The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)
"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)
Page title
COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).
SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)
Map
There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)
There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
Other talk page banners
Material from Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.
Hi! What do you think about a section on the draft for internacional reactions from experts, businesses world leaders, etc...?
I'm able to supply the article with sources from portuguese and/or English. For example...
On 4th of February, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa [President of the Portuguese Republic] admitted that the epidemic of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in China "affects the economic activity of a very powerful economy and thus affects the world's economic activity or could affect". He also admitted the possibility of economic upheavels due to the break in production." [1]
"From the cellphone manufacturing industry to soy, the impacts of the coronavirus on the brazilian economy"[2]
"Coronavirus. China near a severe economic crisis"[3]
"Deutsche Bank says that the coronavirus may contribute to a recession in Germany: "It is a risk for the world's recovery""[4]
I agree, but now a lot of countries have a lot of their own articles about the outbreak there, so why not turn this page into a redirect and move them all? 39cookies (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today makes the third day the stock market has plunged but the article is still on Monday. It would seem if we are going to create an article on current events it would be more up to date. Otr500 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linking official vote discussion of "Stock market having its own article".
You can argue that the entire OPEC affair is caused by the coronavirus, but yeah, it seems like the article desperately needs updating. Let's wait until the end of trading day if media refers to it as a "crash". Juxlos (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Juxlos: On second thought, it seems to me that because the effects of the oil crisis will be in effect disinflationary, perhaps all of this content (stock market and oil markets sections; perhaps even the Black Monday (2020) article) should be separated and merged into its own article. Why was the OPEC affair caused by the coronavirus? I haven't been following the oil markets. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Saudi wanted OPEC to cut oil production because the coronavirus demand reduction, but Russia played hard so Saudi decided to go f*ck it and instead dumped their oil all over the place. So the drop is not directly because of coronavirus, but certainly anyone writing about this in 50 years would at least mention coronavirus. Juxlos (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Juxlos: I certainly think it's fair to wait. I think if the market trends downward for the remainder of the week, I do believe we should merge them. Despite being on net up, last week wasn't exactly the picture of strength in the stock market either, and if you have three weeks in a row (and the third week was indirectly caused by it), I think it's justifying merging all content into a separate article. (Apologies for subsequent pings if you're already following the article. I'm not sure what exactly the etiquette for it is.) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the Saudis probably anticipate that the G20 central banks are going to cut rates anyway, that's probably why they wen't ahead and made the decision that they made. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just "Coronavirus pandemic bear market" since at least 6 major stock indices in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the United States are now officially in bear markets anyway? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this split. I would prefer Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, as I need a location to add bond market info and this article is already too cumbersome. The oil, stock, and bond turmoil is all interwoven. Note that I think historians will eventually have a pithy name for the insanity that is happening right now, but this title will work for now. - Featous (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Featous: The movements in the long-term bond market and the stock market are closely linked because it's where most of the financial capital from the stock market was going until the yields stabilized, so it seems to me that a section on the bond market would be appropriate in an article with the title I've proposed (though with one modification: "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic bear market"). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the financial consequences are already so widespread and complex that they deserve their own article, and it doesn't need a crystal ball to predict that these consequences will grow further. The main article could also benefit from removing a quite long section that may not be of interest to every reader. The main subject is a health crisis after all, not a financial one.Renerpho (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To be clear (since new pages have been created since my first entry in this discussion), I would also argue for splitting the content from the Stock market section of the article along with the Oil prices and Bond market sections and merging them with the 2020 stock market crash, Black Monday (2020), Black Thursday (2020), and 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war articles into a single article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per reasons cited above, and this conversation (scroll down to Britishfinance's post). Even though it is difficult to tell if we're dealing with separate economic issues or not, no one would reasonably be able to deny that we are in a bear market, and that the virus has already influenced the stock market, with several crashes already from February to March. Therefore, I would like to take my draft and start work on Financial impact of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic. Would this be a good move? Thank you. Actually, a more accurate title would be "Financial crash (or recession) related to Coronavirus pandemic". Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!)
@Zanygenius: Not until we have a consensus on whether to split and what the name of the article should be. Also, the 2020 stock market crash, the Black Monday (2020), and the Black Thursday (2020) articles have all been merged since my last entry, so I don't know what that will do to this discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article appears to be a neologism or protologism, I am suggesting a merge until the term can be demonstrated to be more mainstream. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this was a global stock crash. A mention/see also should be added to the socio-economic article, but the black Monday deserves its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the article is replete with reliable references to Black Monday. Also, probably a good time to review the pros and cons in the WP:RECENT essay because I predict that's the same ol' discussion we will have here. MPS (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the time being. We're still on the exact same day as the alleged "black monday" and I haven't seen that much referring to it as such, at least compared to all references to the shenanigans of today. Juxlos (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since it isn't appropriate to treat the crash simply as part of the impact of the coronavirus outbreak given the importance of the simultaneous oil shock. Might support a move to a more neutral title if "Black Monday" isn't in use in secondary sources, but this is an inappropriate target. —Nizolan(talk · c.)18:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded considerably since I first commented and I'm satisfied that "Black Monday" is in common currency at this point as Juxlos says. —Nizolan(talk · c.)00:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I should note that this article mentions not only the coronavirus outbreak but also the oil price crash, completely unrelated to CV outbreak as it was a result of the failure on part of the OPEC to reach the agreement, as the causes behind this event. So moving this to the article about CV outbreak might be problematic if the CV outbreak is not the only factor that resulted in this event. With that in mind, I am not sure what the alternative article this should be moved to. Any suggestions? Legion (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nizolan. It's hard to see how this one day could possibly not be notable as distinct from the larger trend. I agree the name is only tenative though, we need to see how people end up calling it. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The coronavirus wasn't the only factor in today's crash; the sudden oil price plunge did its fair share of crashing markets all over the world. 9March2019 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article has a clear demonstration of the mainstream attention given to the events under the phrase Black Monday. Acalycine (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - significant crash that is distinct from other impacts, has other causes as well, notable enough to have a standalone article. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs)03:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Kirbanzo. Major stock market crash with causes other than the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, and is notable enough to warrant its own article, unlike other crashes such as the one on 27 February 2020. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yesterday's stock market crash is a major event of historic notability in itself. It's named Black Monday by mainstream, national & international, reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that the outbreak has wreaked havoc on everyone's economy, the lead should be rewritten. In its current state, there is a significant focus on the impact on China. Juxlos (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might consider dating every reference IN article. Things are moving so quickly that a $300 billion economic impact estimated in February now seems laughable. Frankly just looks like crappy information in the lead paragraph of the article. Sure, a number of weeks ago someone might have said 300 billion as a number, but unless we’re constantly updating with more current estimates, let’s at least date the information very very clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a table collecting total economic damages with their costs.
It's hard to find it out from various sections and articles.
Aminabzz (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving "Transportation" out of "Market sectors" and making it into its own section. The reason is that "Market sectors" tends toward specifically economic impacts within each individual subsector. In contrast, effects of and restrictions on transportation in the context of COVID-19 are sweeping in their own right, starting right from the beginning with the Chinese New Year and Wuhan as transportation hub. It could even have its own sub-article the way some other sectors and subsectors do. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revision of sections - "Financial impact" and "Market sectors"
I would suggest moving "Financial impact" so that it becomes the lead-in to "Market sectors". "Market sectors" would then be renamed "Financial impact"). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic has had far-reaching consequences beyond the spread of disease and efforts to quarantine it. The economic consequences of the pandemic are posing a major destabilizing threat to the global economy, with local effects such as record stock market plunges, trade disruptions, and panic buying. Political consequences have resulted in increased political turmoil as government leaders fall sick and parliaments are shut down. Transportation consequences have played havoc with international trade, supply lines, and personal travel. No part of the world has been left unaffected."
Hi, @66.11.171.90:, I just noticed your posts. Because the pandemic has such a widespread effect, we would ideally cover transit, social, and financial impacts in separate articles. For now though, I would work on sectioning out each part. Once you feel you have a decent article to split, it it is reccomended you start a draft (example links provided above for convenience).
Regarding the lead, go ahead. A good heading is a general summary of an article. Currently the paragraph you have here contains info that has been debated, so please consider references to avoid unintended bias. Thank you, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!)14:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While you have this page on semi-protected, I can't go ahead. (I am an IP, and intend to stay that way ... even though I am the one who originally suggested a version of *this* article on the ITN talk page.) If you like it, copy it. If parts of it are too controversial, blur those parts or drop them. (I am not wedded to the politics sentence in any case, but as long as there is a politics section here, there probably should be a politics sentence.) You are an experienced editor, you know how.
As to new sections vs new articls -- of course there are going to be new articles! exactly the same as for the other sections here which have their own dedicated articles and links to them. I think I said as much in the other proposals. That did not stop editors from making *those* sections, and it should not stop us from making *these* sections -- quite the contrary. *When* a sector splits off into another article is the time to discuss dropping or condensing the sector, not before a single word is written. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tenebris, that was definitely faster than normal for Wikipedia to semi-protect an article. In the meantime, you can submit ideas here, or (with the assumption that you are in decent standing), you can actually fill out a request form to edit the article yourself. I was once an IP myself, and I personally loved not needing to know a password each time, so I get it. It's completely up to you rather you stay that way. Here is two articles you may find interesting. Creating an account and Staying an IP. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!)17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for me it is more about defending this one of the pillars of WP against a determined erosion. (In fact, I just now got kicked out of my own home article that way ... ironically by someone who essentially is a brand-new drive-by editor in that article, never mind that he is a member and I am not. Other members actually stood up to argue the point on my behalf! (this was not a request by them) but uselessly ... and one of them actually apologized for the action on my talk page.) So you see, preserving this WP pillar is important, perhaps more now than ever. Filling out a specific request for editing would defeat the point. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebris, Okay. I had a look at your talk page,and I definitely can see why you don't want to be registered, and that's fine. The only thing I have trouble understanding is which pillar you are talking about (I assume WP:5P3 or WP:5P4) and what this has to do with the semi-protected edit request stuff. Could you please explain? Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!)03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Also just know, I refuse to look at an Admin different from an IP. If I do, please let me know so I can correct it. The only exception is vandals and even then I give them some courtesy as human beings.[reply]
First of all, I always seem to end up discussing this with precisely those who have been most fair with me, in part because they have been fair with me and are willing to consider what I am saying. I do know that you personally have done absolutely nothing I would object to in any manner! Heck, even though I am arguing against the sweeping rules regarding the semi-protected status on a different page (knowing it is an uphill battle, even with other registered users trying to defend against it because of me), I can see the reasoning for protecting a vitally important core page directly linked off the main page ... although I do find it interesting that the preferred action always seems to be semi-protection, never outright protection (considering that registered editors can be every bit as disruptive as IPs!). The pillars in question are "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute", combined with "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Subsequent meta-discussion on this point continually makes it clear that both of these pillars do refer to both IPs and registered members, and that this is an important tenet ... but in practice, things are a bit different. (laugh - notice which essay I got pointed to by the editor who posted before you? It was not Wikipedia:IPs are human too.) In particular, the moment things get rough, IPs always seem to be the first ones sacrificed to expediency. A bit like "Animal Farm" really; to paraphrase, "All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tenebris, Thank you for the clarification, and definitely agreed. Hey, wasn't that maxim in Animal Farm's revised seven commandments? That was a good book. :) User:Zanygenius/chat/mailOn 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, to whoever added "sic" to the title -- "lede" is the U.S. spelling used for an intro to a journalistic article. It has become moderately common currency in WP for the above-the-ToC section. I always used to write "lead" or "intro" myself, until I learned that. It is said that the shift in spelling was specifically to eliminate any confusion, but I cannot corroborate that personally. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just got done re-reading that sentence as it appears in the article. Yeah, "rare" is not right. I will correct this later today, likely with: "Bostock suggests that people backlashed against the response of the Chinese government[1], due to a perceived lack of a solution, as well as dishonesty."[2](This is where the current Bostock reference fits in) I think that would adequately cover this while staying neutual. Would this work better? From, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!)17:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can also checkWP:WEASEL and WP:EWW, my only quibble is that a claim that "some experts hold this view" should be backed by two citations espousing the views. If you can't do that, the claim should drop the plural. --TZubiri (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to economictimes.indiatimes.com, on 19 March 2020 the Indian government has banned the export of ventilators and surgical/disposable masks.
In his discourse to the nation, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that "there will be no shortage of essentials and the nation will not have any shortage of anything" (sourced by indiatoday.in).
India is likely to have been affected by an issue of massive access to the media information. Infact, the Indian leader also requested the citizens to inform at least 10 people of the measures to prevent the pandemy and of the Janata Curfew. The latter is an initiative to encourage the people working in essential services taht will involve citizens by standing in their doorways and clapping and ringing their bells. Even this aspect is related to the topic of the WP article as an unique initiative in the world.
Thank you Zanygenius. I've done the edit partially. Eventually, it can be mentioned the speech of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Hope you may complete the WP article before moving to the part 2 of your user profile or before being retired. The latter would be worst, I think.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Micheledisaveriosp, Thank you. That last part isn't set in stone yet, it's something I'm considering, largely due to excessive business in my life. The first part, will happen, so I'm in alignment with my area account on Wikivoyage. I should be able to help you complete the article before that happens.By the way, I incorporated the notice into my signature here, and intend to update it. Cheers, User:Zanygenius/chat/mailOn 1 July 2020, this user is expected to move to Zanygenius2 or retire. 22:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During the last few weeks, there has been far less media coverage of riots, violent protests, terrorist attacks, illegal immigration, organised crime etc. than beforehand. Has there been a major reduction in (some types of) crime this year as a result of the pandemic? Alternatively, has crime hardly been affected, but the media is (almost) ignoring most non-coronavirus stories? Jim Michael (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am seeing no reason to warrant a spinoff article. Nothing presented here isn't already covered on the Socio-economic page. Further this page gives undue weight to the effects in the US and barely mentions some countries that have been fully devastated. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - US is a small part of this article, additionally, this page focuses on non economic topics like religion and sports. --TZubiri (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - I think that, in the future, this article may become notable, as a global recession caused by the pandemic and the pandemic itself each have the potential to take on a life of their own, in the same way the Great Recession and the Housing Bubble, while related, clearly deserve articles in their own right. However, at this moment in time, it is unclear if the markets are taking a little dip or if this is the start of a much longer and deeper recession. The speculation is far too strong on this topic to warrant the existence of this article. The reporting on the Coronavirus recession is likewise so linked to reporting on the imminent fallout of the pandemic that I think it is clear that, for now, the material in this article is almost fully covered by the socioeconomic impact article. While the first third of this article has some clear content regarding a recession, the rest mostly seems to focus on very specific analysis that lends itself more to economic impact rather than recession. Whether the merge occurs or not, the content of this article needs to be seriously looked at to ensure that, for the most part, it sticks to evidence about an impending recession rather than a few red flags. Mysterymanblue (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - I disagree with merging this article in Socio-economic impact. There are too many socio-economic impact and each one should have its own specific article. As IMF director's has declared "The global economy will contract this year... the economic outlook for the world economy for 2020 is negative—a recession at least as bad as during the global financial crisis or worse. But we expect recovery in 2021". " [1] As IMF's statement describes the crisis may be even worse than a global financial crisis. You see, this issue deserves a separate article.--Seyyed(t-c)19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - the Coronavirus recession article is already large and well sourced enough as an indepedent article. The downturn has hardly started yet, and will likely evolve as the months pass by. TGCP (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - The IMF has stated that a recession has begun. The effects of this downturn will become increasingly clear, causing massive change to the article. Wekpidea (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge- It is unnecessary to have two pages with such inter-related content, and it would be advantageous to merge the two, due to lack of a clear distinction. Stickymatch (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - Many observers at the IMF etc have stated that a recession isn't even in the future, and the article is pretty explicit at using those. There is enough coverage of the recession to warrant its own article and the US bias isn't a valid reason for an AfD. Juxlos (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It seems some people need to be reminded that just because there's a recession ongoing, there's no reliable sources that call it the "Coronavirus recession". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge - Yes, reliable sources use the term "recession", though in the United States by certain definitions recessions have to last two quarters (which this has not, yet) and they are declared retrospectively. To a large degree, the "coronavirus recession" is the economic impact of the pandemic, and it's unhelpful for readers and editors to have two articles on the same thing by different names. Most importantly, the "by sector" and "by country" lists and the "Unemployment" and "Financial markets" sections are in both articles, and it is definitely not sustainable to have two sets of lists. The best way to deal with that overlap is to merge the articles, because very else is left in "Coronavirus recession" and certainly not enough to support a full article. If we're going to split the social and economic effects due to length, I think Economic effects of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic would be a better title than "Coronavirus recession" because technically a recession refers to GDP contraction, but the article would want to cover other effects like unemployment and shift in demand from food service to grocery delivery. -- Beland (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Argentina
The pandemic and the global economic and financial slowdown triggered with it arrived to Argentina in a moment in which the country is in recession since 2018 and in a debt crisis. The government of the brand new president Alberto Fernández is at a crucial point in ongoing talks with its creditors in search of a restructuring of the payment of the contracted foreign debt."
The first sentence is just a mess. The second alludes to an unrelated financial problem.
Please delete this.
Context is important. The pre-existing economic condition in Argentina has been made worse by the virus. Countries with strong economy have better chances at coping with the impacts. TGCP (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that during World War II, automobile factories changed to providing equipment needed to fight the war. The same things is happening now. Factories intended for one purpose are being changed to another purpose as they relieve shortages of masks and other products. Alcoholic beverage companies are making hand sanitizer. I heard this on the radio and on TV.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Current state of the article mostly reflects rather general description of impact on the world's life meanwhile there is much more practical way to describe it in/on the country-wise/bsed way so I'm here to make the following proposal: describe events in country-wide fashion for the sake of easier understanding, rather than compiling everything into a pile of discrete information. Leave your thoughts below please. DAVRONOVA.A.✉⚑20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis project that the number of unemployed Americans could reach as high as 47 million – about 32% – as a result of the coronavirus. St. Louis Fed economist Miguel Faria-e-Castro wrote in a research paper last week that this is “a rather unique shock that is unlike any other experienced by the U.S. economy in the last 100 years.”
"South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha has described Israel's forced quarantine of South Koreans as "excessive".[1]Israel Today published a Korean complaint that "Israel is Treating [Korean and other Asian] Tourists Like Coronavirus".[2] In the Russian cities of Moscow and Yekaterinburg, Chinese nationals were targeted by quarantine enforcing campaigns, as well as police raids, which were condemned by human rights advocates as racial profiling.[3] The Chinese Embassy in Germany has acknowledged a rise in hostility against its citizens since the outbreak.[4] Children of Asian descent were ostracized and mocked over their origins in middle schools near Paris.[5][6] Many French-Vietnamese report also being subject to harassment since the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.[7] Local authorities in Bolivia quarantined Japanese nationals despite them having no coronavirus-related symptoms.[8]
As COVID-19 cases in China fell while those in the West and around the world rose, anti-Western sentiment has risen in Hong Kong as well as Mainland China, as expats are accused of introducing a "second wave" of the disease.[9] According to The Guardian, Westerners and other foreigners in China have reported increased incidences of xenophobia against them, with a recent online article having the headline "Beware of a second outbreak started by foreign garbage". Similar issues have been noted in other parts of Asia.[10]
Anti-Caucasian sentiment has also risen in Thailand, where Westerners are accused of spreading the disease.[11] As the pandemic has progressed, there have also been isolated instances of prejudice against Westerners, particularly Western tourists accused of importing the disease. Thai Health minister Anutin Charnvirakul made negative comments about "dirty" Westerners, saying they "never shower" and are more likely to spread the virus than Asians.[12][12] In March 2020, foreigners from Europe, US and Israel started facing xenophobia and discrimination in India, including evictions from rented homes.[13]
There have been reports of anti-Roma xenophobia in some EU member states.[14] Islamists have exploited the disease to foster anti-Western sentiment.[15][better source needed] There were also false rumours in India, amplified by bloggers and some social media channels, that some Muslims who returned from Dubai refused to undergo coronavirus testing for religious reasons.[16] Muslim gatherings organized by the Tablighi Jamaat have resulted in large increased of cases in Malaysia, Pakistan and India,[17] and in India, this has triggered Islamophobic reactions and increased communal tension.[18][19]
The Anti-Defamation League[20] and Life After Hate[21] observed that in addition to the wave of anti-Chinese xenophobia online, there was a white nationalist and white supremacist[20][22]-fuelled wave of anti-Semitic and racist anti-Israeli agitation, including but not limited to claims that Jews and/or Israelis were spreading the virus, but also an online campaign to infect Jews with the virus as a means of murder.[20] The ADL was especially concerned with the prevalence of anti-Semitic messaging on Twitter, Instagram,[23]Steam, Discord and TikTok combined with the increased internet usage by children after school closings.[22] The FBI also warned that white supremacists groups were plotting to "expose Jewish people to coronavirus" by having members "use themselves as bio-weapons" to infect areas Jewish people are deemed likely to visit.[24][25] On 23 March, the FBI foiled a terrorist[26] plot by a white supremacist to use a car bomb to blow up a Missouri hospital overflowing with COVID-19 patients, with the man having referenced far-right conspiracy theories that the virus was "engineered by Jews", online before he was shot and killed in an altercation with FBI agents.[26][24]
On 30 January, the WHO's Emergency Committee issued a statement advising all countries to be mindful of the "principles of Article 3 of the IHR (the International Health Regulations)", which the WHO says is a caution against "actions that promote stigma or discrimination" when conducting national response measures to the outbreak.[27]"
6.2.5.Gambling and betting industry'
According to the American Gaming Association, the industry will be hit by losses up to $43.5 billion in economic activity in the following months. Some projection was that the sports gambling industry may lose $140 million alone in the fourth weekend of March (21-22nd of March 2020) on lost NCAA basketball tournament bets. [1]
Gambling companies are eager to shift customers from retail into online casino and poker games in order to fight the loss of revenue due to the cancellation of sports fixtures and the shutdown of betting shops. Gambling groups increased the advertising of online casino games and play on social media.
Some argue that virtual racing, as well as draw based games, are also proving popular. [2][3]
Some software betting providers have specially designed campaigns promoting online betting solutions in order to attract betting companies.
Long term consequences to the betting and gambling industry might be: Death of small retail operators and providers, increase in M&A, more focus on online, innovation in online meaning that even the existing products like the sportsbook will pay closer attention to obscure sports like soap soccer or quidditch and more prominent spot for virtual games online[4] Ladyearlymorning 06:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: Hi @Ladyearlymorning: thank you for your contributions. I reviewed your request and there are a few concerns I have before I would be able to implement the request. The information backed by the source from CNBC appears to be directly lifted from the article directly which would cause a copyvio concern see here. If you could please rephrase this sentence. Also the bit "alone this weekend" could be confusing to the reader leading to the question "what weekend?" It would help if you could provide a timeframe if possible. The source FT.com is locked behind a paywall so I can not verify it. While there is nothing against using sources like this it would help if this information can be supplemented with an alternate source that is not locked behind a paywall. After these concerns are addressed (primarily the first two) please change answered=yes back to answered=no . Again thank you for your contributions! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?04:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we should have a section about the environmental impact of the reduction in human activity due to the corona virus, but I'm not sure it fits into this article, which is specifically titled "Socio-economic impact". There has been a documented reduction in seismic activity due to fewer trains and cars on roads, a dramatic reduction in air pollution in India, and reductions in ocean noise with expected positive impacts on whale populations. I'd like to add a section about these impacts someplace, but given that this article focuses on socio-economic impacts I don't think it fits and we don't seem to have any other article it fits into. I don't think there's enough material to justify a stand alone article. Thoughts? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the main article is semi-protected, I'm asking for edits to be made here.
Specifically, the part on Southeast Asia should separate each entry by country, and also link to the main article about the current pandemic in (specific country).
Also, the part on Sri Lanka should link to the main article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sri Lanka.
In cases when fast progress of the pandemic occours we observe severe impact on the age structure in local areas like villages when strongly beeing affected. Mabe if could be a subject to apply this on regions like Bergamo / Italy. In Germany this has been reported for a city in the regeion Heinsberg / NRW when a number of 15% of the local people is considered to be immune already agains COVID. StatistikusMaximus (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what the graph is showing because none of the numbers (especially the X and Y axes) are labelled. Also, English Wikipedia uses periods as a decimal maker, not commas. -- Beland (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important topic but it's too soon to get info that is meaningful, consistent, and authoritative. There have been studies of past epidemics, such as this one analyzing that tuberculosis deaths declined after Spanish flu because TB was a co-morbidity that made it more likely someone infected with flu would die before 1920 rather than in later years:
In addition, secondary effects from economic impact should be mentioned in the main article, such as the likelihood that economic downturn in developing countries will increase the infant mortality rate due to malnourishment:
Support split mentioned at in the maintenance tag. Is this the section for that, Beland? I can't tell. Rationale for support: These are discrete topics, and splitting can help keep the article from becoming overly long. {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are sections about the impacts on movie, television, and even video gaming, but the obvious one is missing. Somebody should add the section about coronavirus impacts on music, like the halting/delay of music productions and cancellations/postponements of concert tours. PlanetStar23:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first idea might encounter some opposition since it's not the virus itself causing the impact, but rather the pandemic. But I'm open to considering it. The second idea doesn't sound right to me. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sdkb. Without "pandemic" describing it would make the article describe the effect the disease in general had on the economy and society. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stuff in the United States section is from January and February, and reports socio-economic impacts which now appear trivial. We need to bring it up to date with information about unemployment (I added something), hunger (food bank lines), shortages and disruption of supply lines for food and essential supplies, loss of revenue to state and local governments... there is more. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beland,
can we discuss first before unilaterally splitting and renaming the page? As I understand, the page is meant as a "catch all" format for the impact, which leads pointing to other impacts, such as cinema, schools, religion, and other stuff. Plus, this is on the main page; see the ITN section titled "impact", which is a generalized form of "impact" of the pandemic. As such, this page is a first page/cover page/intro, to the pages dedicated larger scale impacts and fine print.
Well, this drastic split should have been discussed BEFORE hand with MORE people, as its a huge page and sudden change. Just looking through the history doens't give any sort of indication of possible invitation for more people to discuss. Also, the march discussion was about splitting specific content into their own page as they would be overwhelming onto this page. It did not include a complete REVAMP of the entire page and its cope. Do please get more people to say yes when dramatically altering stuff. Starzoner (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit put the {{split}} tag on the article page, which is the standard procedure called for on Wikipedia:Splitting. The March discussion is unrelated to the April discussion; perhaps there was some confusion about which the tag was referring to, even though the titles of the articles to split into are different. It looks like you removed the merge tag in this edit, without commenting on the April discussion or including an edit summary. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn by nominator. Closing now that the 7 days have passed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this "requested move" is just to restore a status quo that was recently drastically altered without sufficient discussion. It should be performed immediately per WP:STATUSQUO, and the move request should then be made by those wishing to change away to something new. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:STATUSQUO says. The status-quo is the split article. This was a good-faith edit, not vandalism, so per WP:STATUSQUO, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert immediately. That was a complete replacement/repurpose and split of the page that should have needed a massive discussion. Starzoner (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (support split articles). Just because the phrase "socio-economic" exists doesn't mean that those two topics need to be combined. The split articles are different enough, and the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic article is already too long as it is (it has over 300 references!). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The full content of economicimpact can be there. The page pre split was a light gate that can lead into the page instead. Starzoner (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it split This was an overly hasty move to split it, but all things considered, it was probably the right decision. Let's use this to decide together.--Pharos (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I intended the page to be a lightweight page so that it could introduce multiple pages. With this respect, it can easily lead readers to pages that are more in-depth and possess more details. I wish this page could still be a blurp for the multiple pages listed on the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, I believe readers would totally appreciate being shoved into a disambiguation page directly from the main page. In addition, I think the talk page now is a complete farce and entirely alien to the current status of the page; economic discussions relating to a purely social page? No way.
To be clear, I think there needs to be a distinct page dedicated to the economic impact, but this page should be reverted and have a short blurp to that page. A separate social page could be social, but mine should be restored. That's my 2¢ on what I envisioned the page to be. Starzoner (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a disambiguation page is undesirable, we could point from the main page to COVID-19 pandemic#Impact for now, and in the meantime make Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic a proper article. There is currently no main article for COVID-19 pandemic#Impact, and there are sections in there that are filed under neither "Social" nor "Economy"; "socio-economic" does not include everything that the pandemic has affected, so I don't think it is a good title for an impact overview article. -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharos:, yes I had envisioned summary-style page should be at that page instead of the disambiguation page, instead of a pure Table-of-Contents. Also there needs to be a massive fix of links incoming to the former page. Starzoner (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion as nominator. I made a mistake when nominating this, but I went to do other things and forgot about it. CrazyBoy82622:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egladfelter (article contribs).
I added a paragraph describing the post-quarantine transmission risks. This seemed like valuable information as understanding the transmission helps to slow the spread. I added two sources for my information that go further into detail if anyone would like to add more or check out the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egladfelter (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Abdullahimohd (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
addition in to the article
Suicide
happening of the above listed factors all of a sudden piles pressure on the victims which may become too much to handle for some of them. With the absence of support system to mitigate the effects of the abrupt changes , the risk of suicide increases for the affected persons.[reply]
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuxin L-.
Not done for now: Hi @Ladyearlymorning: thank you for your contributions. I reviewed your request and there are a few concerns I have before I would be able to implement the request. The information backed by the source from CNBC appears to be directly lifted from the article directly which would cause a copyvio concern see here. If you could please rephrase this sentence. Also the bit "alone this weekend" could be confusing to the reader leading to the question "what weekend?" It would help if you could provide a timeframe if possible. The source FT.com is locked behind a paywall so I can not verify it. While there is nothing against using sources like this it would help if this information can be supplemented with an alternate source that is not locked behind a paywall. After these concerns are addressed (primarily the first two) please change 
Note: Editor modified existing request above please see this diff. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 01:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Added section now that issues have been addressed. Thank you! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 02:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
