Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

timeline graphic

I would Steinfeld prefer a time line graphic similar to the one from other countries. At least it is a necessity to not only list absolute numbers but relative changes per day! This is needed to understand the potentially exponential character of such diseases, and to more easily be able to identify potential improvements (decreasing percentages of new cases by time), likewise of course increases in %. This is much more difficult by just stating absolute numbers. Wowbagger2 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

For example from Japan? Good idea. The problem I see is that the daily numbers of new cases are currently not well maintained.--walkee^talkee 20:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we really miss percentages of new infections day-to-day. I already had recognized during the China outbreak, that newspaper had difficulties to properly discuss the new infection impact, as they always only reported absolute increases, which are not the right tool to judge on a potentially exponential outbreak. At least wiki had always % increases, a much better to judge on if their are signs of control of new infections (or not). Wowbagger2 (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

BMW FIZ Infected - 150 Workers under Quaräntine

Under Economic Section, the Engineering Department of Automobile Constructor had a positive Case in which all was evacuated and sterilised under dubious handle. München is the 2nd city in Germany affected, initiated at Webasto https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/weitere-corona-faelle-in-bayern-auch-bmw-betroffen,Rs4roqI — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Outdated

This Germany article has had only a single Timeline update over the last week, during which period the number of cases has increased by a factor of ten.--2601:444:380:8C00:714D:E5A8:5A07:75B4 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, instead of complaining you could just update it yourself. WP:JUSTDOIT! Mgasparin (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Questions

1. There is a case in Ettlingen (Stadtkreis Karlsruhe) now. External Link 2. Can recovered cases be indicated in the map somehow? A district should not remain red after nobody is actively sick in it. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't? What happens when all of the country's cases are resolved - does the map go completely gray again, or is it taken down?

There are more than two colors in the world. And please sign your comments. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Outsource information into separate articles for the federal states

If there are separate articles for the federal states, should the history information be outsourced to the separate article so that there are no duplications?

For example: From 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Rhine-Westphalia#Timeline ?

Then only the reference to the main article could remain. Opinions about this? Triplec85 (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A satirical video

TFA currently says:

An FDP member of Bundestag, Sattelberg, went public that he was infected when he complained about a video by Germany's largest public broadcaster, ARD. The video presented Covid-19 as a justified reflex of nature by particularly killing the old as well as people in the developed world, who it suggested ruined the planet with global warming and turbocapitalism, so that this way there would be less pollution and overpopulation.

Could someone with the necessary rights to edit this article please change this to read "[...] complained about a satirical video [...]"? I feel that this is a fairly important point. Thank you. 188.96.168.63 (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

🚑 76 years old man Goodbye in Hamburg

First case HH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Add a note under "Statistics" that:

Lothar Wieler, the President of the Robert Koch Institut has announced that as of March 16th the method of data transmission will be changed. Up until this point, the RKI had reported the number of positive test results validated by the institute itself. Due to the increasing numbers, the RKI will now instead report the number of positive test results validated by public health departments, which will likely cause a delay of three to four days. This change could result in a temporary decline in the reported number of cases, but should not be misinterpreted as a decline in infections . DrSchnaet (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now implemented.--walkee^talkee 12:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

In No. of deaths chart the cumulative statistics is shown (why?). Here is correct data. Please change the following line y=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2,2,3,5,5,8,12,13 to y=0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2,0,1,2,0,3,4,1

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. To change from cumulative statistics to daily statistics requires a consensus for the charts. Please establish a consensus before opening an edit request. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Please move the "COVID-19 cases is Germany" graph above the "Timeline by state" section. Especially when viewed on a mobile phone, the graph appears immediately after the "timeline by state" and so it seems like it should be a graph of the cases in some particular state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.251.103 (talk • contribs)

You could be right. This would also be an issue in the other articles, "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy" etc. Should it be moved down into Statistics? Should Statistics be moved up?--walkee^talkee 12:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A screenshot of the page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany on an iPhone XR

For me when I use my mobile device (an iPhone XR) either through a browser or the Wikipedia app the {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Germany medical cases chart}} appears right before the text in the section "Timeline by state" like it does in the desktop article. Is this the table your referring to? (Note: Since this is more technical I deactivated the edit request while a discussion is ongoing.) Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Same here. I think the issue is that the graphic is not "by state" although it is under the headline "Timeline by state". What can be done?--walkee^talkee 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this move already did the trick.--walkee^talkee 12:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Input RKI vs. JHU

Hi,

any idea why Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) shows different numbers for Germany compared to RKI input?

Thanks, Reiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkhmnk (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the RKI numbers have lagged behind 3-4 days since March 16, as the RKI President said.--walkee^talkee 22:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead: "from there to Northern Italy"

", seemingly, from there to Northern Italy, where the company has offices, based on phylogenetic analysis of viral DNA."

The influential virologist Drosten doubts it. Is this really so relevant in the lead section and NPOV?--walkee^talkee 22:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Map

There is no case in Karlsruhe. There is one person treated in Karlsruhe, but he is from Nuremberg. And there are numerous other mistakes too. I've counted at least 10. 2003:DE:6F2B:9700:424:D1D6:9549:1A8E (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Case in Ettlingen, Cases in SK and LK Karlsruhe including the one from Nuremberg.

Also, why is only one guy updating the map while using rather unaesthetic colors? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is at least one verified case in Landkreis (county) of Altötting. The Landkreis (county) is still marked in grey on the map, should be red.

Arzt der Kreisklinik Burghausen mit Coronavirus infiziert

Hi from Germany. Whoever takes care for the maps, should make all steps logarithmic (and adjust them when necessary). --82.82.222.110 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert Koch Institute

The Robert Koch Institute "daily updates" are a joke --Zarateman (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Consistent case figures

The graph that is COVID-19 cases in Germany contains data for 19 March 2020, which is today. Is this correct - the other graphs in the versions of pages that are similar to this (following the 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_xxxxx format) only go up to the day before. Also, the figure for 19 March in graph is 10,999 but intro says "As of 19 March 2020, Germany has reported 13,083" 86.12.81.226 (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That is because the authority providing the figures a) already posted info in the morning and b) is lagging behind the total of all the state figures, which other sources use, to be more up to date. Agathoclea (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to understand how these different versions are being updated: right now I see 16,662 cases at RKI and in the {{medical cases chart}}; 21,890 in the infobox; and 22,197 at Morgenpost. Does this mean that RKI is likely to show (at least) 22,197 in its value early tomorrow (CET) morning? That would be a 33% increase, which would be easily consistent with a continuing 1.3^(number of days) exponential unchanged since several weeks ago in DE - nothing unusual or unpredictable. The absolute increases keep getting bigger, but that's what exponential growth means. Boud (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Table format?

Is it time to turn around the format of the large table of case numbers per federal state in the "Statistics" section, so as to have columns for states and rows for days? The table is growing unwieldy, with a lot more columns than rows now.

And can this also be done for the bar charts below it? It would probably also make them easier to maintain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

PL has sixteen voivodeships, just as DE has 16 Länder. Administrative reorganisation of these is extremely unlikely to happen over the next few months. But the number of days of the COVID-19 pandemic is very likely to keep increasing. So following the example of Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship might be useful here. Boud (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

There is spelling mistake in the last paragraph : people "threw" stone and "three" stone. Aditya2707 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in largest number of cases

"Currently, the largest number of COVID-19 cases in Germany are in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.[9]" If we open the link we see the biggest amount of cases in Baden-Wurtemberg and highest cases/100.000 in Hamburg. Not North Rhine-Westphalia. Алексей Витальевич Дудченко (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases in Germany chart

Whoever updates the chart, can you please use RKI data from the afternoons. The data early in the day are always incomplete as many districts may not have reported their most current data yet. Also, please mind that there is a lag in reporting over weekends. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Webasto-Italy-Link

Why is the asserted link from Webasto to the massive outbreak in Italy placed on top of this article? Webasto declares that any employees were travelling to the one or two sites which is or are somewhere about 100 km next to the Italian epicentres. The German Webasto cluster was identified by announcement back from China (or the Webasto sites in China). Why should there not have been information on contact persons from german to italian authorities or Webasto sites at least? What's about the chinese couple travelling from Milan to Rome, which were later tested positiv? Seemingly Italy did few to identify their contact persons in order to prevent clusters.

The Webasto-Italy-Link is almost a conspiracy theory that will become worthy for finger-pointing when it comes to pay the bill.. This question should be only placed in the italian article where it is handled much more restrained. 95.91.244.147 (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested removing this phrase before: #Lead:_"from_there_to_Northern_Italy". No one replied. I think it's good to remove it until someone can find a convincing reason to put it back.--walkee^talkee 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: please indicate sources of figures more clearly

To whoever is able to make edits this article: I would like to request that it be more clearly indicated what sources the various conflicting (!) figures given in the article are taken from. In particular, for the number of infections, deaths and recoveries, the article uses both official figures released by the RKI, as well as unofficial data compiled by a Berlin newspaper, Berliner Morgenpost.

I think including both is fine in principle, but the way this is currently done is likely to create confusion. I would therewore like to suggest that

1. infobox data should primarily be drawn from the most reliable source: the RKI. A note can and should be added saying that, beginning March 17, these figures only include cases reported electronically to the RKI (this is a legal requirement, BTW) and that actual numbers may be higher. Furthermore,
2. statements such as

As of 23 March 2020, Germany has reported 27,546 cases, 115 deaths and 422 recoveries.

should be reworded, e. g. to

As of 23 March 2020, the Berliner Morgenpost estimates a total of 27,546 cases, 115 deaths and 422 recoveries.

or something along those lines. The current statement's attribution of these figures to ,,Germany`` makes them appear official, when in fact they are not.

Thanks. 188.108.223.26 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The project by Berliner Morgenpost combines official data and does not count itself. Readers would be confused if they read "Berliner Morgenpost" because few will know it. It's also not an "estimation". They would also be confused if they read the outdated data by RKI and notice the wide gap to the numbers by the Johns Hopkins University. I would leave it as is or find another description.--walkee^talkee 18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality rate should be included

Given that case fatality rate is merely the number of deaths divided by the number of cases, to the extent that both numbers are provided and properly referenced, a case fatality rate would not be an example of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH; as long as references are given for the former, it should be fine. It's worth noting that the case fatality rate is included in other articles regarding the pandemic (as one example, see 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea). Also, I think this is a clear case of WP:RAP and WP:COMMON. This is a matter of basic common sense. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess at the moment one could only calculate preliminary CFRs and their usefulness and accuracy is questionable, because almost all (98,5%) of the reported cases in Germany are still without outcome (neither recovered nor dead). The final CFR for the reported cases up to now is likely going to be very different in two months (when most current cases have outcomes), and may easily be twenty times higher or even more. Also now every update of numbers, which are now happening at least once per day, would require the editor to take out the calculator and update that rate, which is easy to forget. In the future this rate will become much more stable and useful. How about we leave it out for now and introduce it when the CFR is more final or unlikely to change much? walkee^talkee 16:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Calculating Case Fatality Rate from current totals is just plain wrong, considering that more than 50% of cases started just a few days ago and they are far from their final outcome. Roman (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already discussion about the German anomaly: https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3. Obviously Germany has identified a high stake of actual infected people, still a lot of identified cases in Germany are asymptomatic! Hence case fatality rate in Germany is almost the same as the total mortality rate of the desease so far. Rigth now the German data is just indicating a good infection control comparable to other countries like Norway, Finland and so on. Nevertheless the rate is likely to increase in the upcoming days. 2A02:8109:9AC0:29C6:C10B:4BA0:4B1E:5E49 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should create a paragraph describing the different theories for the low death number. This issue is recurring.--walkee^talkee 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussing the "German anomaly" based on reliable sources is fine. Maintaining an up-to-date fatality rate ourselves is purely WP:OR. That fatality rate may or may not be due. See the point raised by Roman as an example. --MarioGom (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Death count

How does the count of deceased people go from 13 on 16th March to 12 on the 17th? Is the virus now turning people into undead zombies? Fanx (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

that's more: how can be the death rate less than 0,1% in Germany? Nobody (especially not here in Italy) really believese in the methods used by Berlin for the bodycount. 44 deaths on 16,000 cases is an insult, a scam, but nobody seems to accuse Germany of cover-up. Why Germany -and only Germany- has so low kill probability of about 0,25%??? 62.11.3.98 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The low death rate has surprised me too, but I found few sources treating it in German (I don't speak Italian). This is a topic where numbers matter a lot, and where numbers matter a lot, data quality is important and needs to be analyzed, I understand. How many tests were taken, what are the requirements to get tested, what are possible explanations for discrepancies between countries, did procedures change and if so when, are there differences between regions, and so on. No author here wants to do a "cover-up". Reactions from Italy can also be relevant but at the same time they need to be described following our Wikipedia:Core content policies and you are always free to make Wikipedia:Edit requests.--walkee^talkee 12:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's been some discussion in the media about why Germany's death rate is significantly lower than those of other countries. I don't have time to dig up the sources now, but there are various theories, of which the most plausible is that Germany conducts many more tests than other countries, so it catches a lot more positive cases in asymptomatic people than other countries do, and of course asymptomatic people are relatively unlikely to die from the disease. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The German death rate (ratio of deaths to known infections) is much lower than in other large European countries (Italy, France, UK, Spain), but some smaller countries - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium - also have rates below 1%. It may be significant that these are mostly countries close to Germany. Could there be a climatic factor? Or could they be getting less virulent strains of the disease for some reason? If the infection is spreading to them mainly overland within Europe (and not directly by travellers from China) could the mode of transmission be favouring more infectious but milder variants? I haven't seen much discussion of the issue. I would also want clearer information on the basis for reporting deaths. I think most countries are counting all deaths following a positive test as COVID deaths, without any clinical judgement of the contribution of COVID to the cause of death. I have not found any clear statement that the German statistics are on the same basis. Surely someone in Germany must know!86.178.146.28 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Like in the numbers for other countries, the German numbers count every death following a positive test as COVID death. Germany's relatively low rate of deaths per *identified* case has three main reasons: A relatively large number of tests is executed so that a relatively large share of the asymptomatic cases is detected (in contrast to some other countries where mostly the symptomatic/hospitalized cases are tested). Hence Germany has a lower rate of unidentified cases; since the unidentified cases are typically mild or asymptomatic, having a smaller share of unidentified cases reduces the rate of deaths per identified case. Secondly, the number of infections started to increase significantly only in the beginning of March; it takes around two weeks for an infected person to die from the disease, meaning that larger numbers of daily deaths only materialize by now. Thirdly, the German health system is currently not under overwhelming stress, meaning that most or all of the severe cases can be treated with adequate therapy (ventilation); this might reduce the fatality rate in comparison to e.g. Italy, where triage measures have to be taken (in some parts of the country) due to an overly stressed health system. Schluppo (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Add {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Germany medical cases chart}} before == Timeline by state == I believe it was inadvertently removed in this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=947125603&oldid=947125405&title=2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany Almost every other pandemic pages per country has this chart and it is missing. Shelkeknemrom (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The statistic is far the most important thing in this article. The person, who deleted it, should be banned from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.20.158 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it, I didn't see it had become attached to the reference of a paragraph, a paragraph I removed because it did not help "summarize the body of the article" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). The statistic is definitely important and worth keeping.--walkee^talkee 19:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Two presumably different but actually indistiguishable greens used on graphs

Can this be fixed? It's impossible to tell which line is which.

--130.183.2.35 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --walkee^talkee 16:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Early unrecorded cases and Panama

A friend and family flew back to Panama on Jan 5 from Germany and we had a outbreak of 16-20 people with civid19 symptoms exactly to the letter. Now after research and sharing I have a list of 53 who had the symptoms exactly. This is on a small island in Panama. There were no tests available and we thought we all had Covid 19. Since then I learned a group of Chinese tourist came in on Jan 2 and a group of 17 very sick Germans arrived on a bike tour with a very ill guide from Costa Rica on the 11th of Feb. People keep sharing there experience with me and it all sounds like the virus not some random flu. We have had some elderly deaths but they didnt test for covid. I was pre med in college and a medical missionary physician assistant so Im not ignorant of medicine. We can not prove anything because the antigen test is just now being developed. We are on lock down here and I only know of 4 active cases. I and most of my friends were over it 6 weeks ago but some of us still have lung issues. Would someone like to comment on this?Macpowell7 (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your experience. I hope that your lung issues will improve and I am glad you got over the virus. At the moment, unfortunately, we cannot put any of this into the article because of rules like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. When antibody tests become available and experience such as this can be verified, sources Wikipedia defined as reliable will be happy to receive such information but only afterwards Wikipedia can make use of it. Sadly, this is all we can do. I wish you the best of luck. Get well soon!--walkee^talkee 11:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries: Berliner Morgenpost or Die Zeit?

Berliner Morgenpost ([1]) and Die Zeit ([2]) are reporting wildly different figures for recoveries (6,658 vs 2,607). Does someone get what is their methodological difference? Which one should we use? --MarioGom (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Good question... As of just now, Morgenpost has a higher number of recovered cases while Zeit has higher numbers of positive cases and deaths, both directly taking information from federal health departments. JHU CRC has numbers between these two and the same numbers as Worldometers. I am confused which source to consult for updates.--walkee^talkee 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We started using Morgenpost on 12 March [3] and now the same user prefers Zeit [4]. Zeit claims to have the most current numbers, so I think I will begin using them unless there is consensus to use other sources.--walkee^talkee 17:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Walkee: Ok. I see where the problem might be. Berliner Morgenpost is counting 4,000 recoveries that are nicht zugeordnet. They are not attributed to any region. So I'm inclined to consider that Die Zeit figure (3,131) is more reliable. Every recovery seems to have a clear source, unlike Berliner Morgenpost. --MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Walkee Morgenpost was the only frequently updated source that published numbers until Zeit started their project on 21 March. I switched for two reasons: 1. Zeit is the bigger newspaper, and is generally considered one of Germany's most reliable news sources, and 2. Zeit actually explains their methodology, unlike Morgenpost. I agree with MarioGom that Zeit is the more reliable source. Since it is not mandatory in Germany to report recoveries, the actual number of recovered patients is probably larger than any of these, but the same could be said of the actual number of cases (including the dark figure). We can't reliably estimate them. Just using the source that gives the largest number would introduce biases as well. In short: I'd say let's stick with Zeit for now.Renerpho (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Renerpho: Thank you for stating your reasons. I also read that it is not mandatory in Germany to report recoveries (this should be added to the article somewhere, I think). Funke media could actually have a larger audience: This is not just Berliner Morgenpost that publishes this exact map of the project but for example also Germany's largest regional newspaper, WAZ, as well as Westfälische Rundschau,Westfalenpost, Braunschweiger Zeitung, NRZ or Hamburger Abendblatt. Funke also explained their methodology, as previously described here: 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany#Data_discussion. My main question is if the numbers are so reliable that we could just publish them of either project just in function of whoever is currently ahead.--walkee^talkee 10:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Walkee Both are likely far behind, as I said. If Zeit didn't exist, I would consider the Morgenpost numbers reliable enough to publish them here. I have to admit, it feels strange that a second unrelated source would affect the reliability of the first one... Maybe we should just give both numbers in parallel, with a note explaining the difference?Renerpho (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Renerpho: The reliability problem of the Berliner Morgenpost is not that Die Zeit map exists. That is only the reason why we started to look closer into the methodology of different sources and found that the Berliner Morgenpost added, exactly, 4,000 recoveries that cannot be attributed to any territory and, as far as I know, have an unknown underlying source. --MarioGom (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I have contacted the Berliner Morgenpost to ask for clarification about nicht zugeordnet recoveries. I suspect they are double counting recoveries accounted for both in regions and in the unassigned category. --MarioGom (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom Thanks, I'm curious what they have to say. Keep us updated!Renerpho (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGomWalkee I went ahead and boldly added an estimate for the actual number of recoveries.Renerpho (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Renerpho: It makes sense. --MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Consumer survey

Do we need this survey in the article?--walkee^talkee 10:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the question. While the survey is not bad (although it can be made up), it may be converted in a footnote. Do we really need it in a major section? --Pier4r (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed walkee and Pier4r. i took care of it. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in Germany" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in Germany. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020

Please change "As of 29 March 2020, a project by Zeit Online, which attempts to summarize data early from the German local health departments, has reported 61,164 cases, 490 deaths and 5,024 recoveries.[3]" to "As of 30 Mar 2020 at 00:00 hours (local time), 62,550 cases have been reported with 533 deaths, 10,160 recovered and 203,000 in quarantine." because the numbers used by Zeit Online contain many errors. One such error is the fact that they are double counting the number of COVID-19 cases in Worms, as their referenced article and map shows 147 cases in Alzey-Worms and 68 cases in Worms, but the correct number of cases is 79 in Alzey-Worms and 68 in Worms i.e., they have included Worms' numbers into the Alzey-Worms total as well as in the Worms total. There are many other errors I can identify upon request. T.A.Girard (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User T.A.Girard has raised serious concerns about the reliability of the Zeit Online numbers. I replaced the source with Tagesspiegel, which seems reliable (thereby enacting part, but not all, of T.A.Girard's edit request). @T.A.Girard: It would be nice if you could give further details here about the problem. Note though that Twitter and Google documents are not considered reliable sources.Renerpho (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Renerpho, there was an unclosed <ref>...</ref> towards the top of the page, so when the edit request was put in with a </ref> it sorta made everything go wonky. I've fix that, restored the original text, and put in what I felt was the most relevant comment of your attempts. Thank you for your efforts, and feel free to trout me if I missed anything important or relevant in your recent edits here. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Thank you for fixing that.Renerpho (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom,Walkee: Tagging you here, as you may be interested in this and may not have noticed yet.Renerpho (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the methodology of all three newspapers, I think all of them will make some mistakes when catching the latest local news. I would watch Die Zeit to see if they correct their errors or not. Relying Tagesspiegel for cases and deaths may make sense in the meantime. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I've spent a while checking sources provided by T.A.Girard and I agree that Tagesspiegel looks both more accurate and more up-to-date. The level of detail and full disclosure of sources by Risklayer (backing Tagesspiegel map) looks great. --MarioGom (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, MarioGom. I think we can stick to Tagesspiegel for now. I created a hidden comment in the infobox to that effect.Renerpho (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

84 deaths is not officially confirmed information!

"As of 21 March 2020, Germany has reported 21,890 cases, 84 deaths and 209 recoveries.[11]"

Official sources WHO and RKI report only 45/47 deaths!!!

https://who.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ead3c6475654481ca51c248d52ab9c61 https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-03-21-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Алексей Витальевич Дудченко (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/ places the latest count at 92 deaths. El_C 10:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it an official resource? Can we rely on it? I would suggest mentioning both if you think your source is important. But RKI and WHO are much more authoritative sources. Алексей Витальевич Дудченко (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. That's not my source. That's the source currently used to attribute that data to the lead. I naturally assumed it's been vetted here. But maybe not. Not sure. El_C 13:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Алексей Витальевич Дудченко: WHO lags up to 48 hours and RKI 24 hours. The situation is mostly the same for other countries. For Germany, we have used three sources for up-to-date figures: Berliner Morgenpost, Zeit Online and Tagesspiegel. All of them are based on RKI figures for past days, plus incremental updates based on updates from local authorities during the day. You can see further discussions about the reliability of these sources on this talk page. --MarioGom (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Table citation tags

It's not possible to add references into the notes of the table of 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Germany#Robert_Koch_Institute. I have tried it before. Now someone put citations-needed tags everywhere there. Does anyone have an idea how to fix the issue?--walkee^talkee 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Logarithmic scale

The number of cases should be plotted on a logarithmic scale. An exponential increase on a linear scale plot just shows higher an higher numbers and only a mathematician can predict the increase for the next days. On a logarithmic scale plot, the same numbers form a line. So it is easy to predict the number of cases for the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.61.116 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a logarithmic scale plot is harder to read for normal people, discussed here: Template_talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/WHO_situation_reports#Log_scale_graph. This article would also become different from its siblings. However, you could bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19.--walkee^talkee 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone included a logarithmic scale and it looked well-made, but it was removed today, probably related to this discussion (DE).--walkee^talkee 15:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Koch Institute - numbers outdated

Over the past few days, the numbers reported by the RKI have become increasingly outdated. This is particularly striking for the cases in North Rhine-Westphalia, which have not been updated for 3 days now (and which lag behind by about 400 cases in the RKI count). Rather than using the numbers on the RKI website, I suggest to go with the more up to date numbers here. This has the advantage of also having a slide to display the numbers from previous days, and it would bring the article back in sync with its own infobox. I also suggest to make the same change to this chart. Renerpho (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Renerpho That sounds like an excellent idea. No sense in using a database that isn't updating its data regularly. Mgasparin (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

While it sounds like a good idea, I still recommend keeping Robert Koch Institute's data as the official source - because it is the only one that the government refers to as being the official source of communication. Berliner Morgenpost chart is maintained by a newspaper. No matter how reputable their sources are, it is not as official as, well, the official source. For this reason, I am reverting it back to Robert Koch Institute's numbers. JackUKElliott (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC+1)

RKI is reporting confirmed cases in Germany and no one else! There is no information available on the sources of the data of Berliner Morgenpost (which is a local Berlin media outlet with limited resources) and their reliability. So if Berliner Morgenpost data is used the term "confirmed cases" needs to be removed and instead the label estimate by Berliner Morgenpost be used. I really would base such information on an official source which is experienced in maintaining data on infectious diseases and not on the most shiny and blinking dashboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, keep the chart at the RKI numbers. I find it misleading though, because the page gives a count of 2639 cases right now, and the diagram below stops at 1567. This gives the impression of a near doubling of case numbers over a single day, which did not happen (case number was 1966 on March 11th). I don't see a good way to mark that the two counts are separate from each other. Renerpho (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked again - the Morgenpost link actually lists detailed sources for their numbers. This includes RKI, but also John's Hopkins, WHO and probably most importantly, the local health offices. Renerpho (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The RKI data are the "official" data, but so are the data of the local health offices (Gesundheitsämter) of the German districts. And the local health offices are the ones, that collect the data in the first place and report those data then to the RKI. The RKI does not collect data itself. But if for a certain district (Landkreis, kreisfreie Stadt etc) the Gesundheitsamt states that there are 10 cases, but the RKI only has a much lower number of lets say 2 that is three days old, then IMO it does not make sense, to just tell the RKI data, because it is obviously wrong (or better outdated). I would suggest to use RKI data for the graphs that show the numbers over time (so for the past), because with time the new cases of the health offices will eventually be contained in the RKI numbers at some point. But I would suggest to add a last entry (in addition to the individual dates) like "current", which uses the data from the John Hopkins University. By this, you would have the "official" data for the dates in the past, but you would also see the "current" number which will give a much more accurate image of the situation as it is "now" (and not some time between 1-3 days old). --Deconstruct (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So data shown is now apparently from Berliner Morgenpost, but the source states RKI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should stick to the official source. i guess the important aspect here is 'confirmed cases' - only those from the official source (i.e. RKI) can be used. unless there is a more official source (e.g. some ministry that publishes them officially). I reverted the overall statistics back to the RKI numbers Lukas6283 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now the graph uses the numbers from Berliner Morgenpost until 15 March and the numbers from RKI starting from 16 March. This gives the wrong impression that there wasn't much of an increase between 15 and 16 March. We need to use either the Berliner Morgenpost numbers throughout or the RKI numbers throughout, but mixing them is certainly a bad idea. Marcos (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I very much agree. but if we use morgenpost numbers they should not be called official numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukas6283 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the data in any way consistent? For example, where does the 13,957 for 2020-03-20 come from? Berliner Morgenpost reports 19,850 cases at the moment. The RKI seems only to report the latest numbers. --MartinThoma (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources I trust most for statistics also gives different numbers: statista: Entwicklung der täglich neu gemeldeten Fallzahl des Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Deutschland seit Januar 2020 --MartinThoma (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure to what number you refer - the one in the box or in the graph? in the graph, the number should be from RKI. in the box is usually morgenpost. i think it is important to stick with RKI for the graph as they are the official number Lukas6283 (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Dates in data are incorrect: 2020-02-29 ​ 5(n.a.) <--- 2020-02-24 2020-02-25 ​ 18(+13%) 2020-02-26 ​ 21(+17%) 2020-02-27 ​ 26(+24%) 2020-02-28 ​ 53(+104%) 2020-02-29 ​ 66(+25%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.164.240.6 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

In section 3.1 Criticism, change "dangers of the global spread of a Corona virus pandemic" to "dangers of the global spread of a coronavirus pandemic". "Corona virus" does not conform to nomenclature conventions. Jfpascoal (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that, Jfpascoal! aboideau^talk 13:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Massive testing

I'm shocked how this page follow a massive ideological twist by cancelling Massive Testing as main action against the virus. And is in par with OMS recomandation. All this page is scam! From start containment is alleged as first measure ignoring fact that as of March 2, 35000 tests where already conducted and 100000 days after. How can it be possible not mention that more testing than other countries, mean more difference between cases numbers en deaths numbers. Germany is among the few getting the best result because of testing, with Norway, South Korea, Australia, Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.20.166 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitted this message to its own section. It seems unrelated to the origina discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• I am open to constructive input for what to add to this page (anything that goes beyond "this page is a scam"). Differences in testing between countries, and their effect on how effectively a country deals with the outbreak, are an important issue. But there is a lot of rapidly changing information to cover about this pandemic, and only so much time any of us has. That's why there is a Current disaster message box at the top of the article. My suggestion: The best way to get the page fixed is to fix it yourself. See this page for how to suggest edits if you don't have the necessary user rights. Or use this method to attract attention from others who might be able to help.Renerpho (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be said in 1st paragraph : Strategy to control the epidemy has been conducted following the South Korean precedent.https://time.com/5812555/germany-coronavirus-deaths/ instead of the "herd immunity" theory https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615375/what-is-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/ This massive testing strategy witch is olso followed by Norway, Australia and Russia started first week of March with 35000 test, then ramping up to 100000 test the next week.https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/corona-tests-labore-am-limit,Rtav6dl Positive controled people are isolated to prevent further contamination.

Giving echo of alleged contradictions on numbers in this 1st paragraph is an oriented bias.

Criticism on preparation : How reliable is the source since it's a gossip magazine. I would propose to say that preparation was good. As Germany is among countries having the most nurses, Hopital beds/Critical beds, ventilators. And can provide assistance to other countries for testing.

In Number of Death paragraph : First of all, and again, Positive controled people are isolated to prevent further contamination. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-europe-germany.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.20.166 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

About general organisation of the page, I think it's also a political bias to put Länders details before national ones.

4 days since my first comment. This page is still locked. The only one among others in different languages! That means a lot on the vicious motive ongoing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.20.166 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/germanys-devolved-logic-is-helping-it-win-the-coronavirus-race : "Some private labs started offering tests for the Covid-19 virus long before statutory health insurers were offering to pay for the tests, giving Germany a head start. Now around 250 laboratories are carrying out between 300,000 and 500,000 tests for Covid-19 every week." --217.234.65.245 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Herd Immunity/Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest fighters in action. Not because you pass thru last time that it'll happen next... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.68.20.166 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Background section

For a debate about the new introduction of the Background section, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Mass_duplicates_for_"Background".--walkee^talkee 17:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

New header to replace "Government reactions"

I would like to suggest a change of name for the captioned header, as a significant part of the information can hardly be subsumed under the current name. Even the non-informative "Timeline" (or similar) could at least be an interim solution until the items are split according to topics, or perhaps – in some cases – be absorbed into the section "Impact". --CRau080 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not include graphs that predict the future.

File:CoViD-19_DE.svg - incompatible with WP:NOR and WP:NOTFUTURE

Please do not include graphs like the one shown here, created by Commons user Micheletb. It arbitrarily invent trends (violation of WP:NOR) and draw them out into the future (violation of WP:FUTURE. The user has been notified of this several times [5] but has not shown to understand the underlying problem. "But I am using a perfectly fine interpolation" is not an answer to the problem. The problem is to arbitrarily pick a period, declare the trend from that arbitrary period to have any meaning at all (WP:NOR) and project that trend into the future. WP:FUTURE. -- Theoprakt (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop hallucinating on those lines being a prediction (future value is in the eye of the beholder?). Please note that after being stuck on the trend line, the curve is now bending downward, which obviously contradicts any idea of the trend line being a "prediction". The point is just, that adding this trend line emphasises the bending down. Please note further that the recommendations you mention are irrelevant on Commons. Micheletb (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a trendline is easily interpretable by readers as a projection. Also, a trendline might be added considering different periods. The period that should be used to measure current trend might depend on dates where measures were taken, or all time, or other. All of these have different implications. Unless the trendline comes exactly from a reliable source and it is clearly attributed with a citation, it is original research. --MarioGom (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for a while now... Micheletb doesn't seem to "get" either WP:OR, nor WP:NOTFUTURE. I don't agree its not a Commons issue, either, because these things spread throughout various projects. Oh, and would they kindly refrain from insinuating that I have some mental issue? It is them who are either incapable to understand, or unwilling to follow essential guidelines. -- Theoprakt (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, elsewhere I have characterized the objections to log charts and trend lines as 'madness'. Is that insinuation, or commentary? *Anything* can be misinterpreted. And the supposition that trendlines are a prediction *is* a misinterpretation of yours.

The data is reality. The log plots are from that reality. The trendlines are fitted to sections of that reality, to show the trends during a particular timeframe of reality. And, as pointed out, the deviation of the actual data from the trendlines make untenable your misinterpretation. Do you really want to suppress a useful characterization of recent realities to protect... what, purity and reputation? Shenme (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This graph is extremely helpful to see how the curve transits from one behavior to the next. It was the sole reason I was checking this on a daily basis. Karsten Schuhmann 9 April 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.55.129 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline is out by 1 day

I think the timeline is out by one day. Each day the Robert Koch Institute publishes an update, but these only include figures for the previous day. For example I'm writing this at 10:00 UT (11:00 BST) on 9th April, and the RKI site says that there have been 2107 deaths, but RKI says "Status: 9.4.2020, 00:00 a.m". In other words, 2107 is the cumulative death toll for 8th April 8th, not 9th April.

This would be consistent with the approach adopted on, for example, the page about the pandemic in the UK; each day's official update only includes data from the previous day.

I'd rather get this sanity-checked by other contributors before making an edit. Do people agree with my interpretation?

Stewart Robertson (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The timeline (medical cases chart) is in a subpage at Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Germany_medical_cases_chart where I already addressed this issue. No one responded, though. Maybe you add your comment there. However, if you want to do that adjustment, you have at least my . -- Käptn Weltall (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please ARCHIVE ref links!

Dear Co-editors, Ref links are mutating. Please everyone note, that if links are not archived, they change (and eventually will rot), as can be seen here with News-Ticker links and the original ref is lost:

• Ref 59 from March 2: "Coronavirus erreicht Kreis Unna: 61-jährige infiziert – Klinik klagt über Diebstähle von Masken" is today "Coronavirus im Kreis Unna: 438 Infizierungen - zwei weitere Todesfälle."
• Ref 238 from 31 March: "Kommt die Maskenpflicht in Deutschland? Söder spricht von "Notstand" – Kretschmann: "Ganz falsch" is today "Aktualisiert: 11.04.20 06:17Söder: Brauchen Milliarden Masken Corona-Krise: Experte warnt eindringlich vor falschem Gebrauch von Stoffmasken - „Das schlimmste, was passieren kann ...“

I d like to flag the entire article with "linkrot", though I know the bot which follows that flag doesnt archive links and merely removes teh flag.... --Wuerzele (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Please change in section 'Statistics - Data discussion - Number of deaths' from:

Italy has several times fewer hospital beds for intensive respiratory care than Germany. Italy and Spain which had far more cases, ran out of beds earlier than Germany.

To:

Italy has several times fewer hospital beds for intensive respiratory care than Germany. While Italy and Spain ran out of beds, Germany's hospitals still have open capacities.

Explanation: The current version of the text implies that Germany's hospitals ran out of beds, which contradicts the cited article (Anders als beispielsweise in Italien und Spanien würden die deutschen Notaufnahmen (noch nicht) von schwer erkrankten Patienten überrannt, es gibt noch keinen Versorgungsnotstand, der die Mortalität weiter steigern könnte.) I could not find reliable information that German hospitals ran out of beds.

Done, thank you for the correction.--walkee^talkee 20:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Added charts relating figures to active cases

I found it essential to add two more chars: new cases per active case plus new deaths per active case. The obvious reason is: only active cases can infect others (=new cases) and only active cases can actually die of corona desease. I hope this is helpful. -- Kohraa Mondel (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the charts are useful. As they are WP:OR, they should be removed. If you have a reliable source supporting "new cases per active case" and "new deaths per active case", please provide it.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think, it's not useful, please give some reasoning. At least it's not my original research, as the reproduction rate is the basis for any Exponential growth. And as only active cases reproduce you have to use only these as a basis. This is also what you do simulating any reproduction based growth, be it hares on an island or Spanish flu. I did not invent that. The same goes for case fatality rate that is widely discussed and relates the number of deaths to the number of those who are sick. Also definitively not my invention. -- Kohraa Mondel (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Please change all writing style format in two texts from:

• As of April 1, almost half a million companies in Germany sent their workers on a government-subsidized short-time working scheme known as Kurzarbeit.
• Former ARD Southeast Asia correspondent Paul Hampel contacted Head of the Chancellery Helge Braun on April 1 regarding an offer to buy 50 million masks from an old business contact in Hong Kong. He said on April 3 that he had still not gotten a definite answer from the federal chancellery and that with the increasing demand the offer might go elsewhere.

To

• As of 1 April, almost half a million companies in Germany sent their workers on a government-subsidized short-time working scheme known as Kurzarbeit.
• Former ARD Southeast Asia correspondent Paul Hampel contacted Head of the Chancellery Helge Braun on 1 April regarding an offer to buy 50 million masks from an old business contact in Hong Kong. He said on 3 April that he had still not gotten a definite answer from the federal chancellery and that with the increasing demand the offer might go elsewhere. 36.77.78.48 (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - changed all dates to DMY format GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

State-level Narratives

Information covers the early days of the outbreak on a state-by-state basis, for example, the date of the first detected infection, but often little else. That was topical, and arguably interesting and helpful, at the start of the pandemic, but some of this information should be condensed into one section, and other facts omitted all together. At best, there will be be a six week gap in the events in a state like Bavaria. I would suggest discussion on an approach, and then editing based on a consensus. Jaedglass (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I came to talk to make a similar suggestion, which is that the " Statistics" and " Government reactions" sections be moved before the state-by-state breakdown, which as Jaedglass says contain little but 'start dates'. On a related issue, I wonder whether " Government reactions" is the most accurate or helpful title. The actual content is more of a day-by-day account, which includes actions, reactions and developments unrelated to the Govt. Simply an outsider's reaction! Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in Germany" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in Germany. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

New statistic by RKI! (done)

Oh my God! I just woke up, here in Frankfurt/Main, and found a new statistic on the dashboard of German publich health institute RKI! Cases sorted by date of sickness (start)! I hope someone here picks that up quickly. --188.97.169.53 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing new. Robert Koch publishes both a PDF and an online chart. The PDF always showed two graphs a) the number of infections named "cases" redistributed by date of occurence or inflowmation and b) a second table distinguishing those cases with a known point of time of inflowmation and those without. In the dash board, only the first one was available. Now also the second one appeared. For some reason people did not find the first table anymore and became confused. Just as an explanation: Distinguishing between known and unknown date makes it possible to automatically redistribute the unknown cases according to the know points of time to add them approriately for the now casting. Dr. Markus P. / Wiesbaden / Germany 217.245.88.223 (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)