Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wikilink "India" in the lead

The country concerned, India, should be linked in the first sentence of the lead paragraph and in the template. It's a minor edit but I can't make it myself.— Marvin ^talk 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not required per WP:OVERLINK. Shanze1 (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Indian Scientists' Response to COVID-19

In the last paragraph under the section Misinformation and discrimination, it should mention that Indian scientists group ISRC has released an official statement stating that Tablighi Jamaat has no connection in spreading COVID19 as claimed by a section of media.

References:

1. https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/coronavirus-outbreak-no-basis-yet-to-blame-tablighi-says-scientists/cid/1764004
2. http://twocircles.net/2020apr14/435989.html
3. https://clarionindia.net/no-evidence-to-suggest-tablighi-role-in-continuous-rise-in-covid-cases-scientists/

and many more available in Google. 223.233.56.151 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That is misrepresentation of the source. Sources only say that a volunteer group says that Tablighi jamaat is not responsible for most cases or most of the increase in cases. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I did not understand your logic? If the Indian Scientists’ Response to Covid-19 (ISRC) group released the official statement and it has been covered in several news then why it cannot be added? 223.233.56.151 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-read my response above and see WP:UNDUE. Being "official statement" is irrelevant since this is not a government organisation but a non-notable volunteer group, isn't a representative of entire community of scientists.Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The scientists' group is quite notable [1] and what they have said is quite obvious to anybody that understands the numbers. All the statements that say "responsible for one-third of all the cases" or whatever are bogus. I will see what should be included in the page, but it won't be until we have a section on the Tablighi Jamaat event. Right now it would be UNDUE, as AKG said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

On the table for "New COVID-19 cases in India by state and union territory" Please advance by 1 day all the data values for column Tamil Nadu(TN)from April 3 to April 15 to line up with April 2 to April 14. Add April 15 value as 38(2). Source: https://stopcorona.tn.gov.in/daily-bulletin/ 219.91.176.14 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Source for that table is mohfw.gov.in, and state government updates gets reflected on MoHFW generally a day later. To avoid inconsistency in the trend multiple sources can't be used. So, kindly wait till MoHFW reflects it in their next update. Thank you. - Mayankj429 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

37.210.37.230 (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

the number of coronavirus case in Kerala is written wrong. my dad is the dcp he told me to report to the authorities

 Not done Data is as per official source MoHFW - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Table in medical cases chart should show the number of deaths

In the article, the table at the right side of the medical cases chart for India at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/India medical cases chart is currently not showing the number of deaths. Contrast, for example, the table at the right side of the medical cases chart for the United Kingdom at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart or for the United States at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases chart, which both show the number of deaths. The number of deaths is notable and relevant information in an article about this disease in a country. The table in the chart needs to be fixed to show that information. —Lowellian (reply) 18:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done - Please check again, changes have been made already. -Mayankj429 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Uttar Pradesh into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep the article per WP:CFORK. Dey subrata (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

As per other state articles, this article is not required for stand alone. All the things are already mentioned in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India & Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India , so why there is a need of separate article.?(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

• Wait I think we should wait till this pandemic ends. Later we can decide which articles about states are important and which needs to be merged. Brown Chocolate (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wait There are Kerela and Maharashtra article too. If we are going to merge everything here then it this article will be huge, and the cases are only going to increase with time. So, as Brown Chocolate said we can wait till this gets over and then decide what to merge and what not. - Mayankj429 (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wait I agree with Mayankj429. 114.29.227.124 (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wait I agree with Mayankj429 merging of the state-wise articles would lead to a very long article. The state-wise articles mention a various details such as district-wise cases and state government actions which cannot be covered in the country article to the depth to which it should be. Separate state-wise also make it easy for readers to keep up to date with their local situation. As for content I expect much more state-wise content to be generated in the coming days, making for generously sized state-articles as well. Zack1455 (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Agree with all of you above. There is no hurry in merging. India stands at 719. Mergers can be done later after the crisis is over. Let us allow other contributors who are willing to contribute to those articles. Also, if we merge all state articles, the main article will be excessive in length and become not appealing to visitors. The main article should always be short and crisp. SaiP (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No. The sub-national regions in India such as Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, etc. are much larger in population than most countries if the world. Their each district is equivalent to a State/Province of most countries. So I view they deserve seperate independent articles. saurabh loves wiki (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Uttar Pradesh has 200 million people. This is more than live in all except 6 countries. There is no reason we cannot have enough information to create a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Uttar Pradesh and other big states has millions of people. This is more than live in all except very few countries. I agree with John Pack Lambert and saurabh loves wiki. Sid54126 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Help needed for Bangladesh

Can some editors with spare time come over to help develop the COVID-19 in Bangladesh page? It has been described as a "time bomb" [2], and, as far as I can see, the bomb has already gone off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I think better if you make requests each at the The 10,000 Challenge and the WikiProject Asia, that would be more helpful. Dey subrata (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Change in map

The cases in Maharashtra has crossed 3k please update colour palette. In my view use ``pH`` pallete. Hstar24 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As in many states, cases are still on a rise, I propose current range of 1000+ till 1000-4999, later may be a new range should be used. - Mayankj429 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Beating of Migrant Workers in Mumbai

Many Migrant workers who wanted to travel to their home through Bandra Railwat Terminus were beaten up by the police. This should be added with a suitable Citation. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been cases of the public being beaten all across the country throughout the lockdown. Nothing special about this particular case. -- Amazingcaptain (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source, but I'm not from Mumbai and don't know how big / reputable this newspaper ('Mid-day') is. --Jose Mathew (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Added line in Misinformation and Discrimination section

Following line can be added in Misinformation and Discrimination section:

The Bharatiya Janata Party's State unit president in West Bengal Dilip Ghosh stated that the Chinese had destroyed nature and "that's why the God took revenge against them." The remarks were later condemned by the Chinese consulate in Kolkata, calling them "erroneous."

The above line is very similar to following line already present in the section as both are personal opinions. So, either both should be kept or both should be removed.

Muslim cleric Ilyas Sharafuddin has stated that Allah has punished the Chinese by unleashing Corona virus on them for their brutal crackdown on Uighur Muslims. His claim was largely criticised and was condemned for passing such communal and insensitive comments. Jasksingh (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: The request, unlike the source cited, makes the claim that Ghosh definitely made the statements that the consulate objected to. The text added follows the source to state only what the source definitively states: that the consulate condemned what Ghosh reportedly said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

edited to add: Also, the sentence about Sharafuddin's statements being widely condemned does not appear in the source cited so I removed it. It was confusingly-written and unsourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in Kerala

This article follows MOHFW data (18 April 2020) and says that 3 people have died of covid in Kerala. But the Kerala article follows Kerala Government figures (as of 18 April 2020; 18:45), and mentions only 2 deaths. This is a discrepancy. I am inclined to believe that MOHFW is wrong, as no news channel has reported a third death. --Jose Mathew (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jose Mathew C: Here are different reliable sources reporting third death in Kerela. [3] [4] [5] [6]. So now coming to discrepancy, Patient was from Puducherry but he was tested and admitted in Kerela, so technically its Kerela's 3rd death, this may be one of the reasons i.e. to kerela thinking it as death attributed to Puducherry. Then patient had multiple complications, state government may have attributted death to it and not Covid. But MoHFW have acknowleged this as death from COVID-19. What we can do is leave a footnote in the table in statistics section about this confusion but removing it doesn't seem good to me.- Mayankj429 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mayankj429: Agree, but in this case I am surprised local newspapers / TV channels ignored this news. Deaths in TN and Karnataka are usually covered, so this omission is strange. --Jose Mathew (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Shanze1 Mr.Mani Raj Paul and others, Please give your opinions about this discrepancy in data from MoHFW and Kerela government. - Mayankj429 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the RS seem to be including it in Kerala deaths, we can do so too. We should definitely add a footnote saying that he was from "Mahé (part of Puducherry)". I didn't know till I looked it up just now that there was an enclave of Puducherry in Kerala! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't remove it. Adding a footnote should be enough. Shanze1 (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Offcorse , footnote is a better option one. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A footnote is not enough, the entry should be with Puducherry, and one less death should be mentioned in the Kerala, and the footnote shoudl be linked to both Kerala and Puducherry boxes. Dey subrata (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the template accordingly, if any required information is missing from the table, one can include. Dey subrata (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

it should be left as it is, with a footnote if needed. If you change that, we might need to relook at all the data related to patients treated in all states carefully for peoples origin, and record the developments according to their origin rather than their place of treatment. For example, Karnataka has 6 9 patients from Kerala out of 384 as per mohfw data. If we go by origin the total should be 378. Santoshdts (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree Selective changes shouldn't be done for one state, I have attributed that death against Kerala, and to clear confusion rephrased footnote accordingly. - Mayankj429 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Karnataka has 9 patients from Kerala out of 384 as per mohfw data, if this is true, then why mohfw is not showing this Puducherry death. It a huge huge discrepancies, if they are showing the data for one state correctly and other state not in a correct manner, I am sorry to say, we need to re-write the template immediately taking individual state data rather than mohfw data, and so far I have noticed their data is also not matching up with the ICMR data. Better we go for individual state/UT govt's data. Dey subrata (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The patient detail I quoted was from mohfw- Karnataka,but they still count those 9 in Karnataka figures and make a note as they being transit passengers from Kerala landed at some Airports in karnataka (page-4). As I see this looks like Govt. of Kerala not including Puducherry death though he was being treated in Kerala and had accounted in the infected list of Kerala, Death also should be included in Kerala. As mohfw-Kerala hasn't included this, a footnote in this regard may help. Santoshdts (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Next time don't use mohfw for state deptt. of HFW, it will make more confusion here. Ok now, from your citations it is clear that every state have data of transit patients and dispaying the same too, as can be seen both in case of Karnataka and Kerala. It is clear, I am in no doubt other state too have clarity in their datas. We can re-write the templte per state data which is more accurate and acceptable and will give more clarity of the patients/cases from each state. Dey subrata (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata:, while states may have more up to date data, they will have different methodologies and reporting delays. So, for consistency, it might be better to use MoHFW data. For example, it seems Kerala counts based on place of infection, whereas Karnataka counts based on current location. So we might end up missing someone, or counting them twice. We can always use footnotes if there are discrepancies. --Jose Mathew (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Jose Mathew C, Kerala counts based on place of infection, whereas Karnataka counts based on current location. So we might end up missing someone, or counting them twice.....totally irrelevant, the template is not showing any location of place based cases, its a simple table showing state-wise cases. Secondly, why would someone need to count anything, the data will be updated as soon as the state govts' datas are updated, as simple as that. Dey subrata (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata:, the total number of cases in all states should equal the number of cases in India. In other words, each case must be assigned to a state, and the criteria should be the same for all cases. MoHFW seems to use current location, so we can go with it. Otherwise:-

• suppose someone in Kasarkod (Kerala) develops covid and dies in a hospital in Mangaluru (Karnataka) she will be counted by both states.
• conversely, if someone from Mahe (Puducherri) dies in Kannoor (Kerala) (as happened here); he will not be counted by either state.

Hope this makes the problem clear. --Jose Mathew (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct the testing figures

The testing number for April 20th says that around 48k tests were conducted. However according to ICMR 35,852 tests were conducted on April 20th. The total of 4,49,810 is the number on April 21st at the time of briefing. Please correct the data.

Last update on testing was on 19 April 9 PM by ICMR of around 401K tests. They didn't gave any update on 20 April, today in press confrence at 4 PM, ICMR official quoted that this are the tests till yesterday , and that 35K tests in a day doesn't add up when you subtract 401K from 449K, best would be that data had been updated by them at 9 PM on 20 April, now this delay have caused extra tests added. If inconsistency needed to be avoided then this update should be removed and wait for 9PM update today, best would be to take average of 2 days and attribute tests done in 48 hours to 20 Apr and 21 Apr equally with a footnote about this. Other suggestions are welcome. - Mayankj429 (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed that update from the graphs. - Mayankj429 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Archives

What is going on ?? Is the bot working properly ?? I don't see any archives for discussion between 29 March to 14 April. And Mr.Mani Raj Paul why are you archiving manually?? Is not the bot supposed to do this on its own? And I think the cluebot is better for this. Dey subrata (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata I not archive any material now a days , in the last month i archived every discussion because bot was not placed. When the bot was placed then I stop archiving discussions. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Before bot was archiving, manual archiving was done from Archive 1 to Archive 4, then automatic archiving by bot started and it started again archiving from Archive 1, so all the discussions in archive are not in order. - Mayankj429 (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There are four archives now. They are all mixed up. So please use the search box to find something. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Graph indexes and color

Hi, As numbers are increasing, is it possible to update below? 1. India statewide count map - Change groupings to below ranges. With increasing count most states are seen grouped in same color code. 0 1 - 50 51 - 250 251 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 5000 5000+

2. Add a table with details of recovery. India seems to have better mortality rates , better recovery rate. A visual might help in probable studies.

3. Remove/Update daywise state count change gif.

Regards Sourav Souravkpathak (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

These are my suggestions -

1) Merge 1-9 and 10-49 to form 1-49 and changing 1000+ to 1000-4999 seems good to me.These are ranges i suggest -

  5000+ confirmed cases

  1000–4999 confirmed cases

  500–999 confirmed cases

  100–499 confirmed cases

  50–99 confirmed cases

  1–49 confirmed cases

  shifted to another state

2) Their is no details other than how many people recovered each day, we have a graph for that already in Statistics section. Please elaborate and give sources to the details you are suggesting to add.

3)That GIF in timeline section is outdated as colours of ranges were changed before too and its tough to change all frames now. I am ok with either removing or let it be as it is too.

Pinging some users related to this discussion - XIIIX, Shanze1

- Mayankj429 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what Mayankj429 proposed is good and can be followed. Yes, the gif feels redundant now, so it may be removed. I'm kind of working on a script to generate individual svg maps with which I'll probably try and make the gif again. Shanze1 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's implement the same from the as soon as a state report the first 5000 confirmed cases. {"xiiix":"write"} 12:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @XIIIX: : Maharashtra have crossed 5000 now, you may use above suggested colour scheme, i think 1-9 and 10-49 can be merged now into 1-49. What do you think ? - Mayankj429 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done {"xiiix":"write"} 09:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you XIIIX - Mayankj429 (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Corona in India" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

ICMR's data shows different figures

It seems that there are two different figures available. One is form the health ministry and the other is from ICMR. ICMR's stats are updated daily in a document. The link can be obtained below. https://www.icmr.nic.in/content/covid-19 The figures contrast that of the health ministry. As of 18th April, ICMR's figures show 16365 while health ministry's web site shows 14792. The discrepancy seems to be growing by the day. Both figures are given in the article. What is the reason for mismatch?

Generally data from MoHFW is in delay of 12 Hrs after State governments gives updates. While I think ICMR recieves update of positive samples in all tested samples in a day first. As per observing the trend from more than a month, i can say that MoHFW will approximatly show same numbers in 08:00 AM IST update in morning. So its just a delay of 12 Hrs nothing more than that. - Mayankj429 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The numbers from the said time still show less than 16k numbers. Is this because the home ministry data takes even more time to update figures?

Even the covid19india.org which shows data from state government updates is showing 15,723 cases which is approximately same as MoHFW, no other source shows more, ICMR just gives no. of positives they tested we can't know recoveries and deaths from them, so just wait for MoHFW to reflect the numbers nothing can be done, other than that. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hello ip user, please sign your comment with four tildes (~) at the end of your comment everytime. Dey subrata (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the daily rate of increase of cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_India#Timeline) should show a decimal point now that the daily increase is less than 10%. For example, daily increase should be 6.2%/4.3% instead of 6$-4% etc. This shows a clearer trend in the overall trajectory of cases. This is also what is done for other wikipedia coronavirus pages (for canada/uk etc)

Shananalla (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Average growth factor of 2.1 between March 15 and March 31

Quoting from https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1615428 (dated 17 Apr 2020 6:27 PM):

Looking at the situation from another angle, the Joint Secretary informed that the average growth factor of number of cases has been 1.2 since April 1 till date, while the average growth factor was 2.1 during March 15 - March 31, 2020. This decline of 40% has occurred due to increase in testing, including testing of SARI and ILI cases, he said.

It would have been nice to include this in the article, however, I have been unable to understand how the average growth factor happened to be 2.1 between 15 Mar and 31 Mar. Here are all the relevant case numbers (confirmed cases) we have:

Date	Cases
15 Mar	110
31 Mar	1397
1 Apr	1834
17 Apr	13835

How do we get the growth factors 2.1 (15-31 Mar) and 1.2 (1-17 Apr) from these numbers? This video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZwOqOFYilk&t=4m46s seems to indicate that the growth factor on any given day is the ratio of the number of cases on that day to the number of cases on the previous day. The average growth factor could then be the average of those ratios. However, between 15 Mar and 31 Mar, the growth factor on any given day was always between 1.04 and 1.31. It never exceeded 2.0. So under this interpretation, the average growth factor cannot be as high as 2.1. How else could we interpret this data, so that we would get the numbers 2.1 and 1.2 as average growth factors for the two time periods?

-- Susam Pal (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

He is probably talking about the basic reproduction number. He is not a particularly clever man. According to Shamika Ravi, the cases are now doubling every 10 days.[7] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thank you for your comment. Those numbers would indeed make sense as the basic reproduction number. -- Susam Pal (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As of 26 April, it has further slowed to doubling every 12 days.[8] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of tests

Hello @Mayankj429: In your recent edit on Rapid Antibody test kits supplied by Chinese manufactures in Expansion of tests subsection. Could you please add “...However, Chinese manufacturers promised to cooperate with Indian authorities to resolve the issue” after you last sentence as mentioned in the Hindu source cited. That would give clear pircture of the issue. Regads Santoshdts (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Santoshdts (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

can someone either put north sentinel island on the timeline or territories and states without coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokibdoki (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - That island is part of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. - Mayankj429 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Corona cases

I want to update corona cases for gujarat Shashigujrat (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please ask in a "change X to Y" fashion. 3125A^{Talk!_{Contributions!}} 17:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

In the testing and counter measures section In expansion of tests As per 212 reference

Please change the following sentence "The ministry said that about 60 private labs may soon be allowed." to "The ministry said that NABL accredited laboratories may soon be allowed"

Only NABL accredited private laboratories are being empaneled by ICMR for COVID-19 testing.

Please find the following references: https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/NotificationofICMguidelinesforCOVID19testinginprivatelaboratoriesiIndia.pdf https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/request-for-approval-for-covid-19-test-centre-at-belagavi-stuck-with-nabl-824216.html https://theprint.in/india/supreme-court-directs-approved-govt-private-labs-to-conduct-free-testing-for-covid-19/398104/ https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-asks-approved-govt-pvt-labs-to-conduct-covid-19-tests-for-free-120040801345_1.html Sreerampinnamaraju (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Sreerampinnamaraju (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! 3125A^{Talk!_{Contributions!}} 17:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ICMR and task force reports before and during lockdown

Just a couple of sources to expand the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

PM Modi's address to nation on lock-down extention till May 3

Previous two address to nation is already present in the page. How it will be to add the video of PM Modi's address to nation on lock-down extention till May 3? Is it available on commons.wikimedia.org? Amkgp (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp,it's not available on Commons, but in short it will add soon. Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Great!. Amkgp (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I can add it if you want SaiP (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SaiP Yes please. Amkgp (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection by Indian doctors

A Group of doctors , under chairmanship OF Dr Sreehari.Y , MRPA Corporation, Hyderabad.

The injection manufactured based on principal passive immunotherapy

"Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection" patented by Dr Sreehari.Y , at "Office of the control general of Patents, Governement of India"

Applied "for clinical trail" approval for "Human Covid-1- Injection"

A Group of doctors started work three months ago.

The basic principal of manufacturing the injection is , the injected immunoglobulins are collected from IgG positing asymptomatic Covid-19 patient. or from recovered Covid-19 patient. Its similar to plasma therapy, but in this therapy can collect antibodies from blood.

We can adjust the dose of this injection based on clinical symptoms.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2020/apr/30/hyderabad-firm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial-2137160.html

https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20and%20Parameters/IVIG-March-2017.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.1966.tb04713.x

https://epaper.newindianexpress.com/2653374/The-New-Indian-Express-Hyderabad/30-04-2020#clip/51442323/92283b06-0233-4b7b-8ae1-2e04786ef158/912.0000000000001:330.53025302530267

(Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Remove lines from Misinformation and discrimination section

The following lines should be removed from Misinformation and discrimination section as these lines are not misinformation but facts about Tablighi Jamaat. So, these lines should be put in some other appropriate section.

However, a group of Tablighi Jamaat members in some quarantine centres were held for spitting on doctors and also misbehaving with female nurses. In other centres they were also caught spitting, misbehaving and not cooperating. Many of them have been charged under the National Security Act. Jasksingh (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

137 pilgrims from Hazur Sahib in Nanded have tested positive. [9] positive cases may increase in the coming days. Can it be added please? 117.199.93.116 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks - Mayankj429 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

The number of Hazur Sahib pilgrims confirmed to be infected has reached 609 as of May 3. [10] Please keep an eye on the situation and update whenever necessary (ideally a large increase in cases), as it has become a large caseload. 117.199.88.109 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Map

Hi @XIIIX: @Shanze1: Can anyone of you add a new range of 10,000-19,000 confirmed cases in the Map (If you too agree that it is needed now), as Maharashtra have crossed 10,000 mark. Thanks - Mayankj429 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429,  Done Shanze1 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Shanze1: @XIIIX: A help needed, both maps are outdated, will be great if anyone of you can update it. Thanks in advance. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... Shanze1 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Shanze1 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic

India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19: India is facing one of the toughest Public Health Emergencies, COVID-19 pandemic. The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India issued India’s Containment Plan for COVID-19 Pandemic.

 Not done It is not clear want changes you want to make. Please specify in Change X to Y format, with relaible sources. - Mayankj429 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Rephrase lines in timeline section

The following lines in Timeline section should be rephrased from

A Sikh preacher that returned from travel to Italy and Germany, carrying the virus, turned into "super spreader" by attending a Sikh festival in Anandpur Sahib during 10–12 March. Twenty-seven COVID-19 cases were traced back to him. Over 40,000 people in 20 villages in Punjab were quarantined on 27 March to contain the spread.

to

A religious preacher of Punjab that returned from travel to Italy and Germany, carrying the virus, turned into "super spreader" by attending a religious festival in Anandpur Sahib during 10–12 March. Twenty-seven COVID-19 cases were traced back to him. Over 40,000 people in 20 villages in Punjab were quarantined on 27 March to contain the spread.

The reason for that is there is no need to mention the religion of the person. If religion has to be mentioned then it should be mentioned in all the cases where religious reason was involved. For eg: it should also be mentioned in the case where few people refused to eat food in quarantine centres because the cooks in those centres were dalits. Jasksingh (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information. WP:BLP applies to individuals, not religions or communities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. But then can the following line, present in Misinformation and discrimination section, be rephrased to mention the religion of the people from

Some patients, in different quarantine facilities of Uttar Pradesh, refused to eat food because the cooks in these facilities were Dalits.

to

Some Hindu patients, in different quarantine facilities of Uttar Pradesh, refused to eat food because the cooks in these facilities were Dalits.

Reference: https://www.thequint.com/coronavirus/caste-in-the-times-of-corona-cook-in-up-snubbed-by-quarantined

-- Jasksingh (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the source mention "Hindu"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph article only mentions that all the 10 people, involved in Siswa Baruwar incident, were OBCs but doesn't mentions "Hindu". The Quint article also doesn't mentions "Hindu" but mentions the name of those people in snapshot of letter as Satyaram, Ravishankar, Raju, Rajesh, Manmohan, Jayprasad, Dilipkumar, Rampratap, Shivpratap and Nitram. From the names, it is clear which religion they belong to. But, still if you want to use the fact the article doesn't mentions "Hindu" then I rest my case. But, in any case, just a general question? Will you consider Telegraph and Quint articles not naming religion of accused as censorship or responsible journalism? I would call it responsible journalism rather than censorship. Its just that right wing and Government controlled media of India fails to show such responsibility when it comes to Muslims and Sikhs. -- Jasksingh (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It is just that religion is at play in some events and not in others. We don't look at everything through religious goggles. That is the same for Wikipedia and the reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol!!. So you are trying to tell me that religion is not at play when it comes to discrimination with Dalits. We all know from which religion untouchability originated. Infact, this discrimination incident has got to do more with religion than a Sikh preacher catching coronavirus and spreading it to many others because of his personal careless attitude. -- Jasksingh (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Jasksingh I think it would have been enough if it had mentioned the fact that quarantined individuals of a particular facility of UP have such audacity to discriminate against the Dalits in such a pandemic situation. Afterall its well understood who are associated with Dalits. That would be my version. But Kautilya3 seeing the discrimination section is full of religious perception very clearly like jamat, muslim cleric and as above mentioned sikh preacher than I think its fair enough to add the "Hindu" in it. Dey subrata (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of tests can be included in the info panel

The info panel in the article which mentions no. of cases, deaths, etc. should contain no. of tests as well. Other metrics like positivity ratio can be added too. sachinag (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Its a fixed format. Only can be included if the template is updated if such necessities considered. Dey subrata (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sachin75871, please go through H:IB and WP:PG. Dey subrata (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

Number of pilgrims from Hazur Sahib found positive for coronavirus has increased to 969 as of May 5 (Tuesday). They account for 67% of Punjab's cases. Please make necessary changes to the timeline to show this. [11], [12] 117.199.80.138 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. - Mayankj429 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

From 6/5/2020, MoHFW will update cases only once a day

As mentioned by MoHFW on mohfw.gov.in under Latest updates section, now Daily cases will only be updated once in a day in the morning.

So whatever update we get on morning will be for a day before.

Now to maintain consistency in trends we have to decide —

• Suggestion 1 Consider data till today evening in 5 May and for 6 May it will be from 5 May evening to 7 May morning.

OR

• Suggestion 2 Consider data till tomorrow morning in 5 May and for 6 May it will be from 6 May morning to 7 May Morning.

Give your suggestions what should be done?

Pinging some active editors of this page and template editors in Stats section - @Shanze1: @Mr.Mani Raj Paul: @Kautilya3: @Susam Pal: @Ashinpt: @Timbaaa: @Amkgp: @SerChevalerie: - Mayankj429 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of what is being followed here till date, I work on state articles. Here's my suggestions using examples in this article:

1. If May 1 numbers are updated till May 2 morning update from MoHFW, we follow your Suggestion 2 here on.
2. If May 1 numbers are updated till May 1 evening update from MoHFW, we follow your Suggestion 1 here on.
3. Neither of the above, I say we follow your Suggestion 2 here on. - Timbaa -> ping me 13:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timbaaa: Sorry, I forgot mention we use data till evening for a day. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Go with your suggestion 1. - Timbaa -> ping me 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Can go with your first suggestion imo. Shanze1 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently i mailed to MoHFW regarding data, They reply me that we can also gather data from other sources. They suggested us to find data from others sources too.Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul: Using other sources will also cause inconsistencies in trends as you may know we have discussed earlier about using other sources like covid19india.org. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Consider Suggestion 1 and avoid other sources except MoHFW to maintain data consistence and as per discussion and consensus adopted earlier. Other sites like covid19india.org etc should be avoided as they are crowd-sourced and their sources themselves are in-consistent due quick spike of numbers and data validity issues that come up in news now and then. Amkgp (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, stick to MoHFW and go with Suggestion 1. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend suggestion 1 as well. It is the least confusing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 1 works for me as well. Let's keep the numbers only from MOHFW to be consistent. Ashinpt (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mayankj429, Thank you for adding me to this discussion. You have mentioned, "So whatever update we get on morning will be for a day before." Under this assumption, I recommend suggestion 1 too.

I would like to double-check this assumption though. Does this assumption really hold good? If MoHFW updates their website, say on, date X 08:00 AM, is it necessary that such an update will include cases from the previous day X_prev only? (Note: X_prev represents the date of the previous day, e.g., if X is 7 May then X_prev is 6 May.)

Are we sure that an MoHFW update on date X 08:00 AM will have no case numbers confirmed after date X_prev 11:59:59 PM? If there is a possibility that an MoHFW update on date X 08:00 AM may include cases confirmed at date X 00:00 midnight or later, then I think it would be incorrect to label those numbers as belonging to date X_prev.

I think there is evidence that suggests that MoHFW collects numbers round the clock. For example, see this update from MoHFW on 28 Mar 03:00 AM. The case numbers are 748, 66, 19, and 1. Now see this update from MoHFW on 28 Mar 09:30 AM. The case numbers are 775, 78, 19, and 1. This shows that MoHFW has updated case numbers between 03:00 AM and 09:30 AM, so a morning update does not necessarily contain case numbers belonging to the previous day only. A morning update may include case numbers from the current day.

Considering this, I would also suggest status quo as an alternative, i.e., we don't alter the dates at all. In other words, data until 5 May evening is counted for 5 May, data between 5 May evening and 6 May morning is counted for 6 May, data between 6 May morning and 7 May morning is counted for 7 May and so on.

-- Susam Pal (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion amounts to Suggestion 2. Daily data is generally unreliable unless the systems of communication is close to perfect. Any attempt at analysis should use moving averages. My preference for Suggestion 1 is merely to minimize an abnormally low figure in tables and charts. Abnormally high figures already occur for unknown reasons (like yesterday's deaths). So we take them in passing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I don't think my suggestion of status quo amounts to suggestion 2. Suggestion 2 mentions, "6 May it will be from 6 May morning to 7 May Morning." However, if we were to maintain status quo, the data from 6 May morning to 7 May morning is counted for 7 May (not 6 May suggested by suggestion 2). Having said that, I do see how status quo leads to abnormally small numbers. It first leads to an abnormally small number of new cases for 6 May because it corresponds to new cases recorded in a time interval of only about 15 hours (5-6 PM to 8-9 AM) as opposed to the usual interval of about 24 hours (8-9 AM to 8-9 AM) and then leads to abnormally small total confirmed case numbers for each day because we are reporting the numbers we have until 8 AM on each day as the numbers for that day. At the same time, it feels uneasy to take numbers that were possibly discovered on the current day and associate them with the date of the previous day. In the interest of consistency with the time at which the cases were possibly reported, I prefer status quo but if the active editors here prefer suggestion 1, I am okay with that too. -- Susam Pal (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I have a Suggestion 3, which is to switch to morning date for 5 May. Since the data for this day is too large anyway, it will looks less abnormal. Then we continue with morning data for 6 May onwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion above and thinking over it again, I too think Suggestion 3 ( by Kautilya3 ) will be good to go, since generally most of the cases in a day are added by morning update while evening update adds a few hundreds of cases later to it. So here if we go by Suggestion 1 than by today's morning update we have 2680 cases and nearly same will be there tomorrow as well so that will give a spike of 4000-5000 cases in a day.

Pinging same editors again as this suggestion needs to be considered and discussed. @Shanze1: @Mr.Mani Raj Paul: @Susam Pal: @Ashinpt: @Timbaaa: @Amkgp: @SerChevalerie: - Mayankj429 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, Suggestion 3 looks better. There is going to be a slight break in the data one way or another. We can either switch to the morning figure as of 5 May or as of today (6 May), and put a note wherever we have the break giving the reason for the break. When to switch to the morning figures can be discussed. Suggestion 1 would lead to a huge spike for the 6 May figure by tomorrow morning. -- Ashinpt (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer switching to the morning numbers starting with 6 May because that amounts to the status quo, i.e., recording case numbers available in the most recent update from MoHFW on each date. -- Susam Pal (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 3 by Kautilya3 is really interesting. It does help in making the data look less abnormal. I still prefer sticking with the status quo though. :) I am comfortable about some numbers being abnormally large or small on certain days due to deviations in update times or other factors beyond our control. I prefer recording the data on MoHFW website as they arrive without altering any dates and without eliminating the 5 PM update of 5 May. It is a fact that a large number of cases were reported on 5 May due to delayed reporting of cases in some states and I think an encyclopedia should capture that fact as is without trying to make the data look neat enough to analyze trends. A reader that wants to analyze trends has to account for deviations in update time anyway (for example, with moving averages like Kautilya3 mentioned earlier). I like the convention of recording the most recent update available for each date that we have been following until now. That said, I can understand if the active editors prefer suggestion 3 to make the data look less abnormal. In that case, my personal preference notwithstanding, suggestion 3 indeed makes sense. Ignoring the 5 PM update of 5 May is a small price to pay in order to make the data look good. I guess the decision would boil down to whether our priority should be to capture data as is or if our priority should be to present the data in a form that is conducive to analysis of trends. -- Susam Pal (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would go with Suggestion 3 as per User:Kautilya3. It would be better to avoid abnormality in data. We can also mention a small note stating reason of single day strike to avoid confusion. Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 3 with a note acceptable so that new and old editors and readers do not get confused. ~Amkgp (✉) 18:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little more, Suggestion 3 would entail a bit of a convoluted explanation as to why the switch to the morning figures was made as of 5 May, when the MOHFW changed the update frequency only on 6 May. Switching to the morning figures as of 6 May would be a very simple explanation. I'd go with Susam Pal for switching to morning numbers as of 6 May 2020. The high figures on 5 May 2020 are a reality. There is no point us trying to artificially smoothen the curve and make it less abnormal. -- Ashinpt (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Susam Pal have attributed the data of today's morning update to 7 May, the curve doesn't seem to have any abnormality but will this be ok? As we are adding case numbers of 8 AM update to 7 May in which most likely cases are of 6 May. But seeing the abnormality in switching to morning update on 5 May or 6 May will give a spike, so then I guess we have to choose whether data delayed by a date or abnormal spike in trend. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We were most likely doing data delayed by a date earlier, or rather it was MOHFW that was delaying the data by a day, in any case. Most of the jump in data came in the morning update. I've not checked for all the states, but quite a few of them have their data being reflected only the day after in the MOHFW website. We can continue the data in this page with the switch to morning figures as of 6 May as that's when MOHFW switched to once a day updates. -- Ashinpt (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid some of you are taking MOHFW rather too seriously. Our topic is the pandemic, not MOHFW. MOHFW is just a source for us, with all its warts and uncertainties. We should just do what is best for us for presentation purposes. Being faithful to MOHFW is not a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep this as simple as possible. We are citing MOHFW as a source, warts and all. It is the only source we have been consistently using for nationwide figures. The data is what it is. Switching to the morning figures on 5 May purely because "we think" the data is "abnormal" amounts to introducing our own bias into the data. Do we really want to put a note saying that even though the underlying source switched to a morning only data as of 6 May, we are switching to a morning data as of 5 May because "we think" the figure for 5 May is abnormally high. Switching to the morning data as of 6 May is the least messy because the explanation for the change would be the simplest. -- Ashinpt (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove the lines in the start claiming India has lowest level of testing in the world - 4th May, 2020

The following line must be edited:

    Experts suggest the number of infections could be much higher as India's testing rates are among the lowest in the world.

to:

    India has one of the highest numbers of test rates in the world and one of the lowest number of positive cases per test.

First of all, the reference article is very old. India has one of the highest rates of testing in the world as of 4th May 2020 (1,107,233 tests). India has by far the lowest number of positive cases per test among all countries with million+ tests which actually proves that India is more capable of testing than the developed world. India is presently testing 75000 test daily and that number is increasing. Sources:

'Rates' here refers to the number of tests done per capita. If you look at the per capita testing rates of the developed world, you will find that they are much higher than that of India. For example, The US had 22.01 tests done per 1000 people and the UK had 14.95 tests per 1000. Meanwhile for India, it's 0.86 per a thousand . Higher testing is important because in the case of any highly contagious disease, the potential maximum number of infected tends to be close to a 100% of the total population (though in practice, it almost never reaches close to a hundred). So if you can test and quarantine the infected from the general population, we can ensure that it never has a chance to infect most of the population. Fortunately, it looks like India is ramping up the number of tests, but it's nowhere near the percentage of population tested in Western European nations and some East Asian nations. 122.164.230.130 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. My point is that the reference article is very old. A few thousand thousand tests were done when it was written. My point is the line should be updated with a more recent article, like the ones you and I mentioned. Atleast care to write that India has low rates in terms of its massive population. Also the very low positivity percentage (<4%) must be mentioned. For every positive case in India, we have 25 negative cases. The expansion of tests in April done by the ICMR is nowhere mentioned in the starting of the article. As testing is such an important metric it deserves to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:188:A0A8:90A8:5F58:C555:D5E1 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• India's testing rate is very low as simple as that. Its around 900 per 1M. Dey subrata (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But the reference source is very old. Also positivity ratio is an important thing as well. The reason I am against rate according to the whole population because in a country as huge as India it is no need to test each and every citizen. Isolated rural regions are tested less while places with reported cases are tested more and contact tracing is done. For example, in my district Bilaspur their is no case for last 40 days however govt has not stopped testing they have just decreased it and allocated the resources to states which are more in need. Japan too has very low rate of testing - just 1200.. but still they were able to stop the pandemic and it is not mentioned on top of their wikipedia page. In Veitnam 2681 is the testing rate but they have completely stopped the pandemic while some countries have done tens of thousands of tests. The difference also lies in when the tests are done. If enough contact tracing and tests are done to prevent community transmission then a country may not require that huge no. of tests. While if tests are done after community transmission had reached very high levels, lots of tests may be required. Bottomline is the article used to originally write that line is very old and does not take any of this in account. It also don't take in account the progress made in April. So new source must be added or the lines must be rephrased.

 I request you to go through the following article: 
  'Rates' here refers to the number of tests done per capita.

Can this be somehow included with that line? Any article on Wikipedia must show the most recent possible information. The source on the line must be updated to a more recent source to show how the government has reacted in the meanwhile. Also there is no mention of low testing rates according to population on the pages of Pakistan and Mexico. I request only one thing and please don't deny it - the word rate is vague as most people think it is number of people tested per day. I ask for it to be reflect it is according to the population as we can all agree India has a massive population. Also I request that India's low positivity ratio be mentioned. One positive case has been reported in India for every 25 people reported negative. I just want that more emphasis is put on any article's starting page as it is the lines which many people read and leave the page. Things like increase in testing, positivity ratio and containment zones are not mentioned in any of the starting lines even though they are so important in India's fight against coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4043:188:A0A8:90A8:5F58:C555:D5E1 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not contesting the testing rate. My main problem is against the reference article. It is from the time India had 900 cases! In a pandemic information is constantly changing. We now have 50000+ cases.. what if it is due to increased testing itself? I request that a more recent source be referenced.

I suggest the following changes to the original line:

  India has ramped up coronavirus testing since the start of the pandemic, however the country still falls behind in rate of tests according to it's population. The positivity ratio has declined while doubling rate of new cases has increased significantly.

Sorry my English is not good but I am expecting something on similar lines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin75871 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • Please sign after commenting here with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Dey subrata (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

So a new ciatation can be added, but the existing line seems fine, as there is no improvement of testing rates, it very poor testing rate and for recent development the Testing section described the scenerio well enough. Dey subrata (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are focusing more on rate of tests than the line itself. You are claiming that low test rate acc to population is enough to tell that a country has more coronavirus cases than reported. We are not here to judge rates we are here to provide unbiased information. The line is considereation is not about rate either. It is more about the claim that there are far more cases in India then reported. The basis of this claim is low testing rate acc to population. I have alreading cited an article but here out my last cry. Consider two countries, one which a large heterogeneous demographics while other with a small homogenous one. The latter has 100000+ tests per million while former has just 1000. However the spread of the virus was very limited in the large country and its govt was effective in contact tracing and sealing hotspots which cut off the spread of virus while the small country tested lots of people. Both countries have very few cases. Both countries have slowed the virus with huge different in test rates acc to population. This situation is hypothetical and I made it up to show that only rate of test acc to population does not say that the no. of cases can be more. We need loads of data other than rate of tests acc to population like positivity ratio, govt action, etc. This makes the statement "Experts suggest the number of infections could be much higher as India's testing rates are among the lowest in the world" extremely vague. The source does not mention which experts and this sentence is just the claim of the author. Veitnam (pop density 285) has very low rate too - 2461 but it has completely cut-off the virus and is praised worldwide while USA (pop density 94) which has done 23,970 tests per million people is criticed for slow govt action. Just low or high testing rate acc to population does not guarantee that there are more cases. If this sentence is to remain, then it must be cited with a recent source taking everything in account including test rate, mortality rate, positivity ratio, increase is tests in comparison to increase in testing, etc. - sachinag (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Here is a last simple fact and logic for you. If you want to know if a person is infected with covid or not, the only way to know that is by testing. So, how many people in a country is infected with covid can only be known with testing. So, repeat after me 7 times "Only testing can detect corona virus and through testing one country can know the affect of the virus". The point is knowing the exntension of affect of the virus, which can only be known through testing, there is no other way. I hope it enters in the processing unit. Dey subrata (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Come on. Don't overdo it please. The cases-to-deaths ratio in the UK is 6.7; in the US it is 18.4; in India it is 29.1. So, comparatively, India is doing more tests than these developed countries. I think India botched it up in the early days. So it has developed a bad reputation for it. But that is not true any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The BBC article cited in the lead for the discussed line is from 28 March, and testing rate was around 20 per million people at that time which was indeed very low, but as of now testing rates are increasing day by day and that needs to mentioned. I suggest, we keep that line in lead as In earlier days, Experts suggested the number of infections could have been much higher as India's testing rates were among the lowest in the world. And then their is need to add a phrase about ramping up of the testing, as per suggested above. As it doesn't reflect the current situation. - Mayankj429 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On 28 March, UK's cases-to-deaths ratio was 10.2, and India's was 51.0. So, India was doing more tests than the UK even then. I am not imagining that the newspapermen know what they are talking about, and they don't tell us which experts they talked to. What is true is that when India was trying to do containment, until early March, it needed to do a lot more testing. If it did that, it could have avoided things like the Nizamuddin hotspot, the Punjab hotspot, the Bhilwara hotspot etc. The fact that these events happened is itself proof that India didn't do enough testing. (In contrast, the UK never bothered to do any containment.) But once containment was given up, it is a different ball game. When the lockdown is lifted, India will be back to containment, and then it matters whether India tests enough. But I think, by now, India has learnt its lesson.

That sentence in the lead is crap and I have objected to it from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Mayankj429, I don't understand what you all are saying. Death is a matter of health care and immunity. In USA deaths are more because obesity is a big problem in US. It has nothing to do with test. One country can have more deaths even if positive case is low and even if testing is higher the death can be low. But if the rate of testing is low than the case of positive case will be evidently increase as there will be block on tracing, as simple as that is, if you test one person if he/she be found psitive then futher tracing could be done and in the process a positive person who is not showing symptoms can be detected and India is not doing that and for first one month in press conference they clearly said only who have symptoms(all not any) would be tested . Another fact, cases from 40,000 to 50,000 reached in 3 days where as 30K to 40K in 4 days and 20K to 30K reached in 7 days 10K to 20K in 8days....so it shows very evidently testing should have been higher as the exapnsion of infection is exponential. Finally, 900/1M testing rate, come on, give me a break, even Sri Lanka have better testing rate. And above that God knows how many datas are hidden by Govt. Dey subrata (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Deaths are dependent on infections. So, cases-to-deaths ratio can be used as a proxy for cases-to-infections ratio, which in turn serves as a proxy for tests-to-infections ratio. (As you have said yourself, testing is the only way that an infection is turned into a "case".) The above figures show that India's testing rates are comparable to those of the developed countries, and have always been. So, no cheap shots are warranted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that, I am saying the cases could not have reached to 50K if they had tested in the same rate they are doing now. Now the thing is out of hand. If they had tested earlier, irrespective of the people( in contact with the infected person) whether they've symptoms or no symptoms rather than just sending them in quarantine, then the curve could be flatten well enough, now its sky rocketing. The whole purpose of the testing was to flatten the curve. Just look the trend now, its 3.5K yesterday, now it will be less than 3 days to reach more 10K. See the trend of South korea and Taiwan, what they did was testing if found positive, then traced contacts and tested them irrespective of having symptoms or not and the chain continues. But India tested, if found positive then traced contacts and tested only if found all the three four symtoms, we failed in the initial step, we just keep loose ends. thats why in both the Taiwan and South korea's pattern you will find, with in the intial spike and highest point in the graph there is around 25 days and that too in the starting whether we have very low cases for first 75 days, then spike started exponentially and its now hyperbolic, and thats why the deaths are very low in both the country and here deaths are increasing the same exponential pattern. That should have been adopted, and the day is near when number of case will 10000/day. It is total failure now, I must say gone out of hand. We are on the verge of worse hit now. Dey subrata (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan and South Korea have had experience with pandemics before, as did Kerala. That is how they learnt how to deal with it. Contact tracting is certainly not easy. I agree that, if India had tested earlier as much as it is testing now, it would not have been in this position. But that is over. There is no point dwelling over spilt milk.

But all of this has nothing to do with the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph is saying, don't trust the cases figures. They are low just because India isn't testing enough. That is simply not true.

As to what is to be done in future, it is clear that the lockdown isn't going to eradicate the virus. So India will have to learn from South Korea, Taiwan and Kerala. There is no easy way out. I also suggest that you look at Bangladesh. I was extremely worried about it a few weeks ago, but now it is doing better than the US and UK (at least according to the official figures). You might want to check what they did to achieve this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

New cases by state and union territory in statistics section have not been updated since 5th may. Please update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:2005:7350:E528:8FB:58C1:DC29 (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I will look into it and may be update it by tommorow. And, please sign your comment with four tidles ( ~ ) on any talk page. Thanks - Mayankj429 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Ashinpt. - Mayankj429 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

AddIng Wikidata code for Testing

Hi Timbaaa I propose we should add code for automatic update of Testing figures in Summary of Test results table and Testing statistics ( just above the graphs). As we do in Info box for case numbers, as this will reduce manual editing. Let me know if we should do it. Thanks. - Mayankj429 (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429,  Done - Timbaa -> ping me 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Timbaaa: - Mayankj429 (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

World Bank aid, USAID

Can anyone confirm, where are these informations added in the article? World Banks aid to India for salaries for all emergency services, covid treatments, free masks for all health staffs, people associated with other emergency services, PPEs, ventilators and many more. Press Release, 2 April 2020

Needs a separate section for foreign aid. USAID, press release 6 Apr, 2020 and other foreign aid for PM-Cares fund 1. There are many detail reports of World Bank and USAID, please go through while creating the section. Dey subrata (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4th April 2020

Please add this at the end of the timeline section (I copied it from the Tablighi Jamaat article), The entire Nizamuddin West area has been cordoned off by the Police as of 30 March, and medical camps have been set up. After evacuation from the markaz, of the scores of jamaat attendees, 167 of them were quarantined in a railway facility in south east Delhi amid concerns over their safety and transmission of the virus. There were further complications after the staff at the quarantine facility reported the Tablighi jamaat followers misbehaved with the staff and spat at the doctors looking after them. FIRs were lodged against members of the jamaat quarantined in Ghaziabad after their misbehaviour was reported by the Chief medical officer. The officer reported that the inmates quarantined were roaming naked, playing vulgar songs and making lewd gestures and remarks at the female staff of the hospital. After this the UP government decided that they would not be treated by any female staff and also booked the jamaat members under the National Security Act.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Souniel, this will have to wait until we add a section on the Tablighi Jamaat event. It will also need to be reworded to be less like a news report. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the, "Timeline" section already mentions the Tablighi Jamaat event, so please reword what I have mentioned above and add it. Please reply to the next two Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests also. Thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, help out and show the exact edit you would make if you edited the article yourself. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Want to support in data upload. Birender singh (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Birender singh: Thanks for your intrest in contributing. You can contribute for updating data as you are an autoconfirmed user by updating these templates used on this article - medical cases;medical cases chart; medical cases summary; testing data

Also you can update data related to COVID-19 pandemic in India on Wikidata project page here. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Exodus of migrant workers

On COVID-19_pandemic_in_India#Exodus_of_migrant_workers text says: "An estimated 139 million migrant workers from the countryside work in India's cities and towns. With factories and workplaces shut down, they were left with no livelihood. They thus decided to walk hundreds of kilometres to go back to their native villages, often with their families."

But this is false because not all 139 million migrant workers are "left with no livelihood". Not even The Wire source supports this false information and it does not say that even in recent sources.

It would become more sensible if the sentences say: "With factories and workplaces shut down, millions of migrant workers had to deal with the loss of income, food shortages and uncertainty about their future.[13]" 122.170.18.17 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done The Firstpost source that you cited clearly talks about the migrants' loss of income (and thus, livelihood). Have beefed up the sources and reworded the sentence a little to prevent ambiguity. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Please update the Nanded timeline numbers of infected Hazur Sahib pilgrims. As of 13 May 1,225 pilgrims have tested positive according to Indian government. Remove the current 969 number as it's no longer needed. [14] 117.199.81.97 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. - Mayankj429 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Exodus of Migrant Workers

The section is not updated since the intial entries. The amount of information and the big the issue became, the section nowhere near to give a clear picture of situation. Secondly, there should be separate article on the topic seeing the large amount of information and the large timeline of the topic and the coverage of the issue locally and internationally per WP:SPLITTING. So I have a request whoever is updating please try to do it. Dey subrata (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The exodus was caused due to the lockdown, which was caused due to the pandemic. Maybe it makes more sense to expand it in COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India‎ rather than here (before the split, that is)? SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Expansion needed in both the article, since the section at the lockdown article is nothing but copy paste of the main article. Should be summarised and so a new article needed and can be done WP:CFORK from the lockdown article rather than this one. Dey subrata (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It might have been the other way around. But, SerChevalerie is right. The main article for that is the lockdown page. So, please expand it there first and we can summarise it here as needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am saying that only, any of this article can only have a brief section, but details cannot be put in any of the articles, only a new article should have all these. I am also afraid to see the amount of datas and facts are already out there and piled up. Every state and everyday have a different story regarding the migrant workers along with different stats. It will be difficult and a humongous task to compile everything. Dey subrata (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I shall look into the expansion (at the lockdown page) when I have the time. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I have covered everything that I have found till now in COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India § Migrant workers and have summarised the same in the section in this article. Feel free to contribute or improve upon my work. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have consolidated all the info on migrant workers from the various pages related to COVID-19 in India at Indian migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interested editors, please contribute. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

About infection rate

The first paragraph has this line "The infection rate of COVID-19 in India is reported to be 1.7, significantly lower than in the worst affected countries." However, this statement was recorded in late March and things have changed significantly ever since. Request to delete the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.88.151 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done 122.172.88.151, I have Removed backdated figures about infection rate in India, if you want to update it with latest figures than kindly mention here with a reliable source. - Mayankj429 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

The first Coronavirus case have been reported in Sikkim on 23.05.2020 2409:4065:D81:1E15:0:0:DE8A:3D05 (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done already. See COVID-19_pandemic_in_India#Statistics. Thanks~Amkgp ✉ 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown extended past May 03

This wiki article makes no mention of the fact that the lockdown extended past May 03 in the top part of the article (above the ToC). In fact, it reads as if the lockdown ended on May 03--but then in the #Lockdown section it says that this was extended on May 01 (with no source).

On 22 March 2020, India observed a 14-hour voluntary public curfew at the instance of the prime minister Narendra Modi. The government followed it up with lockdowns in 75 districts where COVID-19 cases had occurred as well as all major cities.[10][11] Further, on 24 March, the prime minister ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days, affecting the entire 1.3 billion population of India.[12][13] On 14 April, the prime minister extended the ongoing nationwide lockdown till 3 May.[14]

If it has been extended 2 weeks past May 03, then please update the article's first section to reflect this. Or please permit me to make the change myself.. Maltfield (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Maltfield for bringing this into notice. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In the later part of your edit "with some relaxations" can be added. sachinag (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue again

On 22 March 2020, India observed a 14-hour voluntary public curfew at the instance of the prime minister Narendra Modi. The government followed it up with lockdowns in 75 districts where COVID-19 cases had occurred as well as all major cities.[12][13] Further, on 24 March, the Prime Minister ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days, affecting the entire 1.3 billion population of India.[14][15] On 14 April, the prime minister extended the ongoing nationwide lockdown till 3 May.[16] On 1 May, lockdown across the country was further extended by two more weeks till 17 May.[17]

Please update this to note that the lockdown has been extended to May 31. Maltfield (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Again. Mayankj429 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

Goa and Manipur now have active covid-19 cases. So please remove them from the list mentioning states and union territories without active cases. ~Akshay 2409:4061:2D24:7A5B:93D8:7B57:4860:1DA (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Shanze1 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove them from timeline too.Thundermage117 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Thundermage117: - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic maps without unit/ timescale

I’ll assume the first one is total cases and the second one total deaths but would be important to add the unit at the first one and the time scale at both of them. AdltodeMadl (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

AdltodeMadl, Changed the caption of the first map to make it clear. I think this is better than introducing units on the map. But I'm not sure what you mean by time scale. Shanze1 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. LONGHORN CD ROM (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Source code of aarogya setu released

The last line of the Aarogya Setu section is that developers asking source code to be made public. I think it must be edited now that it is been made public on GitHub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin75871 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sachin75871, thanks, have updated. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Add lines in Misinformation and discrimination section

Please add following lines in Misinformation and discrimination section

Ramdev claimed that one can treat coronavirus by pouring mustard oil through the nose, making the virus flowing into the stomach, resulting in its ultimate death by the acid present in the stomach. He also claimed that if a person holds his breath for a minute, it means s/he is not suffering from any type of coronavirus, symptomatic or asymtomatic. Both these claims were found to be false. Jasksingh (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done ZLEA _T\^C 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Add lines in Misinformation and discrimination section (2)

Please add following lines in Misinformation and discrimination section

When migrant workers returned to their hometowns and villages, they were treated with class bias, being hosed down with disinfectants or soap solution in some cases. They were feared to be carrying coronavirus from the urban areas where they had been employed. Since many of them belonged to the lower castes, they had to face caste slurs.

References

Jasksingh (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Jasksingh,  Done. It was I who added that information in Indian migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic but forgot to update it here. Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Janta Curfew" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Janta Curfew. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Janta Curfew until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Janta curfew" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Janta curfew. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Janta curfew until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Bijay6779 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi admin , Please add this website as a live data feeding reference https://www.covid19india.org/ Bijay6779 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, we are currently sourcing our data through only the official government sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Covid19.org is a good source

The numbers are sourced from official state data, and i believe the numbers are far more accurate than the ones released by the Central Ministry of Health (MoHFW). See here: https://www.covid19india.org/about I would endorse its usage on wikipedia Tanyasingh (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tanyasingh, There are some reasons we don't use covid19india.org here -

1) The data never matches with Mohfw after the morning update around 9 AM IST as a difference of some hundreds of cases is always there.

2) covid19india.org have numerous updates in a day, it is not feasible to update the numbers through out the day that many times and also, currently we aren't manually updatng the numbers in the infobox as they are automatically pulled from Wikidata.

You can see a previous consensus on not using this source here, Thanks Mayankj429 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mayankj429: Okay, understood. Thank you Tanyasingh (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Map colour schemes

Hi, I'm thinking of switching our main confirmed cases map's colour palette from current to the Scheme A proposed over here at this discussion.

Current; with 7 legend ranges

Scheme A; with 6

I'm also thinking of cutting current seven legend range down to six, as its too cluttering. Other maps use Scheme E and D from the same discussion as I thought they were apt. It is only my personal preference so any thoughts on this are welcome. Shanze1 (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Since, the tagged discussion has not reached any consensus till now. And since you are the sole maps editor for most India related COVID maps. I say go with scheme A for all confirmed maps. and scheme E for others. Except for ppm maps, they shall use the same scheme as respective total maps but with different ranges.

I am conflicted about using recoveries map because at some point every region is gonna reach the higher range. Instead, if we use active cases map, It will have something to differentiate even when active cases reach lesser range values. - Timbaaa -> ping me 13:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, Ok. And yes, I was conflicted about whether to make recoveries now or not. But what do you think about using recovery percentages? They'll represent recoveries better imo but using active cases can also be ok. Mayankj429, can you share your inputs on this as well. Thanks. Shanze1 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: @Timbaaa: Agree, that the Recoveries Map will eventually go when almost every state have high recoveries, but i don't have any objection with it right now. I am not clear what did you mean by recovery percentages, i guess to use them as the legend range if i am not wrong, which is also a good representation as the state with higher cases is bound to have higher recoveries so only percentage can be used to compare states with higher cases and with lower cases. And I too have no problem with active cases graph. - Mayankj429 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Shanze1, still at some point recoveries for all regions will reach near 90% and above, it will be hard to differentiate. IMO, active numbers will be better to visualize in this regard. - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright then. Since you both agree with using active cases, I think I'll add that or even replace the current recoveries map with that. Shanze1 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: @Timbaaa: Sorry, this thought didn't crossed my mind until i seen the changed map of confirmed cases with Scheme A in the infobox, that when Rajasthan, MP and UP are also going to be above 10,000 (which is very soon) the dark shade of brown will dominate the graph which i think will not look good. What do you think about Scheme E ? - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, I just used that scheme (E) for the active cases map. But I am also inclined to switch the new one. It is too dark indeed. I can use Scheme E's 'a' set for confirmed cases map and use the 'b' set for the active map. Shanze1 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Made the change, looks better. Shanze1 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: Ya, Scheme E's 'b' can used for Active cases. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: I think you have used colour from 1000-4999 range for the 5000-9999 range in the change made in the map. - Mayankj429 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, Good find. Something needs fixing, I'll look into it fast. Shanze1 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: I am ok with any of the Scheme A or Scheme E. - Mayankj429 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes needed in Legend Ranges in Map of Confirmed cases

Hi Shanze1, As Maharashtra is on the way to 100,000+ confirmed cases, same range will be required in the Map of Confirmed Cases but the 10,000+ confirmed cases range is already a bit darker, so this map will be shifting towards a darker shade again. I suggest to merge 100-499 and 500-999 into 100-999, as when these two ranges were made the national count was much lower than what it is today. Eventually it will clear the current colour used for 10,000+ confirmed cases for 100,000+ confirmed cases, and colour for 10,000-100,000 confirmed cases will also become lighter than what it is now. Mayankj429 (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it was needed. I have made the change even though it has not crossed 100k yet. And I also thought if we can merge 1000-4999 and 5000-9999 to add a halfway between 10k and 100k. I don't know if that's better or worse. Shanze1 (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Shanze1, Ya I agree as we have two ranges between 1K-10K and on other side 10K-100K seems a very long range, may be merging the two ranges as suggested by you into 1K-10K and forming 10k-50K, 50K-100K and 100K+ later legend ranges will be good. Mayankj429 (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Test statistics of India

Someone removed all of it. Can it be undoned please.

Manish2542 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian nationals abroad

The number given for UK deaths could well be for members of the Indian (or even South Asian) diaspora population, which may not be the same as the number of Indian nationals (I don't know what the position on dual nationality is). The original UK government statement might be clearer on this point. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Unlocking

India is starting to "unlock", even though cases are peaking every day. Can someone add a criticism section on this attitude of the Government? I guess that India doesn't want to be behind European countries... --81.202.238.193 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify sources? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 23:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown

I realize that it's a summary, but the lockdown section should include at least a brief mention of criticism / effectiveness. Benjamin (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you propose your version here, keeping in mind WP:DUE? SerChevalerie (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My previous edit was "the lockdown has been criticized as counterproductive", but I'm open to suggestions, and mostly indifferent to the exact wording, as long as it's mentioned somehow. Benjamin (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned WP:DUE because even though it's a summary, we will need to cover both, bouquets and brickbats. I'll look into this later when I get time, but if you or anyone else can propose a version and achieve consensus, go ahead. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "While generally regarded as necessary, the implementation of the lockdowns was also criticized for worsening the crisis."? Like I said, I'm not particular about the wording. Please consider adding other perspectives as you see fit. Benjamin (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Trimming and refining the article

Hi fellow editors, this is a rapidly evolving situation and all of us feel the need to keep adding information to the article. But, from a readers point of view the article is too lengthy and contains information that's not necessary or holds little significance. Just for an example, there are statements from state CMs which could be moved to their respective sub-articles(except those of national importance), measures taken by states, obsolete facts and figures so on. I propose that we build consensus on as to what should stay and make the article more informative and precise AnM2002 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

YES, I second this. Reading the first para itself is tiring. There is way too much info in the entire article and not relevant; and by irrelevant I mean wikipedia should not give ALL the facts. It must be cut short.Thundermage117 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Several sections need trimming and some updating. Like, at least the Timeline and Government response sections, which have not been updated for a while should be expanded following summary style. They're highly important to the subject imo. Overdetailed, out-of-scope stuff can be removed like you suggest. Shanze1 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: @Thundermage117: thanks for your inputs. What i propose is that we trim down reports and additions from non-government sources and replace them withOfficial Government data if available. As this is a rapidly evolving situation more priority should be given to what the authorities are saying not opinion pieces, news articles or models. Sure they are necessary but at present we need to give information which is precise and reliable. AnM2002 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AnM2002, Sure. But conveying just info based on official outlets is never good. It might lead to WP:UNDUE issues. Only govt sources for figures and stats is acceptable. But I get what you're saying, there is some excess, no longer relevant detail (especially in lead section) that can be removed if everyone agrees. So, if you can identify such content, list them here to gain consensus for their removal. Thanks. Shanze1 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shanze1: I totally get that we cannot depend solely on government sources, but the point is this page is the first thing people see when they look for COVID19 situation in India, it would be better if they easily find the most important information (both Govt./Non-Gov) not hefty paras. I have made few changes in the lead do take a look.

In addition to the changes I have made to the lead, I think the comments by Micheal Ryan and Oxford report should be trimmed and compiled in a short para , the detail comments can either be added to the lockdown article or a subsection on impact/reception. The statement about epidemic act also is ambiguous as the MHA has already recommended the pan India usage of the act in its guidelines. The statement on doubling and growth rate needs to be updated and rephrased. The sub-section on closedown and curfews is completely redundant as it's just a summary of state-specific decisions, these should be added to the articles of respective states. There's also a para under subsection on travel restrictions which just complies state specific restrictions, will prove useful on state specific articles.AnM2002 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AnM2002, thanks for bring up the topic, it is definitely required. I have trimmed some sections (Migrant workers, Tablighi hotspot, Closedowns and curfews, Legal action) but we should start taking more WP:CFORKs now. I agree with Shanze1 about using government sources only for statistics. Besides that, your edits seem fine so far. Do help us in keeping the rest of the article updated, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: thanks for your concurrence. I'll keep making adjustments to the article, will keep this thread posted live to further discuss the proposals. My view on Government sources is simple that they should be preferred more and other sources can be added as secondary sources to reaffirm. What do you think about the excessive states specific data ? Is there concurrence on editing it ? AnM2002 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AnM2002, can move the excessive state-specific data to the respective articles on each state, but we should keep historically significant events (see WP:10YEARTEST) in this article (while summarized extensively, of course). SerChevalerie (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: understood. AnM2002 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, fellow editors, I hope all of you are following the changes I have made to the page to streamline the delivery of information and concur. Feel free to covey your thoughts and inputs. Secondly, I would like to know if I should cut down the section named 'Closedowns and curfews' as I feel it's solely related to the restrictions announced by the states which are better suited on their respective pages. we can keep the gist of the most important ones. SerChevalerie Shanze1 Thundermage117 what do you guys suggest ?

Firstly, TIL about the {{Yo}} as an alternative to {{Reply to}}. Anyway AnM2002, you have done a decent job till now. I have taken care of the unnecessary italicising of figures, along with some minor punctuation and grammar errors. I do hope that you have moved the deleted content to the respective articles.

Regarding the "Closedowns and curfews" section, I had worked on trimming it significantly a couple of weeks ago, so I don't think it can be trimmed any further. While you may update the respective states' articles with this info, it is important to understand that the state governments had initiated their own lockdowns much before the central government. However, if other users agree, I feel it is better placed in COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India, maybe as part of some "Background" info. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: I moved the content to respective articles wherever it wasn't already present. Most of the content I removed was there on the dedicated articles so u can trust me on this. Secondly, I used italics and short forms to make the figures standout but you know better so I agree with your cleanups.

The section on close downs and curfews is still quite hefty, it has information on school closures in states, closure of tourism activities and others with very few mentions of curfews under section 144 of CrPC. I would suggest we trim it down to mention State orders relating to curfews and restrictions under the section 144 rest all should be moved to the respective state pages or as u said the article on Lockdown. There are only tak three mentions of curfew orders rest all are school closures, no mention of states like HP, Punjab and many others where statewide curfews were declared early.AnM2002 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

AnM2002 that makes sense. You can proceed with the same; if anyone does not approve then we can go through WP:BRD. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Till now 24,677 bytes of unnecessary data removed/moved to dedicated pages, I am listing down the sections which I have reworked/trimmed till now:lead, Background, Travel restrictions, Closed downs and curfews, Aarogya Setu, Economic package, Religion. There's still a lot of work especially on the testing and countermeasures section(lot of comments and observations), government response needs reworking, Misinformation and discrimination, Research and treatment, data related to covid health care infrastructure is scant too. I am going to work on testing and countermeasures next. The Principal scientific advisor made a very detailed briefing on the R&D situation in the country, I'll try to focus more on it. Feel free to give inputs and suggestions.AnM2002 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering if "Testing" should be a WP:CFORK. Let's see after you're done trimming/updating it. Meanwhile, I'll help you with your trimming whenever possible. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Charts, maps and tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

COVID-19 pandemic in India/Statistics created and selected parts of article used in COVID-19 pandemic in India- Timbaaa -> ping me 03:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

---

In context of the on going discussion above, shall we move all stat charts, maps(except for maps in infobox) and tables to a subpage a subpage or a separate article and use Template:excerpt to show only selected 2 or 3 graphs and 1 or 2 table in this article. Let this article focus on prose. Usage example at:COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil#Statistics.- Timbaaa -> ping me 06:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, I support this change as described by you. A select 2-3 graphs and 1-2 tables can remain in this article, the rest can be moved to a subpage. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, Can you tag others regular editors of the article? - Timbaaa -> ping me 06:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Timbaaa,This is needed now as there are many charts in the article now. Mayankj429 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, so far you have achieved consensus. You can go ahead and make the changes and take this forward as per WP:BRD. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie and Mayankj429:, In that case, shall we follow the same naming scheme as shown example? What are all the graphs to be included in the main article? - Timbaaa -> ping me 05:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, naming scheme looks fine, graphs I'd say "Total confirmed cases, active cases, recoveries and deaths" and "COVID-19 cases in India" ("Timeline" section) are the most important, and maybe one in the "Testing statistics" section. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, Subpage can be named COVID-19 pandemic in India/Statistics. And we can let the statewise table remain in the Template while the summary table from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India medical cases summary could be moved in the subpage.

Graphs which can be included in main article -

1)Total confirmed cases, active cases, recoveries and deaths

2) Cases by region (which you were talking to add for some states with highest cases)

3) New cases per day

4) New deaths per day

If we are adding Graphs in Testing stats too in the sub page then these can be included in main page-

1) Tested samples curve

2) New tests per day

Also I have seen that COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil#Statistics is using line graphs for New cases and new deaths per day, we can use the same it will save us from that scrollable graph along x-axis. These are my suggestions, let me know if you have any other ideas as well. Thanks Mayankj429 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mayankj429, It's not possible to show values in line graph, for values to be shown bar chart is the option. - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Notifying Susam Pal and Ashinpt who regularly update Statistics to participate in the discussion. Mayankj429 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Timbaaa. This will make the article easier to read. -- Susam Pal (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Timbaaa. I find it a very valuable and logical proposal to execute ~ Amkgp 💬 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree with Timbaaa

Someone wrote "from a readers point of view the article is too lengthy and contains information that's not necessary" As a reader, I find it extremely valuable to know how many tests are done per day and all the graphs are consulted. This should still be featured. And why was this removed arbitrarily when no consensus has been reached? Manish2542 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Manish2542, Nothing is removed just restructuring, selected statistics(including tests) are at COVID-19 pandemic in India#Statistics. More can be seen at COVID-19 pandemic in India/Statistics - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Timbaaa, In that case, at least add COVID-19 pandemic in India/Statistics under the "Testing" segment so that one can go to the charts. My apologies, got confused by the changes and thought someone vandalised the article Manish2542 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Timbaaa. There are many graphs all over the place right now. Consolidating the main graphs in one place should make it an easier read. Are we moving the maps in the Statistics section to the subpage also? -- Ashinpt (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ashinpt, Yes, select maps are in infobox, more at the subpage. - Timbaaa -> ping me 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Timbaaa. The map is really messed up right now. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 23:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal for moving Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India medical cases

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

---

Now that the stats section is split and consolidated, I think the Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India medical cases can be moved above, aside Timeline (like in the US article), where one can access it much faster. Shanze1 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Shanze1. Now it contains only the table, so It can be moved. Also, can be renamed to Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/India medical cases by states and union territories - Timbaaa -> ping me 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Shanze1, This will make easier to access the table. Mayankj429 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Shanze1. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Shanze1, Thanks for moving the template up, as i see now the fonts of the table seems a bit large, can we shift to layout as in US article which is actually derived from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. Reader will need to scrolll less too as the font size decreases. Mayankj429 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done moved and styled it as suggested. Shanze1 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Shanze1. Mayankj429 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Please add this information

Hello. To the editors of this page -

@Ozzie10aaaa: @Thegreatestmanonearth: @Mayankj429: @Timbaaa: @Shanze1: @SerChevalerie: @Italawar:} Perhaps it would be useful to put down the impact of covid, in terms of the arrest of journalists who were reporting on covid-19. Ref: https://clarionindia.net/55-journalists-face-persecution-for-highlighting-peoples-suffering-during-lockdown/ Please discuss; thank you! Tanyasingh (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps in the 'Situation' section? Or in Impact?

Sure. If you can come up with a draft, it can be added. Shanze1 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of facts and reporting on Covid-19

A report titled "India: Media’s Crackdown during COVID-19 Lockdown" was published on 15th June, 2020. Many sources state that at least 55 journalists have been heavily cracked down on for reporting on Covid-19, with FIRs being filed against them under various Acts. The charges have been levied for reporting starvation faced by migrant workers, the failure of the administration to supply rations, mismanagement and negligence at quarantine centres, or any other reporting that is construed as 'anti-government'.

UNESCO also released a brief titled "Journalism, press freedom and COVID-19" in view of how important it is to have verified and accurate information, produced by independent media during the time of a pandemic.

References

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fetching sourced data from Wikidata

I've just modified the Wikidata calls to remove |ps=1. That parameter is useful in testing, but is generally unsuitable for production code, because it sets |onlysourced=false and allows unsourced data through the filter. That's fine to see what's available on Wikidata, but we must not import data that is unsourced or sourced just to Wikipedia. It does mean that we have to make sure that data added to COVID-19 pandemic in India (Q84055514) is always sourced, but that's worth doing anyway. I've replaced the parameter with |fwd=ALL, and in cases where a number is used in a calculation, I've added |noicon=true to suppress the pen icon, which would otherwise cause an error. please let me know if this causes any problems. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The blob of wikidata calls and code in the template fields are atrocious, but even worse is that someone has shoved them into the body of the article. Unless there has been some new high level consensus I am unaware of (unlikely), there is an explicit standing encyclopedia wide consensus that Wikidata is NOT to be used in the body of an article. Not in prose and not in tables. I'm tempted to go in and delete it myself, but I'd really rather one of this article's maintainers took care of it with more delicacy. Alsee (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Add lines in Misinformation and Discrimination section

Please add following lines in Misinformation and Discrimination section.

Fake news circulated that the World Health Organization warned against eating cabbage to prevent coronavirus infection. The poisonous fruit of the Datura plant as a preventive measure for COVID-19 resulted in eleven people being hospitalized in India. They ate the fruit, following the instructions from a TikTok video that propagated misinformation regarding the prevention of COVID-19. Jasksingh (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This is just yet another one-off incident which has been outdated and lost significance long ago. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Can you please define on what basis it is being decided that whether an incident is significant or not? Can you cite any guideline of wikipedia on the basis of which you made this decision? For example, how is the following incident, which already exists in the article, more significant than above incident that you rejected?

Muslim cleric Ilyas Sharafuddin has stated that Allah has punished the Chinese by unleashing coronavirus on them for their brutal crackdown on Uighur Muslims.

I would suggest that this page should be open for edits to normal users just like pages of Covid pandemic of other countries are otherwise it would result in censorship which Wikipedia claims to be completely against. Please see WP:CENSOR. Jasksingh (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jasksingh, please see WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Oxford Government Response Tracker

"The Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) noted the government's swift and stringent actions, emergency policy making, emergency investment in healthcare, fiscal stimulus, investment in vaccine and drug R&D. It gave India a score of 100 for its strict response"

Can we remove/edit this? This is not accurate - a score of 100 was given only for a few days (the lockdown period) and solely reflects the strictness responding to COVID-19, not how well this was responded to. Also, a citation is needed: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker India's latest score is 74.07 (as of Jul 10, 2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Nemesis2710 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unnecessary@Silent Nemesis2710: the score as you have said yourself deals with strictness of response and not the overall response assessment. You can add the recent score in the response/reception section if you want but the sentence in the lead should remain the same. Also, its about initial response, strictness obviously declines as we keep reducing the restrictions.AnM2002 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

third paragraph: "On 14 April, the Modi extended ... " PM Modi is a person, it's "Modi", not "the Modi" ; it may be, however, "the Modi cabinet" 89.136.176.155 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "India extended". --RegentsPark (comment) 20:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

In the fourth paragraph, please change "The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have praised" to "In March, the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) praised". (The source for this statement, #20, is a story written on March 25.) The current wording makes it sound like UN/WHO observers generally think highly of the country's response (like they still think this), and in a situation that changes as fast as this pandemic, what someone thought in March can't necessarily represent what they think in August. 64.203.187.71 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Though this paragraph needs extensice rewriting to account for the surge after the lockdown ended. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2020

Please change the image caption from "since 30 January 2020 and till 3 April 2020" to "from 30 January to 3 April 2020" 64.203.187.125 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

• "Indian health ministry to document data on complications among recovered patients". voiceindia.com. Prasenjitsh (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

In the section India's international rankings, point number 15 - 2020 World Press Freedom Index. I do not see any significance of this ranking in this article. This should be removed from here. 2402:3A80:10DB:35FB:1C8E:B547:8AEE:3F91 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Mayankj429 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There still seems to be a stub with "India's international rankings }", could you delete that? Thanks! Albertaont (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Deaths of Indian doctors due to COVID

This needs mention in the article (if already not mentioned). IMA says nearly 200 doctors in India have succumbed to COVID-19 so far; requests PM's attention. If not its own sub-header/ sub-section, then at least a line or two. There is a efn note in the infobox in front of "deaths", maybe even there. DTM (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a sub-section under "Situation". DTM (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in India

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in India is currently not updating due to becoming a large article in a view of Length. Anyone has suggestion ?? Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 02:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Split up like the worldwide article.(Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic#Timeline by month and year) - Timbaaa -> ping me 03:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A source worth looking into

[15] This source offers a careful analysis of the death rate, which we don't really have in the article at the moment; everything we have is about the numbers as reported, or speculative. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

pandemic in india

There has been increased in cases of data, Pulki23 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Positive sampling rate chart not visible

Although I am able to update the statistics behind the chart Positive sampling rate. But only the heading is visible on the wiki page after edit. The chart itself is now not visible on the wiki page. Please check.Pankajsach (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Pankajsach, Excerpts on the main page have been limited by Timbaaa thats why it is not visible. I guess it was done to clear the clutter, from main page. It will be there on Statistics page. - Mayankj429 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, template expansion include size(WP:PEIS) is nearing limit here, lt was breaking the chart before. So, removed it from inclusion. → Timbaaa_talk 23:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"India virus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect India virus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#India virus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)