Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

I disagree with removing the bar graphs

This is incredibly important information for Americans to be able to see and the line graphs are unspecific. They don't tell you the exact number per day.

It needs to be easier to see the exact number per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1027:A499:1C0F:B5A5:17B5:BD25 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the bar graphs too. The line graph vert axis is not visible when scrolling to the right on small screens.--Oltemative (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the bar graphs and the reason I removed them is because they are becoming too crowded. The x-axis labels are stacked on top of one another and there is no syntactical work-around with the template. -- Veggies (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Veggies, what about (and I cringe that I'm saying this) making separate bar graphs for smaller periods of time? The issue I see with doing that is graph overload. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. Way overloaded. -- Veggies (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get this criticism. How is it overloaded if you're only showing the data for the last 14 days? Old data drops off as new data comes on. 2605:6000:1027:A499:1C0F:B5A5:17B5:BD25 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Those aren't the graphs we're discussing. Obviously, they're still up. -- Veggies (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Knew it was only a matter of time before this issue would be raised here. Veggies Good call on the current design. I support that.

However, it might be better to establish a consensus on this from multiple editors. Me and a couple of editors have been discussing this issue in detail and options to resolve this on the Italian page since the last couple of weeks. If anyone's interested, have a look here. There are multiple options (which I have listed below) which can be used instead of bar graphs. I am sure there will be users who insist on bar graphs, they may like the first option.

OPTION A: Scrollable Width - Does not show legend until the end and the scroll can be too long

ISSUE: This only works for limited amounts of data. As the dates increase, the bar-width decreases, leading to the mess where neither the dates nor the numbers are readable, at all! Neither the scroll tag nor graph width fixes that. Have a look at the graphs on China's article, the graphs only have data for four months and the dates are already messy! An example of what this will look like in the next couple of months is:

The Solution to this? [This is an issue in its own right provided users insist on keeping bar graphs]

Keeping only months or weeks in the graphs instead of days.
Graphs for every month with days placed under an 'Extended content' tag (not recommended as that will overload the page + will likely be seen as too much redundant information)

OPTION B: Line with Dots - Good because the dots represent individual days

OPTION C: Plain Line - Does not represent individual days

OPTION D: Area - Does not represent individual days

Merged Option instead of having multiple graphs littering the article

OPTION E: Merged Linear Progression (Can be edited to show to plain lines and area)

Proponents of bar graphs need to understand that it is not a feasible option. Yes, it shows valuable daily data but sooner without scroll, it will look like the example below. No one can read anything then! And with scroll, there's no limit to its width - It could keep on going for 2 or even three page widths wide!

Also, the parameter added for the graphs which show the start dates for every week, does not work for bar graphs. It yields this results:

Shawnqual (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Option A because why make readers guess when looking at a chart? Also, the chart doesn't have to be every single day for the next 2 years. 1.5-2 months is enough data while the number of cases keep growing. // sikander { talk } 🦖 18:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Option A seems fine to me? What's the issue with scrolling? JoelleJay (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Ritchie92 from the discussion on Italy's article, I think that looking at a chart without having to scroll through it until the end is a huge advantage (and remember that this pandemic can last a year or so!) and it means that one can get the full picture of the pandemic behaviour in one look. Understanding trends and long-term variations on a graph that is three pagewidths long is not easy. So I am strongly against the proposal of having a scrollable graph just for the reason of having the numbers on the plot. The numbers are already in the tables! -- Shawnqual (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Very good, Shawnqual. Excellent array of options. I think A is the best, knowing that this pandemic is far from finished. -- Veggies (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "This is incredibly important information for Americans to be able to see..." I disagree totally, and have stated why on talk pages. I've also asked two times whether any U.S. editors thought the charts and graphs were of use at the top, and got no responses. IMO, it's not that they are useless at the top of the article, but that they are harmful, and should be in a statistics section, with a hatnote near the top of the article body. --Light show (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the charts are last under Statistics section. If you are referring to the medical cases chart, that is mostly placed in the Timeline sections, but since there is already state data table placed in the Timeline section, it has been pushed to the top. Which isn't really an issue.Shawnqual (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Shawnqual for citing our discussion in the Italian page. I disagree totally with the argument that one "has to" see the numbers on the plot. And frankly I don't understand why is this coming up now for the COVID plots? Usually plots (even in scientific publications) do not show also the values on themselves, but just the lines, with the markers on the axes. The presence of the numbers is just an optional additional feature and really unnecessary to understand the trend (which is the main point of having a plot). The detailed numbers should be somewhere else. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Option A Because it's the only option readable and shows the exact number of new cases. The line graph on the page needs to be reverted back to the bar until a consensus is determined here and it currently shows that the current sampling of editors here want option A for the readability reason and reliance on exact numbers shown. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 07:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Reliance on the exact numbers shown"... this is ridiculous. You know that you and everyone else can always check that numbers are correct if you just click "edit source", right? Why in the world should one not trust the numbers inserted in such a graph – that everyone can check and correct at any time –, when at the same time on this page there are maps and charts that are static images taken from Wikimedia, with inaccessible source, one single editor, and with no number whatsoever (except for the legend, maybe), and are located in very prominent places in the article! Why don't you ask for numbers to be shown on top of each state in the density map that appears in the infobox at the top of the page then? I say that the numbers on the daily plots are just as unnecessary as the numbers on the US map. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Ritchie92, the reasoning and logic behind displaying numbers does not outweigh the current design constraints (if any that is; numbers not displayed in other options).

Sikander, JoelleJay, Veggies and Sawblade5, Please see the issue regarding Option A above. --Shawnqual (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Shawnqual, does no one else have an issue with the line graphs stretching the page out too much? I never have a window in fullscreen on my laptop, so all the line graphs extend off the page for me anyway; a scrollable chart seems much more, or at least equally, usable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: 1) The major issue with bar graphs is not of "stretching the page". That can be easily fixed with the scroll tag like in Option A. 2) The major issue has been highlighted under Option A. Please have a look. 3) It goes without saying that formatting of a page considers users viewing the page in full screen. No amount of formatting could ever give the same experience as a full screen for users of minimized screens. This is because any user can have a varying width of the minimized screen, so they are bound to see the page differently, like yours, the scrolls you are seeing are from the browser and not of the wikipedia page itself. That issue is on user's end and not on wikipedia's end. Therefore, your reasoning is invalid.--Shawnqual (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Shawnqual So why not have the graph formatted like it is in the cases chart at the beginning of the article? Tables typically have autowidening to account for screen width differences, why not do the same for charts? JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: From what I know, the template (chart) at the beginning follows a fixed module while there is no template for bar graphs as of yet. I tried to use autowidening for the graph the same way it is used for tables, but it doesn't work. --Shawnqual (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92, You're adding an unnecessary step of clicking "edit source" to find out what yesterday's (or the previous few days) numbers were. I find that more "ridiculous." // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to understand that most readers on wikipedia are not looking for detailed information but rather a general overview of happenings. The main group to whom these numbers matter; researchers and statisticians are very unlikely to use wikipedia as main source for daily statistics. For any average reader, the importance of what the numbers were on, for instance, Mar 3 or Apr 14 are irrelevant. While we may prefer presenting daily numbers, the bigger question is what purpose does it achieve for the readers? Most importantly, having intricate and detailed information is also against these policies:

WP:DIRECTORY -- Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter.
WP:PLOT -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

(3) Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.

---Shawnqual (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The numbers and all other numerical details should be already in another place like a table. As Shawnqual says, we cannot limit our graphical options because it's necessary to have numbers printed for each day on the plot. The plot is there to get the trend and visualize it in a nice way, not to read the exact numbers at each point in time. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Precisely! And such a table with even more detail exists here. ---Shawnqual (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be particularly interesting to take note of all the objections against a line graph with the point values showing when hovering the mouse pointer over the dot on the line graph - probably something as nonsensical as "Understanding trends and long-term variations on a graph that is three pagewidths long is not easy. So I am strongly against the proposal of having a scrollable graph just for the reason of having the numbers on the plot. The numbers are already in the tables." - as though any sort of graph wouldn't eventually extend to the point of having to be scrollable, labels or not. How would you otherwise look at a graph of three page-widths long? How many other people are encumbered by the memory span deficiency to forget the first part of a picture which they have started scrolling through less than a second before? Typical Trump sort of argument. The unfathomable depths of sheer technical expertise are equally astounding: "No amount of formatting could ever give the same experience as a full screen for users of minimized screens. This is because any user can have a varying width of the minimized screen, so they are bound to see the page differently, like yours, the scrolls you are seeing are from the browser and not of the wikipedia page itself. That issue is on user's end and not on wikipedia's end." Another pearl of ultimate wisdom reads thus: "We need to understand that most readers on wikipedia are not looking for detailed information but rather a general overview of happenings." How and by whom is detailed information defined? How and by whom is general overview defined? Happenings? When and where has this survey been undertaken across all of Wikipedia? Carry on, constable - this is getting more interesting as the arguments go by. Makes one thankful for being on the autism spectrum and not being on a diminished faculties spectrum. Timflamink (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I won't reply to the childish personal attacks, but if they happen again I will report them.

To reply to the funny statements by this editor: as though any sort of graph wouldn't eventually extend to the point of having to be scrollable ermmmm, no, that's the whole point of this conversation. With the "date" type graph you can fix the final width of your graph and squeeze as many months of data you wish without having to worry about visual clarity. An example is below. How would you otherwise look at a graph of three page-widths long? That's the point, you don't need to! On WP we have plenty of graphs that show, say, economic data, that span decades, and they are not "scrollable", they appear in one finite-length, and one can see the trend in one go without having to scroll. I don't see why for a pandemic that is by now only a few months old it is justified to use an unnecessarily long scrollable graph.

An example of how would it look for the span February-December is below. This is how a graph should look like. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"I don't see why for a pandemic that is by now only a few months old it is justified to use an unnecessarily long scrollable graph." However, right now, it's a matter of life and death whether bar labels would be readable in a month. "This is how a graph should look like." You do have some special training, knowledge and experience with statistics and all it entails on which you base this statement and are eager to share with us, do you not? "Squeeze as many months of data you wish without having to worry about visual clarity" - it's about squeezing a line, not data which you cannot see anywhere on that graph: and of course, with things such as graphs, "visual clarity" is just something which comes in the way of not knowing what you are talking about. Right, Richie. I've started and run a professional graphical unit with ten university-trained people and huge IT systems for professional statistics on government level during the 1980's and 1990's, so I'm not merely spouting a lot of hot air. With a lot of other work to do and systems to run, people could walk into my office whenever they wanted to and personally complain about stuff, whether or not they knew what they were talking about - it wasn't a sort of anonymous conversation like this. A huge lot of that was about graphs, specifically about crime statistics, what they represented and the message / information that millions of people - inter alia quite a few other government agencies - would get from them and then complain on their part: including politicians who each had their own idea of how they were depicted in the process. I couldn't really be bothered about what you do here (hence mentioning the autistic part), since I have a system spidering the information of ALL of the countries involved in this as it gets updated in "real time", verifying it against reputed and suspect sources and drawing any sort of graph I want in a matter of seconds, representing whatever I want however I want it. You might not know a lot about autism, but I sleep roughly two hours a night and I have a lot of 'obsessions', amongst them virus epidemics, starting with the first Ebola one - which, by the way, I've personally seen under an electron microscope in a biosafety level 4 lab, as I've had the opportunity to see this one. With rather a lot of loose time on hand during a lockdown, looking around the www for the ways and means of how people handle this sort of statistics right now, is simply another "obsession". That's apart from still suffering the effects of an unknown viral infection since June last year, which has recently been identified as something akin to the current one - which makes this whole issue a bit more personal than for the average Wikipedia reader. Now be a nice chap and run along, why don't you, and extend your nice graph for another year and a half - and see how it looks then. Insert some really weird figures which causes the rhythm we've seen with this thing, to be totally disrupted and ask an interested person to have a look at it - you then explaining to him what happened there without the benefit of a table of the figures, because that's why we have graphs - people are better with understanding stuff from pictures than huge tables with hundreds and thousands and later hundreds of thousands of figures, even if they had the patience to study tables to understand them. I'll not be astounded if he tells you that it's rubbish. By the way, equally run along along and do the "reporting" - another wee quirk of many of the autism sort of person, is that we don't inherently understand the concept of fear, let alone threats, about which I could be bothered less. What will happen? Have me booted off of Wikipedia? That would really hurt me, I'll tell you. To have yourself properly riled up, read what I've written under 29 Progression charts and 39 Bar graphs under progression charts, even before this storm in a teacup erupted. Then have a look at other Coronavirus articles on Wikipedia where bargraphs are still employed and where nobody complains about them. You might think that people are simply complaining about the line graphs because they want to be quarrelsome - but many of them became familiar with the bar graphs - whether or not they would be able to read the values in two months: it's about seeing the picture they want to see there. Before you do the reporting to the headmaster for bad behaviour, though (with which I'm more familiar than you could imagine, and still they objected when I wanted to leave them to sort out the produce of their own mistakes) reply to the stuff in my comment, starting with "It would be particularly interesting to take note of all the objections against a line graph with the point values showing when hovering the mouse pointer over the dot on the line graph" - which should be grown-up's play for a specialist such as yourself. I unequivocally extend respect to people who prove that they deserve it - the rest are treated as obnoxiously childish - even thought they don't understand it 90% of the time. There you go. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. Timflamink (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It was inspiring to read about your autobiography here, but probably a bit too much information.

Now, I find all your objections to my post wrong, and I think they are due to an obsession to have numbers on top of bars even if it would cause an indefinitely long (and unreadable) bar chart.

extend your nice graph for another year and a half - and see how it looks then If I extend the graph for another 1.5 years, the graphical situation will be very similar to the one in the graph above (see below). Of course one can then adjust the height and the width according to what looks better (as I did below), but these are small details: there would still be absolutely no need of a scrollable graph. Another option could be of separating the graphs in different periods, i.e. having more than one graph (I can't predict the future, but it might be that in some months the behaviour of the curves will be very different and so we could separate the "main (or first) peak" from the rest), but this is just to say that there are many options, all are valid and nice. But the idea of having to scroll three pages to read a graph that has only three months of data, just to keep the numerical figures on top of the bars, would really cause a bad visualization and interpretation of the data from the readers.

What will happen? Have me booted off of Wikipedia? Some behaviours are not accepted on Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well Richie, I have to admire your patience with me. At least you're one of the few people who haven't yet abandoned the cause because of my absence of personality - for the very obvious evidence you've seen here. Please don't consider any of it as 'n personal attack - I'm simply reacting to the stuff you write; and at the same time, we're also having a bit of fun - should one of us die of the virus, this would matter even less than it does now. The first thing we should get out of the way, is the argument about bar charts with labels, shall we? They do work in other articles and people do want to see them, but suppose that they didn't. It seems that your whole issue is about not having values on whatever format of a chart, come hell or high water. For the third time, then, what is wrong with a line chart such as yours (not showing any labels initially) which would show every entry point's value when a mouse pointer is hovered over them - for those nonexistent Wikipedia readers who are interested in that sort of detail (and who have already indicated as such)? Next, since you've already taken the trouble, kindly get your latest graph example the same width than the previous example - because that's what I meant - and then produce it here again for perusal. As things stand, I can't scroll on the chart, thus I have to scroll on the web browser to see the whole thing. Pardon my ignorance, but perhaps I've missed the part of the explanation why there's a difference between getting a bad visualisation from scrolling on a graph, but not when scrolling off the article with the web browser. I can't remember ever seen something similar. Then, please be specific when stating "I find all your objections to my post wrong" - right here, it sounds a bit as though it's the Orange Factor answering a journalist at a White House briefing; not an academic discussion about technical stuff. Again, where is the accepted research or whatever for stating "would really cause a bad visualization and interpretation of the data from the readers", or is that just your opinion which contradicts several other users having commented here? Timflamink (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

what is wrong with a line chart such as yours ... which would show every entry point's value when a mouse pointer is hovered over them ...? Well, there is no option for this using the Template:Graph:Chart. But if there were this option that would be fine of course, that's just more information with the same or similar visual effect. why there's a difference between getting a bad visualisation from scrolling on a graph, but not when scrolling off the article with the web browser well it's easy: in the so-called Option A in this discussion, since you guys are so stubborn about the numbers on the plot, we can only see less than two months of data in one place, and then we already need to start scrolling. On the other hand, if the pandemic will ever need a graph that is two-years long, as in my example above, a year of data (or even more if you are willing to squeeze more) is visible without having to scroll even on a smartphone web browser. where is the accepted research or whatever for stating "would really cause a bad visualization and interpretation of the data from the readers", or is that just your opinion which contradicts several other users having commented here? And where is your accepted research about this instead? We don't need research to understand that a plot which is six-pages long is more difficult to follow than a plot which is one-page long (and in this case even less). This is common sense. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How about having a scrollable Option A for people who need more daily detail AND Option E for the whole picture thing? Is that a good compromise? Having two graphs for the whole country won't crowd the page too much, not when we have the separate state dot plots and such. WikiUser70176 (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I surely approve, however wouldn't then "Option A" be equivalent to a table with data, since we would already have another place where the full picture is visualized? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiUser70176, Ritchie92 means this table. --Shawnqual (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie92 Yes, it most surely would be equivalent. But a table is not a picture :). What I mean is that whereas the table data surely provides the same info, being put in a bar graph format allows readers to quickly form an opinion of the progression, particularly as it might be relevant with each user's needs (date when my state went in lockdown, date when we could find isopropanol in pharmacies again, data when country-wide antibody test was implemented, etc.). Besides, having bar graphs would match most official sources and media outlets, so people are more used to seeing graphs than tables. Even crowded graphs are better than no graphs. WikiUser70176 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I am not arguing for the removal of the graphs. I am saying that it would be much easier to achieve the goal that you also mentioned with a graph that is compact and does not have to be scrolled multiple times to be visualized completely. And by the way one can always easily get the approximate value at some date by using the grid on the graph: that's what the the ticks on the Y axis are for! One could even put marks in correspondence of the events that you mentioned.

In summary, if you think that duplicating the graph would be a solution, that's fine. I still think the second bar graph is not necessary. You say having bar graphs would match most official sources and media outlets, well from a quick research, NY Times, CNN and NBC News use bar graphs without numbers on top (otherwise they would have to enlarge their graphs too). That would obviously also be a solution, except that there is a bug in the Template:Graph:Chart with the date format and the bar graph, meaning that for the time being we cannot achieve a visualization like the ones of the news outlets cited above. See the discussions in Template talk:Graph:Chart#X-Axis label format bug? (xAxisFormat =) and Template talk:Graph:Chart#Crowding of x-axis labels. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Questionable use of charts and tables

There are some questions I have about both of the giant charts and tables at the top of the page. The questions concern the data given and whether much of it is of little or no use. Although the actual data is accurate, IMO most of the data may actually provide no relevant information.

Since I anticipate this topic may go on for a while, I'll simply start by giving some general concerns. The table COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by state and territory, under the Timeline section, has some questionable columns:

Cases. A reading of this NPR article implies some obvious problems with that column. Primarily, it's that until a test is done and it comes out positive, there can be no "case." The next fact is that each state uses its own criteria for doing tests, and those criteria have changed over time. The general guideline has been: "First, test all symptomatic people, then reach out to their close contacts and test them..." In addition, "each state's specific need for testing varies depending on the size of its outbreak." But until a state does all the required tests, it can't come up with an accurate case count to establish the size of its outbreak. And test kits have only recently become more widely available, although not everyone wants to bother getting tested, and no one seems to know why.

But it gets even more complicated. the Harvard Global Health Institute calculated how much testing would be needed for a state to test all infected people and any close contacts, and came up with an suggested test of 10 contacts on average. On top of that, some states have until recently only tested, or were able to test, those with symptoms. And the CDC and the experts until recently suggested people with symptoms (even for cold or flu), just stay home and isolate themselves until they got worse. Then we can add in nursing homes, which until very recently didn't test much at all, yet now many states have discovered more than half of their Covid deaths happened inside them, although they were never declared cases since no tests were done.

Besides that one table, the article refers to cases 107 times. That seems to be a massive focus on data that relies on so many variables, with the result that the attention to case counts may be of little use and could also be very misleading. For instance, the table is ranked by cases, which shows California having the 5th highest case count. However, its death rate puts it at number 29. Or Texas, which has the 8th largest number of cases, but is 38th in the death rate.

Recoveries and Hospitalizations. Considering just the case counts being of little benefit, these two columns have even less significance, nor are they even explained. I therefore feel that this single table should be removed as it not only takes up valuable space in the article but the data is of little value and misleading. Maybe some variation of this draft table would be of more value. --Light show (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the bleach debacle not mentioned?

Why is there no mention of Trump telling people that injecting themselves with bleach and UV rays might be a cure? Is Wikipedia compromised or is there still hope for it to be impartial? There's been a suspicious lack of content on these country-specific COVID pages regarding the response of certain leaders, specifically those of the US and England, and the negative reactions they have received from around the world. Dyaluk08 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There would need to be consensus on what was actually said. First, Trump never used the word "bleach". Second, he never suggested that anyone inject themselves with anything. He DID speculate that injecting a disinfectant of some sort might be "interesting" to investigate. He also speculated about how "powerful light" could be useful.

The characterizations of "bleach" and "people injecting themselves" and "UV light" were not part of the original public statement. Would using only direct quotes from world leaders public statements without interpretation satisfy your interests? Lantrick (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

YES. Tell us.

Where are the conspiracy patrols when their assistance is supremely urgent to defend impartiality against the secret, nameless, faceless, evil and dark influences of the fascist, ultra far-right conservative cabal which has now eventually taken over Wikipedia lock, stock and barrel, having compromised it and now forever holding it hostage? Whatever happened to precious, objective impartiality and where has its hope gone, leaving us in this quagmire of suspicion, fraud and corruption - particularly those stuffed with bleach and injections and ultra-violet debacles? Whatever happened to common literacy, such as having today's liberal political kicks by reading "Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic" (on Wikipedia, mind you, of all the possible non-impartial, compromised places) under the sub-heading Light and disinfectants in stead of ignorantly starting to type before you've started to read a most strictly objective, impartial article wholly dedicated specifically to an obsessive, incessantly-repeated daily ration of really boring Trump-thumping? Honestly. Timflamink (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding potential HIPAA controversy: https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-sharing-coronavirus-patients-addresses-with-law-enforcement Mlepisto (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Litigation / Legal issues

I apologize if this is covered, the page is a lot to read on mobile. Should legal issues and litigation be mentioned? Ex: https://thehill.com/homenews/498676-workers-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-mcdonalds-over-coronavirus-precautions Mlepisto (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, potential HIPAA concerns. https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-sharing-coronavirus-patients-addresses-with-law-enforcement Mlepisto (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's three different US death totals listed. Statistics are consistently incorrect.

My apologies in that I don't totally understand how the WIKI process works.

Initially during the CV pandemic Wikipedia was a great source for statistics on cases and death counts. For at least a month it has been dwindling to being totally ignorable. I'm very confused as to how that's come about.

There are three different death totals right now (at least) listed for the US. 90,694 here (which reflects worldometer (91,985) and Johns Hopkins (90,369): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic

Here there's 84,231 on the bar graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States and 83,580 on the state tallies

There is not a single more important data point given the lack of testing that's been done then a correct number of fatalities. The fact that these numbers don't agree make the page totally ignorable. How can anything else be trusted when there is a discrepancy of 5000-6000 deaths between two linked pages?

Why not just use the Hopkins data for the updates?

I really liked that Wikipedia was breaking out the state by state data by day, something that Worldometer and JH aren't doing consistently. But seeing such large internal discrepancies makes me question any data I'm looking at. Paulmcevoy75 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcevoy75 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paulmcevoy75: Hello there and thanks for bringing this up. Some notes:

The bar graph and the state tallies table both reflect the total number of deaths as reported by state health authorities. My understanding is that because states all have slightly different metrics as to how they report death numbers (for example, some states might use only lab-confirmed cases in their totals, while others might include presumed COVID-19 deaths), the number may not (or does not) equal the the number reported by the CDC or JHU.
Although the bar graph and the state tallies table both draw from state resources, the the bar graph is kept better up-to-date than the table (the totals in the bar graph were last updated on 5/18, while the totals in the state tallies table were last updated on 5/17), which might explain why those numbers are different. I plan to try to update the table later today if I have some extra time.

Hope this helps. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well. The problem is really a bit larger than that. A lot of the issues with the figures are discussed at Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases. I'm really a bit tired of arguing with all the Wikipedia prodigies and geniuses (refer to all the stuff I've written on this talk page if you're interested) and explaining stuff three times without any of it going anywhere but against a brick wall; so here's an experiment that you might want to conduct for yourself and see the results. After realising some weird stuff going on with the COVID-19 figures on Wikipedia, I've started copying and pasting (by hand) the tables from which some of the figures are derived, and pasted them into a common spread sheet every day. I've repeated this process for a month now. I'll leave it to you to see what the results are – for example the figures changing all of the time, even weeks retroactively. First of all you might want to look at the date columns of Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases and see that the date displayed on the table as on the Wikipedia page, does not correspond to the date that eventually shows up on a spreadsheet. Probably the best reason I can think of to look at the Wikipedia stuff, is to have a good laugh. Timflamink (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a lot of Wikipedia chaps have a lot to say about Worldometer, almost all of it negative criticism. What they do have, though – apart from regular updates – is an almost daily explanation of how and why figures have changed if, for example, deaths are reclassified. Timflamink (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Then, all of a sudden, the world recoveries figure on COVID-19_pandemic_by_country_and_territory are down by more than a 100,000. Timflamink (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

World recoveries figure down by another 1,000,000 in less than 24 hours. Timflamink (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Few, if any, of us are prodigies or geniuses. What we are are unpaid volunteers. That means the work only gets done, if and when someone is willing and able to do it. And we often do not have access to the best sources because they are behind pay-walls. Also we often disagree among ourselves as to which sources to use and how the work should be done. So inconsistencies are inevitable. That is why Wikipedia itself is not classified as a reliable source. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My dear chap, don't misunderstand me. I have a great lot of regard for volunteering, since I've been doing that with a lot of different sorts of children for decades now – scouts, drug addicts, abused, gifted, autism, et cetera. The problem with much of volunteering though, in my experience, is that you can hardly dismiss them, seldom teach them much and all sorts of arguments dribble down the avenue of not antagonising one or the other, simply because they give their time gratis. Many of those are far more of a stumbling block than a help, though. Imagine a volunteer getting highly upset when I – being autistic myself and having lived with it for more than fifty years – worked with autistic children (having been one myself) in a certain manner which didn't agree with her blatantly stupid ideas about the issue, derived from a rubbish website. When three other people tried to teach her something and it's incidentally the sort of thing that I'd do, a tantrum from hell was certain to follow. It went on for months before she left, disgusted with my ignorance. I've read many of the talk pages about a lot of subjects on Wikipedia, and I'm astounded at the sort of rubbish that people argue about – something such as a three months' long feud over a single sentence, or a bloke simply deleting more than ninety percent of an article without a single explanation, giving moronic reasons and not replacing it with anything. That's apart from some editors being completely ridiculous with their comments on a certain article – references or citations, for example, marking out every single sentence and questioning every statement – while the pages of other articles are filled with absolutely nothing to refer to, without anyone making any comment about it. Lots of these editors also most certainly have more regard for the Wikipedia “rules” than they have for common sense or intelligence - bringing them up in droves whenever possible, especially when queried. All of this happens against the backdrop of a continual nagging that everything should be 'encyclopaedic'. I've always considered the loudest naysayers about Wikipedia to be positively riffraff – the parasitic sort that never contributes but always criticises - simply because I've argued that anyone can look up the referenced sources if anything is in doubt. Now, I'm not so certain any longer. Thing is, from a lot of the stuff on the talk pages I've realised that many of the editors don't even read the talk page properly – never mind a casual reader looking up references in an article that he's reading. At issue here is mostly the sources of figures which are being used – specifically, which are correct and which are not. What I'd like to know is – why are there discrepancies between the figures released by CDC, Johns Hopkins and whoever else; and why don't any of them tally with the figures purportedly issued by the different states of the US? The US is supposed to be a first rate first world country – but they can't get this basic stuff right? For all of their mistakes, do you see this sort of thing from Britain or Germany? Turkey? Brazil? Gonorrhoea? From the outside it doesn't look much of first rate. Then “Wikipedia” compounds the problem by mixing and matching sources – as you've said and we all know by know, because each editor knows better than everyone. From the outside – again – this is more a US culture sort of problem than any other thing. In the mean time, volunteers such as yourself are incidentally associated with the small very-non-encylopaedic chaos reigning about this issue, for example. I've skimmed your user page (we do have a bit in common in terms of interests) and you're certainly not the sort of person who should be rewarded with an association with sloppy work or thinking. Since you are who you are with the mind that you have, can't you start thinking up a way in which the Wikipedia system could be rid of this specific problem that's hamstringing it in several respects? I think the basic problem starts with 'anyone can be an editor' – even an eleven year old 'editing' stuff which is clearly vastly beyond his faculties; starting with his basic reading and non-comprehension. As a last thought, I might add that Wikipedia isn't anywhere classified as anything other than a reliable source, either. Timflamink (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've actually forgotten that at the top of this very talk page, the second second issue, is another example of an editor deleting a lot of stuff, while opponents of this action can apparently not get satisfactory reasons for the deletions. Timflamink (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Timflamink: I might add that Wikipedia isn't anywhere classified as anything other than a reliable source, either. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Google search gives a higher number with a link to this page.

When you do a google search for number of U.S. cases/deaths they give 1.6 million cases with 96,276 deaths. The source they give is this Wiki page and a link to WHO. Yet both this link and the WHO situation report 123 for May 22 2020 says it is 1.52 Million cases with 91,527 deaths. I assume that this is the fault of Google, but why the discrepancy? This is not just today either, I noticed their number was higher than that of my newspaper a few days ago. Can anything be done about this from WIKI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSmith86 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, the sources here for numbers are have been selected based on their authority and reliability (JHU, CDC and CTP). The article can be linked as a source for other places outside of wikipedia, but wikipedia cannot guarantee if the exact same information is stated on its behalf. Discrepancies in Google's numbers is their issue, not Wikipedia's. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 02:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How about the recovery rate, many states and many counties too don't report how many have recovered from COVID-19. Won't be a surprise over half of 1.5-1.6 million current confirmed cases recovered. I have a hard time accepting the statistics of how many are infected, recovered or died from the pandemic in the US, having 3 different sources of data doesn't help for an online encyclopedia. 2605:E000:100D:C571:6DCE:ABEA:BC50:DF93 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

This edit request to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

- - THIS IS NOT AN EDIT BUT A WARNING AS TO AN ERRONEOUS, FRAUDULENT OR MISLEADING CHART ***

I would like to know the source of the chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CoViD-19_US.svg which appears between edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=953442922 when it is NOT present and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=953442922 when it IS present. The declared user MicheleTB does not seem to be recorded as adding the chart.

I would very much like to know what the straight lines on the chart represent. I cannot see them annotated or mentioned in the text.

If I was a NAIVE member of the public I might be tempted to think that they were the growth rate PRE-Lockdown and POST-lockdown

I note that the contributor (as yet undetermined) has chosen not to label them as such. Perhaps this is an example of "I didn't like (see Gary Hanington's article on ElkoDaily.com 'The Power of the Positive Exponential').

However with so much misinformation going around, information which APPEARS to support the effectiveness of Lockdown and that does so ERRONEOUSLY, MISLEADINGLY or FRAUDULENTLY is not only to be avoided, but it could give rise to civil or criminal prosecution.

I trust that you recognise a Sigmoid curve when you see one. To imply that its natural shape is in fact UNNATURAL and the result of a government policy would be an outright lie. Clearly Wikipedia do not wish to support that.

Please let me know when you have identified the source, received notice of the meaning of those lines and their intended interpretation.

I suggest that you revise the chart accordingly, adding a proper annotation as to what those lines ARE and what they are NOT.

(Redacted)

Jeremiaz (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read the page File:CoViD-19 US.svg you will see that it cites WHO and that the lines indicate the slopes, highlighting the difference between the maximum growth and the current growth. In the diff you link, User:MicheleTB is clearly marked as being the author of the edit. The chart makes no conclusions about what caused the change in growth rates, but I agree the label should be clarified. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First case

If the information is correct, that a New Jersey city mayor had the coronavirus in November of 2019, why isn't that considered the first case in the United States? The information is already on the wiki, shouldn't it be more prevalent? That date being so early compared to what China's saying their first case was in late December, this case predates the first case by over a month, plus it was in the United States. That means ground zero isnt Wuhan China, its New Jersey, U.S.A. Shouldn't this be important? Alkqn (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in emphasizing such false information. It just adds to the confusion. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of healthcare workers killed by COVID-19 in the US

I thought I heard on All Things Considered today, May 27, 2020 that over 500 healthcare workers have been killed by COVID-19 in the US. I think they said the number came from a healthcare organization. Nurses?

I didn't see this info in the article when I scanned it. Anybody know a reliable source for this? --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence, The COVID-19 pandemic spread to the United States on January 19, 2020., seems a little overconfident to me. We don't actually know for sure when the first case was, just when the first identified case was. Should we change the wording to be a little more cautious? If so, how? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The first known case of COVID-19 in the United States was recorded on January 19, 2020.? Or The first known United States case of COVID-19 was recorded on January 19, 2020.? Or (emphasis for talk section only) The first known case of COVID-19 in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. and then later in the lede mention the Jan 20 report was for a man who first presented to a hospital on the 19th. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb and JoelleJay: - the first sentence is bogus. The second identified person arrived in the U.S. from Wuhan on 13 January ~~2019~~ 2020. [1] starship .paint (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint a whole year early?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: - sorry, I’m living in the past. It was 2020. starship .paint (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Manipulation of statistics by states

Official state data is untrustworthy now it seems. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical change to "Timeline" section

The first sentence of the second sentence in the "Timeline" section currently reads as follows:

"A few weeks earlier, on January 6, the Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar states that U.S. offered to send a team of CDC health experts to China to help contain the outbreak."

I think it's clear that this sentence was intended to be in the past tense and the current text has a typo or two. Please change the sentence to:

"A few weeks earlier, on January 6, the Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar stated that the U.S. offered to send a team of CDC health experts to China to help contain the outbreak."

104.13.110.123 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you. —Cryptic 04:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Justification for the 15 day graphic?

I am annoyed that the chart of cases, deaths, and "recoveries*". What is the justification for only showing 15 days? Given that the data OBVIOUSLY shows a 7 day period, 15 days is only two cycles - far too few to see what the trend is, especially when it's currently believed (last I heard, may not be up-to-date) that 1) from infection(exposure) to first symptoms averages 5 days and from symptoms to death is several weeks (I think I read 18-24 days(?)). 15 Days is way, way too short. It should be AT LEAST 30 days, and why shouldn't it be every day since mid-March (when shutdowns began) or even earlier?? (*whatever "recoveries" means,I also suggest removal of "recoveries" from the chart because it is (as of Jun 2, 2020) without clear validity. We don't know what the medium and long term effects of the virus are, so claiming that X patients recovered is different than making a verifiable claim that X patients have been discharged or X patients have reported *feeling* "normal/recovered". I do know that someone I know was released from hospital after ventilation & medical coma (due to covid-19) and he is home but has physical therapy 2x/wk and still uses a walker (was a healthy mid-50's guy). Would he qualify as "recovered"? I hope he does, but he sure isn't there yet.)174.130.70.61 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You can change how much of the graph displays for you by clicking the months at the top (there will be a blue rectangle around the selected options). The reason it defaults to 15 days is because otherwise we would have a very long graph filling up the whole screen, making it difficult for especially mobile users to navigate the article. I agree that "recoveries" is not a reliable metric, especially since many states don't even report them, and the ones that do often release numbers sporadically. JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Protest

I`m confused..is there anything here about the protests ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:616B:CFAC:C9E5:716A (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See Public response. Username⁶⁸⁹² 00:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The protests, whether against the policy on COVID-19 or the killing of George Floyd, will just create opportunities for COVID-19 to spread from one person to another at the protests. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That`s not what I asked...why is there nothing about the protest ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:616B:CFAC:C9E5:716A (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Username6892 already answered your specific question. On the contrary, there is something on the protests. If you click the link and read the section, you will find that it says:

"Beginning in mid-April 2020, there were protests in several U.S. states against government-imposed lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The protests, mostly organized by conservative groups and individuals, decried the economic and social impact of stay-at-home orders, business closures, and restricted personal movement and association, and demanded that their state be 're-opened' for normal business and personal activity. The protests made international news and were widely condemned as unsafe and ill-advised. They ranged in size from a few hundred people to several thousand, and spread on social media with encouragement from U.S. President Donald Trump. By May 1, there had been demonstrations in more than half of the states, and many governors began to take steps to lift the restrictions.".

OK? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Click what link ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Public response. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Measuring case and mortality rates, diagram of excess mortality

The diagram shows an excess mortality of 53 % for USA. The actual data are given here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Cdc.gov shows an excess mortality of circa 106.000 death from Mar 15 to May 23.

Table COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by state and territory gives the data: 62 death (Mar 15) and 90.820 death (May 23) -> difference of 90.760. So the percentage variation is 15%.

Please excuse my poor English, best greetings from Germany, Ulrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoppi99 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Paper Masks

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don`t understand how Wikipedia can not have the lack of paper masks for the public noted here..as far as I know Amazon is backed up until July..this is disturbing as many people are obviously not wearing a mask because they can`t get one 2600:1702:2340:9470:E5F1:2BE4:4AB0:2FCA (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but masks have been proven to reduce the spread of virus carrying cough droplets Ed6767 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your point ? Yes masks help that`s why people need them..they don`t know where to get them...I`ve been waiting a month for one cloth mask with paper masks being back ordered 2600:1702:2340:9470:E5F1:2BE4:4AB0:2FCA (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Still nothing on this? The thing that shocked me most about this outbreak is most of the video from other parts of the world shows virtually everyone wearing masks..here no where close to 1/2 now people going out not even trying to social distance..apparently masks may be becoming more available but what happened here to let this happen..it seems like a simple thing but people are not wearing mask or even talking about availability 2600:1702:2340:9470:78EF:646E:A915:5344 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)0

We were told not to wear the high-quality masks because that would (allegedly) make it harder for healthcare workers to get them. So I had to wait for my sister-in-law to hand-make a cheap mask for me. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That`s what I`m getting at..the healthcare workers do need the better masks..we need masks too..where are they ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:78EF:646E:A915:5344 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this unimportant ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:4408:1A12:9A12:309E (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Things do not just appear because they are needed and this is important. They only appear when someone takes the trouble to make them. If no one has taken the trouble to make the masks, or if someone has but no one has bothered to answer your question, then your question will just go unanswered. Sorry, but that is the way the world works. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I get that..what I don`t get is why the US can`t come up with at least paper masks for it`s citizens..there should at least be something about this in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:616B:CFAC:C9E5:716A (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that you do get it, or else you would not keep asking the same question.

Some entities, such as doctor's offices and restaurants, are handing out masks to their clients who do not have them. Getting masks for people is not considered a normal function of government by most Americans. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of government to protect it`s citizens..the lack of masks available to the public is important..obvious..relevant to this article..and should be included here 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

See this. According to Ayn Rand, the only legitimate function of government is to place the retaliatory use of physical force (by people against people) under objective control. This does NOT include protecting people from natural phenomena such as: disease, hunger, old age, ignorance, bad weather, etc.. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is a bias statement..you have one random reference..any reasonable person would say it is the function of the state to ensure the welfare of it`s people..at least some paper masks so if people have to go out side they have a barrier between themselves and others and at least some protection not to mention spreading it..This needs to be in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:69E9:6D24:2624:228B (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A truly "reasonable person" would realize that government (police, army, navy, air-force, and the superstructure of executives, courts, legislature, etc. which directs those armed men) operates by applying force against people, that is, depriving them of their freedom. Any good thing which people could do under the command of government could be done freely without that command. The only appropriate use of force is to stop people from doing destructive things. And government should limit itself to just that. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What does any of that mean in English ? What I`m saying there has been a shortage of masks and it should be in the article...what`s so complicated about that ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:978:289E:D3CB:F447 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That problem is going away without enslaving people to the government. My mother now has two masks: (1) one made from recycled materials by my brother's wife, and (2) one high quality mask she received from the beauty parlor where she got her permanent today. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You`re point being ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:978:289E:D3CB:F447 (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No. I should be asking "what is your point?". If you have a point, find a reliable source which says it and put it into the article yourself instead of just making meaningless complaints. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My point it there is a shortage of mask and rubber gloves and that it should be in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:3973:AD0C:B5D:9CEE (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is gibberish. In your sense of "shortage", there is always a shortage of every good and service. So you are merely stating a universal fact of life.

If you use the word "shortage" as it is used in economics. It would mean that the price is too low to limit the demand to the available supply. I see no evidence that that is the case here. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Then open your eyes..there are a lot of people walking around without masks on 2600:1702:2340:9470:C9AD:52B9:3F0:2711 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there any country where that is not the case, except those where it is a crime? JRSpriggs (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is why some people shouldn't be able to edit. Alkqn (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)