Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject COVID-19

[edit]

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photos?

[edit]

It'd be nice if this article could have some photos. Also, if there are any particularly good ones, please choose a better option than the one I did for the Oceania section of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Corona in Oceania" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in Oceania. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands Positive Case - Myth not reality

[edit]

The supposed case in the Cook Islands was a historical case, the person was not infectious. They had returned from overseas, they were quarantined, medically cleared and released in NZ before flying to the Cook Islands.

They tested positive for viral fragments detected by a PCR test, not the actual intact virus. They did not have the virus when they arrived in the Cook Islands, and therefore were not an active case. The Ministry of Health has not counted any cases in the Cook Islands.

I have corrected the article based on the facts. https://www.cookislandsnews.com/internal/national/local/historical-covid-test-leads-to-further-scrutiny-of-travellers/

Aeonx (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

[edit]

In the Cook Islands Section in the New Zealand section, there is the words "which was reported which was reported", which should not be there, there should only be one "which was reported" GHESTAS-WIKI (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Thanks for catching that. KRtau16 (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect NZ vaccination count

[edit]

"By 3.33 million people have been vaccinated; with 2.17 million receiving their first dose and 1.16 million receiving their second dose.". -- this is extremely incorrect. Needs to be fixed. 1.16 million are included in the 2.17 million, it cannot be added together. Please fix it to "2.17 million people have been vaccinated" or to "3.33 million doses have been administered".

For example, you can use this counter as a reference. There's no 3.33 million people being vaccinated, it's all about doses administered. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneIVORK Talk 00:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

[edit]

Please change

As of August 2021, 3.33 vaccinations have been administered

to

As of August 2021, 3.33 million vaccinations have been administered

Obviously they've administered more than 3⅓ vaccinations. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneSirdog (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021 (2)

[edit]

Please change

52,769 vaccines doses have been administered

to

52,769 vaccine doses have been administered

Thank you. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneSirdog (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 23:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

[edit]

In the Nauru section of the article, change "an historical" to "a historical" 122.56.85.105 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems strange to me, "an historical" is correct in some varieties of English. This article uses Australian English, and I can find examples of this used in Australian works from a few decades ago. I don't know if this is used in modern Australian English. I've asked at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Is "An historical" valid in modern Australian English?, and someone from there may make the change you want.-Gadfium (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, it appears this is acceptable Australian English.-Gadfium (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]