Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Please add Qapital to the cancelled events list. This event was supposed to take place at the Ziggodome and is a significant Dutch music event.

Source: https://www.q-dance.com/en/news/qapital-or-qapital-cancelled-due-to-coronavirus Hardcontributor (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Provinces map

In the current map of provinces, many of the provinces are marked with a color that does not match the one indicated in the legend (i.e. wrong shade of red). FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Done by Moekotte (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just updated the map. Eissink (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC).

Hart VAN brabant

Het is hart VAN brabant en NIET hart VOOR brabant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:20C:D500:B8A4:1AFC:223C:9CBF (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Done by Moekotte (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. It really is VOOR. See their own website.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 13:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Graph?

The page on the outbreak in italy has a graph showing the progress of the infections, the deaths and the recoveries. Does anyone know how to do that here? The template for the table is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data/Italy_medical_cases_chart] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco Paolo Ragazzi (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Why such an elaborate table?

What is actually the point of maintaining a table with such detailed information about each and every case? It's like these 20 people are put under a magnifying glass for no good reason other than that they happen to carry a virus. I don't think they were waiting for that. Also, as more cases arise this will become unmaintainable quickly. I'd propose to go for a cleaner table like the one at 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Norway#Statistics. Thayts ••• 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, maintaining the table is a hell of a job and will soon be impossible as details like sex, age, and source of infection will not be given anymore by RIVM. Let's see what the announced counter by region looks like. Chingon (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, while said table is still present, I've taken the liberty of putting it into a subsection, making it slightly more convenient (or less inconvenient, if you like) to edit.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 15:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This table is quite ridicoulous. Why? This is an encyclopedia, not some kind of news site. Vinvlugt (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That's an argument that makes no sense, since the table is largely only a more graphical exposition of details for a large part given in the text also, so why not say the text part is 'ridiculous' too? Eissink (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

Note to add: a quick look at similar pages for other European countries reveals that very few of those maintain a table like this one.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 16:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

So shall we remove it? We've also got a statistics table now. Thayts ••• 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the table--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I'm not sold on the privacy argument, I agree for technical reasons. The Table^TM had already become cumbersome to maintain. The manual numbering (and references to case numbers, e.g. "sister of #32768" or something) and rowspans in particular were not only inconvenient to edit, but also IMHO gave The Table^TM a rather awkward (if not just messy) appearance. For example, yesterday (3 March) I removed the retracted case from the table, which wasn't easy to do. Moreover, as the number of cases increases (which is to be expected), The Table^TM would probably have become rather unwieldy, not to mention a nightmare to maintain. In other words: it probably had to be removed sooner or later anyway. Skysmurf  (Talk) 13:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Plus, the relevancy of all those details is highly questionable. Thayts ••• 14:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the virus

The IP hopper persistently changes Lombardia to Wuhan in the table. There was not a single case of a virus in the Netherlands so far traced to Wuhan, all cases came from Italy.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

See also my remarks at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_by_country_and_territory#"Origin"_of_virus_(infobox). The infobox is generic, for different viruses, so maybe the parameter 'origin' is only variable because it is generic, and perhaps it should only give the real origin (Wuhan), which would make some sense to me, especially since giving "Italy" is only giving the first known infection area of a particular patient from a particular nationality. Eissink (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC).

I will now request protection--Ymblanter (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if somebody could give the rationale for why here should be mentioned Italy and not China, since the virus' origin is China, no matter how it got in the Netherlands (which in the end remains speculation, because there is no proof that the first case has not been infected en route home outside Italy). I'm not saying it should say "China", but some of you seem very confident, yet a valid argument has not been given. A middle way could be to mention "Wuhan, via Italy". The main problem, to me, is that the origin of the virus is not Italy, but China, yet the infobox says it is Italy. Maybe the infobox parameter is named incorrect, because it is taken to mean "origin of infection", which is quite something else than the "origin of the virus". Eissink (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC).

I would be open to remove this field of the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

So would I. It seems a bit ambiguous.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Would people not keep adding that field again? (Just reverted it to say Italy a second time today) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the virus: Wuhan, Hubei, China that the infection was first brought by an Italian from Lombardy or a German, perhaps because no cases had been tested before, it doesn't make much sense. COVID-19 is at the time of the same genotype from China.--Peter39c (talk) 6:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

See my reply below. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Table of cases per municipality Suggestion

Is the last table on the page (listing cases per municipality) going to give problems similar to the one that was removed from the Timeline section? The information is consistently incomplete, lagging behind, hard to maintain and is likely to grow to unwieldy size.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 13:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like the map posted to RIVM would be a better representation. I am not sure if we could automate processing of the CSV provided by [1]. Frogie9 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, too. However, I'm not quite sure how to achieve this technically. Skysmurf  (Talk) 14:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is going to be a lot of work to update. Perhaps focussing on the GGD-regions only? Since the RIVM is using those as well? In addition, I can create maps with software on my laptop on a daily basis, based upon the GDD-regions. Moekotte (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. At a municipal level I think it's going to be prohibitively difficult to maintain, whereas on the other hand I'm inclined to think provinces aren't particularly interesting. If I remember correctly there are 25 GGD regions, which sounds about right to me and also makes for a convenient upper limit complexity-wise. If you also have the means to do it, I think it would make for a much more useful addition than the current table. Skysmurf  (Talk) 16:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is what I created with today's statistics Moekotte (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

GGD-districs with COVID-19

GGD-regions by date of infected by COVID-19

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moekotte (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that looks a whole lot better. Thanks!  Skysmurf  (Talk) 23:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! It is possible to differentiate the number of cases in the "GGD-districs with COVID-19" map by using different shades of red? Chingon (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

But the plot content looks wrong. GGD area for around Eindhoven is grey. Cannot be right. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I tried to find the date when the coronavirus appeared for the first time in 'GGD Brabant-Zuidoost' but is was impossible to find it back. And later I forgot I had it as missing data in my image. Apart from that I made these yesterday and today:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moekotte (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated figure! --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried a lot of different options but I ran into various errors when uploading the updated .svg files. I get this error: "One of the parameters filekey, file and url is required.", but there is no option of filling in these missing parameters, or I run into this error: "Found unsafe CSS in the style element of uploaded SVG file.". For which I also can't find a solution. The file size is 4,3MB, is that too big for wikipedia? I tried to find information on max upload size of .svg but couldn't find it. For now I will just update the figures with .png filed and will try again tomorrow with new .svg files. Moekotte (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice maps, Moekotte. Eissink (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

Is it possible Moekotte to update the maps with information that will be published today. Yesterday they didn’t get an update. Would be nice if the showing information is recent. Melvinvk (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC).

Would it be possible to change the map of cases per GGD area from using a choropleth to using proportial circles. Using choropleths to depict absolute figures is seen as bad practice. Consider the situation where population density is equal across regions and cases per inhabitant uqual as well. Then you would still have many different colour intensities in such a map, but effectively that would just be a measure of the surface size of the regions. So a choropleth mapo for showing absolute figures is heavily distorted by area sizes. Another option is to stick to the choropleth but depict numbers of cases per inhabitant. Jeroen Bosman 13:32, 11 March 2020‎

May be this is an interesting link? I removed the table on the Dutch Wikipedia (too much work to maintain), why not use an external site who is always up to date? Vinvlugt (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases chart

I am thinking that it might make to sense to switch the format of the cases chart to something similar to the chart used in Italy. The chart we currently have on the article is a raster image. It is getting increasingly hard to read the individual days / case counts whereas the proposed chart uses vector graphics. Additionally, the current horizontal layout will become even harder to read as the time since the outbreak starts increases. What are your thoughts on this? Frogie9 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The current chart doesn't scale very well anyway and vertical scrolling is usually preferable to horizontal. Perhaps larger elements (e.g. tables, charts and maps) ought to be made collapsible as well? Skysmurf  (Talk) 17:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Remaining infection dates of GGD regions

Hey all, I made the maps for the page, but I was a bit busy last two days so wasn't able to update them. Therefore I have missed the days on which the remaining 3 GGD-regions got infected. Does any of you know those dates?

- Hollands Noorden
- Friesland
- Groningen 

Thanks in advance Moekotte (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

- Hollands Noorden 10 March

- Friesland 10 March

- Groningen 11 March (12 March officially) Melvinvk (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 aceleration rate chart / table

I'm just adding that it would be nice to have a chart correlating the total number of cases, new cases in each day (first derivative) and the differences in the new number of cases per day (second order derivative). Given that the latter metric is the most important to track the progression of the measures taken in place to contain the spread of the disease in a population. Can't edit this page, but will suggest either add into the table or build a graph with those metrics, total cases in left Y and new/acceleration on right Y.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jduvoisinsch (talk • contribs) 09:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the virus - Part 2

Hi all, so, it seems the problem was not really resolved, but maybe China is the best solution as the ultimate source. It certainly is no longer just Italy. RIVM wrote about this this morning: "Hiernaast waren er patiënten in Duitsland, Frankrijk, Iran, Oostenrijk, Kaapverdië, Groot-Brittanië en Hong Kong." Translated, confirmed infections were with people who came back from Germany, France, Iran, Austria, Kaapverdië(?), the UK, and Hong Kong". --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Most other European pages seem to list Wuhan as the source, except for a few countries with only a few cases of which the (immediate) origin is known precisely. I also had a look at the template documentation, but it doesn't explain exactly what is meant by "origin". It does say the whole origin parameter is optional though, so just removing it from the infobox altogether might still be an option as well. Any thoughts, anyone?  Skysmurf  (Talk) 15:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal, since the parameter raises more questions than it provides answers or information. Eissink (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

A propos, it took over four days since my initial remarks to get discussion on this subject started, and meanwhile people kept edit warring... It is sometimes difficult to communicate, especially when nobody even answers. But I'm glad we arrived here, so all's well. Eissink (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

I suspect not every (understatement) editor reads talk pages ;-) I'm inclined to say give it a day and if no objections are stated, let's remove the parameter--at least for the time being. Skysmurf  (Talk) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal sounds good with me. Regarding ”Kaapverdië”, I think that might refer to Cape Verde. Frogie9 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't You split it into Origin (the primary global source, that would be China) and Arrival (from the particular country from where it came to this country, for Poland that would be Germany)? Or divide into Global origin and Local origin if no arrival was documented. YBSOne (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, sort of. I can't make a separate entry for it because the infobox is a global template used all over Wikipedia, but hopefully what I ended up doing is an acceptable compromise. While at it, I also removed the reference to suspected (blue) cases because the Dutch authorities don't publish any data on that (nor do they seem to do on recoveries, by the way). Skysmurf  (Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I replaced the map because the old one has gotten almost entirely red and thusly conveys very little information any more. Skysmurf  (Talk) 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have changed the main map to a 'Province' map with red gradients for totals. The 'Province' map is easiest to make and easiest to read for the mayority of the readers I think (More people are interested in the province stats, than in the GGD-district stats I guess Moekotte (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Moekotte: could you still make a map of cases per GGD-regio. Maybe the province map is Internationally convenient, but to dutch is not reliable enough provinces are quite big and don't show how the spread of cases within the province is spreaded. Other pandemic articles uses lower administrative divisions as well, some even up to municipalities. Melvinvk (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Meeting on coronavirus was cancelled

Hi wikipedians, Perhaps someone can include this into article... March 9 Nido2020 A scientific meeting on coronaviruses was cancelled due to coronavirus This one is a good one for DYK. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled events

On 12 March, the women's cycling race Ronde van Drenthe and on 13 March the Drentse Acht van Westerveld were cancelled due to the outbreak in the Netherlands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.201.130.50 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Statistics per province: table oversized and unreadable

The table giving the number of cases per province (see template) to me is unreadable because of its layout and size: the dates take an unnecessary two or even three rowes and the names of the provinces (with superfluous flags) broaden the columns in total unnecessary way also. Could, to begin with, the column headers perhaps be made vertical? I've tried, but my skills appeared insufficient. Thoughts? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

User:Ætoms just solved the unbalances, great. Eissink (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

The map at the top of this page is outdated (13th of march). Below I have an updated version of this map (16th of march)

Map of provinces by number of COVID-19 infections (as of 16 March)

Jonkolander (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonkolander: The map on the article appears to be updated now with the same numbers as yours the only difference is the scale and the fact there is an "Unknown" category on the map used in the article and yours doesn't have this. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been making the majority of the maps over the past week. Unfortunately I was not able to update them this weekend. I will continue updating them again this week. Moekotte (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Routine statistics update in timeline section

Is it really necessary to keep track of the number of cases in the timeline section? There are three graphs and a table all doing the same, but in a much clearer way. I propose to remove the routine statistics updates (increase and totals of cases and deaths) from the timeline's prose and to reserve that section for more encyclopedic content. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is now clear that the pandemia is for months, if not years, and it does not make sense to attempt to put these updates in prose. We should have more graphical support instead, for example similar to what is now in South Korea article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I see our wishes have been heard. Thanks FlippyElectricitySocket! --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Public measures merged and cancelled events given too much importance?

I am not sure that public measures should be replaced with cancelled events. 1. I find the merging of the public measures with the progression of the pandemic leading to a loss in clarity, where we were able to first find out the progression of the virus, then see what was done in reaction to it. Now it's all one big timeline. 2. I find the table on cancelled events not so important - yet it occupies a huge part of the page now. It's much more important to know when the schools were ordered to close and how late the government reacted than the fact that a cycling race in Ronde van Drenthe and Drentse Acht van Westerveld was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco Paolo Ragazzi (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistics on number of Intensive Care admissions

I stumbled upon this great resource with Intensive Care statistics, how many admissions per day, how many admitted each day, etc. But I don't know what would be the best way to include it. Any takers ? https://www.stichting-nice.nl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgebbb (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

'Unknown' in Statistics by province

I updated the main map, using the numbers given by the RIVM, which reflect the registered patients per province. In the linked publication, there are no numbers for (location) 'Unknown', contrary to the numbers given in the table 'Statistics' – what is the source used for those numbers, and what does it exactly mean? Are the residences of those patients not known? For the map, I think it is better to just use the numbers registered, it's less confusing. Eissink (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

The table is updated via Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Netherlands medical cases. I have asked Chingon for further information. Eissink (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Hi, the number of "unknown" is daily published in the text below the map at https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-kaart-van-nederland-per-gemeente. For example today: "Van 184 patiënten is de woonplaats nog onbekend." Chingon (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's clear. I think I will keep the numbers for the map as I have projected them today, which means f.i. that Noord-Brabant counts 1558 registered patients instead of 1508 infected inhabitants plus 50 infected registered with unknow residence. If someone else starts updating the province map, it's of course up to them, but I think it gives a bit better insight for initial information. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Okay, the today published PDF is new for me. Extra information: I calculate the numbers by province and GGD region by downloading the .csv file provided daily on [2] and import it in Power BI (data analysis tool) where I have a table with all the municipalities and the province and GGD region they are part of. I hope RIVM will correct the "unknowns" in the .csv at some point. Chingon (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bit cumbersome, but if it works... The unknowns might really be unknowns, in the sense of address unknown or even homeless people, although the numbers seem a bit high for that. One would think that if a person is registered as infected, one would want to know the residence, but the reason must be somehow more obvious and understandable. I previously used the number in the Statistic table and today I found the PDF, that works fine. Eissink (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Number of tests in statistics

I think it would be really helpful to see the number of tests per day in the stats table. This could help to see the number of new infections in the right context as it heavily depends on the number of performed tests. --Woolf44 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but where are these numbers publicised? Chingon (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The answer to that would be nowhere, I'm afraid. Skysmurf  (Talk) 22:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusing legend of recent detailed map

The detailed map that was added by Ythlev has good details, but the legend might be pretty confusing to many readers and maybe even cause unnecessary unrest. For instance, a municipality with some 33.000 inhabitants and 12 registered Covid-19-patients on this map gets the color corresponding to >356.95 – I think this is not the kind of information we want to give. A more reasonable legend, and basically the same map, is given by RIVM (by natural numbers per 100.000 inhabitants). What to do? Eissink (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

It's easier to compare with the other countries or the world average if the same units are used. Ythlev (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, though it might be worth considering to use for the legend natural numbers that rise in a logic progression (see f.i. the map of RIVM, the institute that provides the numbers). I hope you agree that it's better to have the more general provinces map as map1, for general introduction, because it is easier to read. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

I would also recommend using a similar design like how the RIVM does, it's more clear. also weird that municipalities with no infections are marked as infected. Melvinvk (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. While I do like the detail of the map, it is still open for improvement. Indeed you don't want to mark municipalities with no infections as having "less than x". Unfortunately I don't have the skills to substract numbers from svg-images and apply them easy to a map. Unless someone, if not Ythlev, is going to make another map, we will have to choose to either use the current one or not. Eissink (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

Perhaps Ythlev likes the idea to display the zero-communities in white. Eissink (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

If you want specific information like "does this place have any cases?", you are much better off referring to a table of figures or a dashboard. I might add figures on hovering mouse over areas. However, the map is really for looking at the overall distribution. Ythlev (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless the municipality is an independent country and closes its border, does it matter if it has 1 or 0 cases? Ythlev (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No it's not the end of the world, but if it is an easy fix it would be nice to be implemented. Melvinvk (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would welcome the numbers by hovering. Eissink (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

Cancelled events (2)

You guys have a whole list of events where I doubt the relevancy of in this wikipedia. At least in this form. But if you are gonna put cancelled events why not mention national holidays King's Day Remembrance of the Dead and Liberation Day (Netherlands). The Passion is also cancelled a big live musical broadcasted on television during easter. Melvinvk (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's not really relevant, especially now that literally every event till June has been canceled. People who search for (information on) events, will find it in the article of the event, if there is an article (and if there isn't an article it should überhaupt not be on the list). I'd say: let's please remove the complete list. Eissink (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC).

Agreed, and done. FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Graphs in timeline section

The two graphs in the timeline section a) disrupt the flow of text and b) probably belong in the statistics section anyway. Any suggestions as to either moving these two graphs and/or fixing the current alignment mess?  Skysmurf  (Talk) 11:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to add: moving the second graph to the right helped a bit with issue a.  Skysmurf  (Talk) 11:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can give the graphs a better place in the Statistics part, I'd say go ahead, because indeed they cause a lot of visual unrest now, not really inviting to edit the text parts. Eissink (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC).

The second one should be moved to the Statistics section. The main chart belongs in the Timeline as it gives a better overall view of the situation in the country. It has been kept there for all the pages I have seen/edited so far. Move the second one. Thanks for the notification. Shawnqual (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks to Shawnqual. Skysmurf  (Talk) 14:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Figures in graphs do not correspond to revised figures published by the RIVM on stated day of retrieval

The figures in the new confirmed cases per day, new hospitalizations per day, and deaths per day graphs do not correspond to the (revised) figures published by the RIVM on the stated day of retrieval. I suggest using the figures in the various tables in the pdf file published on https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/epidemiologische-situatie-covid-19-in-nederland-27-maart-2020. (Contrary to what the title suggests, this page holds a link to a report dated 28 March 2020.) New files are published on a daily basis. The figures in those files are revised from those in the daily messages on https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/actuele-informatie-over-coronavirus by taking into account delayed, additional, and possibly also corrected reports of confirmed cases, hospitalizations, intensive care admissions, and deaths.Redav (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps (provinces and GGD)

The last ten days I have updated the maps with numbers of measured infections (provinces and GGD) and now the urge to continu is fading away rapidly, for a number of reasons, so I will probably stop updating now. Maybe we should look for another way to project data in the infobox, but I'm a bit clueless on that at the moment. If somebody wants to jump in: welcome. Greetings, Eissink (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC).

"a rising straight line indicates exponential growth, while a horizontal line indicates linear growth)"

a horizontal line indicates ZERO growth.

200.68.143.146 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Baden K.

It indicates zero growth in the daily numbers of new cases, so then the number of new cases remains constant, which means the total number (the cumulative number) of cases keeps growing – which you can see because the x-axis is the total number of cases; as long as the curve moves to the right, that number gets larger. Only when there are no new cases anymore will the curve drop down vertically to log 0 = minus infinity, signifying the growth has stopped. So a vertical line indicates zero growth.  --Lambiam 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Layout issue

For me the bar diagram under Timeline is superimposed over the first section, making part of it unreadable.  --Lambiam 17:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiological evidence?

Research by the national blood donor organisation Sanquin showed that 3% of all recent (healthy) blood donors had antibodies against Covid-19 at the start of April. By extrapolation this would mean that the number of infected people in the Netherlands at the start of April was actually over half a million. (Dutch)

Furthermore, research by the national bureau of statistics CBS shows that excessive death rates in the Netherlands soared throughout the end of March and especially the start of April, with relatively little other plausible causes apart from Corona deaths. From this it can be deduced that in week 11-15 of this year the Corona death rate is a lot higher than the officially reported number (during week 14 and 15 even by about 1000 deaths a week), obviously also leading to a higher total number of deaths due to Corona. (Dutch) 143.176.94.161 (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Should we finally restructure this article?

Right now, the major part of this page is the timeline of the virus spread, which is essentially a mirror or RIVM archives. In addition, it is not written in a readable prose. It is good that we could stop the addition of daily updates to the text, but we are still very far from a readable useful text. Whereas the pandemic is still in development and will be in development for at best several months, we could probably already start restructuring the article and adding encyclopaedic information there, which is now mainly missing or is not presented in the best wat. As far as I am concerned, we must have sections on history (this is what we have now, but compressed and written in good prose), measures (more what has been introduced than when it was introduced), and impacts (for example this source could be a starting point). Possibly we also need reactions, though I am not sure whether we have good sources for them. All of this must be in prose, not as a timelne. I find maps, graphs, and hystograms very useful, may be we could have a section like actuality or something, or may be they should be moved to a separate supporting article, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. Could we please agree that (i) restructuring is necessary; (ii) it can be started now; (iii) on some line of the restructuring, for example what I have proposed?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume there is no interest, The COVID Wikiproject had exactly the same reaction, and after waiting for several days, I removed the post and unwatched the page. I am sorry but what we have now is not a collection of encyclopedic articles. I do not think I will be any more contributing to this part of Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Statistics Cured

Has nobody cured from the China-Virus in Holland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.84.69 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no official statistics--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention the carnival effect or at least point at the differences in impact between the provinces?

The Netherlands has quite a high death rate per capita if you compare it with similar countries such as Denmark(about 3 times lower death rate). However, if you exclude the provinces that celebrate carnival--Noord-Brabant and Limburg--the death rate per capita is about the same. I know that this is a grey area, and we maybe should wait for some official studies pointing at this, but mentioning the potential impact of carnival on the development of the pandemic in the Netherlands could be informative for some readers that are looking into what might explain regional imbalances. What are your thoughts on this?

Mynheer007 (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Statistics on infections: fake infections

Has nobody understood that for the rising trend in infections recently not clinical infections are counted but positive PCR-tests?
This PCR-test means that if positive an RNA-piece of a virus was found after swabbing the nose of a person.
This does not say wheter an intact virus was present.
This does not say how many intact virusses are present.
This does not say how many virusses are in the blood, the lungs, etc.
This does not say a person will become ill.
This does not say a person is infectious.
This means that the infections graph needs a clear delimiter of the old and new data and a remark about the difference.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Udovdh (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Whereas this is possibly correct, we need to have a reliable source reporting this before we can add this to the article--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Udovdh, with "old data" and "new data". Throughout the pandemic, the number of infected people has been determined by PCR.

This does not say wheter an intact virus was present. This does not say how many intact virusses are present. – If the virus is not intact, meaning that the RNA will be set free, the RNA will quickly be broken down, as it is quite unstable. It will then not be detectable by PCR. The PCR-test is a real-time PCR test, thus it is well possible to detect the amount of virus RNA.

This does not say how many virusses are in the blood, the lungs, etc. – Nobody claims that a PCR test on throat/nose swabs can do these things.

This does not say a person will become ill. – That's why the statistics in this article clearly refer to number of infections, not number of ill people.

This does not say a person is infectious. – Whether a person is infectious depends on the amount of viruses in their throat. If the virus is produced by a person in their throat, it is likely that this person will be able to infect other people. If the PCR test is able to detect substantial amounts of virus RNA in their throat, it is likely that the virus did replicate there, thus the person is likely infective. However, as usual in science, no test offers 100% accuracy. Still, these tests are non-invasive, cheap, quick, available in high numbers, i.e. the best option that we currently have.

By the way, I find it quite bold to talk about something being fake when you seem to lack the understanding of how these PCR tests work. Here is some info about the procedure. --Hbf878 (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

edit: or was the whole point of your message that you don't like the word cases for number of infections? --Hbf878 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think they are saying that the simplified testing method, which has been in force since June?, does not determine whether a tested individual has a living virus, only that it has a corresponding piece of DNA, and in this sense it overestimates the count.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Compare to number of deaths of the first wave. W.r.t fake infections being bold: see the deaths, hospitalisations graphs.-- Udovdh

In what way was the procedure simplified in June? The Netherlands used PCR-based tests from the beginning, and they still do, to my knowledge. Regarding the graphs, I don't see anything fake about them, I only see that the proportion of confirmed virus carriers that needs to be hospitalised has lowered. Not really a miracle considering that testing has been extended to symptom-free people, or is it? --Hbf878 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well then, please compare the graphs again and notice the rise in infections, no real rise in deaths nor hospitalisations. Proof for a change in 'diagnosis'. -- Udovdh —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In the beginning, the number of tests was very limited. Therefore, mostly people that showed serious symptoms or even needed to be hospitalised were tested. Many of these people died shortly after, because they were affected badly by the disease (they had strong symptoms). Generally, if a person needed to be hospitalised in IC, their chance of survival was quite bad. People with mild symptoms were just advised to stay home, thus they didn't appear in the statistic. Now, testing capacities are much bigger, so that people without symptoms, such as healthcare workers or people returning from risk regions, can be tested. Many of these people may carry the virus, but they don't fall ill, they don't show symptoms, thus they also don't die. That's why now the proportion of deaths is naturally lower.

If you went to a testing site in the end of March, saying your throat is a little itchy but otherwise you're feeling fine, you wouldn't have been tested, because the number of available tests was very limited. If you go now with the same, mild symptoms, you would be much more likely to get tested, i.e. show up in the statistics. That's why with increasing availability of tests, the proportion of Covid-positive patients with mild outcome (no hospital, no death) will increase. This is not a proof that the method of diagnosis changed. --Hbf878 (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please reread what you wrote. There is a difference in testing versus clinical diagnosis, between then and now. How else can we explain the lack of deaths and hospital admissions. The poltical panic about this rise is misplaced. The lack of admission for first line medication is fraud. -- Udovdh —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please be a bit less vague, don't make me pull everything out of your nose. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the presence of Sars-Cov2 has always been tested for by using PCR. And it's still done the same way. What is the difference between then and now? What has changed? PCR protocol? Primers? Equipment? You mystifyingly murmur about a "difference" without ever saying what this difference actually is. You just tell me to "look at the graphs", as if they were a proof that a change has been made to the testing procedure. As I've explained above, the numbers don't prove any mysterious difference and it's far from mysterious that hospitalisations and deaths don't increase like they did before. --Hbf878 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am clear as what. There differences in these graphs. Dismissing me on the basis of you not seeing that says something. You as the expert should be able to explain, I did not see a solid explanation yet. Did all the old and weak people die yet? Why aren't the graphs updated? The RIVM graphs show the same differences. If this really were a 'crisis' the measures would be a lot more sever than cssoing the pub an hour early. They would look at first line medication, they would stop wasting billions. Difference: look at the deaths numbers in March, look at the deaths numbers now, versus their 'infections', if you did not figure that one out yet. -- Udovdh — Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 19 September 2020