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Jroberson108 may be able to help. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qmwnebrvtcyxuz and Timeshifter:  Fixed. COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Vaccinations wasn't displaying the notelist under the table. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The North America map is duplicated. One of them should be removed. -153.33.150.175 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Numbers for Austria currently incorrect

Hey folks. Recently it was reported that there are 19.851 covid19-related deaths in Austria.

Examples for media reporting this:

https://www.oe24.at/coronavirus/gesundheitsministerium-meldet-3-412-corona-todesfaelle-nach/517016384

https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000135033103/gesundheitsministerium-meldet-3-412-corona-todesfaelle-nach#posting-1091197363

https://www.kleinezeitung.at/international/corona/6127781/Coronavirus_Gesundheitsministerium-meldet-3412-Todesfaelle-nach

These are in german, but I believe you can look for numbers in the articles to confirm this.

The current number in the wikipedia article is somewhat above 16.000, so this is now an incorrect number. The real number should be 19.851 for Austria (at the least for today; evidently the number changes daily, but ~16.000 is now clearly incorrect). 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You Should Add North Korea

there is data on them now. 21 have died recently and there is plenty of new cases.84.212.100.141 (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Turkmenistan

You should add Turkmenistan as well. Government denies they have covid, but various news sources reported the cases there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.183.0 (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no confirmed cases, as the local authorities do not report them. 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:55F7:DFD7:C58A:19E6 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)