Jump to content

Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

US 1Point3Acres deaths

So recently 1Point3Acres (1p3a) has this little button next to it's death count for the United States. Upon clicking it, it shows a "probable deaths" figure. 1p3a says this probable death count is included in the overall death figure that most 1p3a visitors see upon loading the page.

What do we do with this new figure? Subtract it from the overall death count?

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 00:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RayDeeUx, that seems to be the way to go for now, unless we're able to find another reliable data aggregator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
RayDeeUx, WHO Situation Reports do not include these additional deaths. The values for most other countries do not include them either. I would say subtraction is the way to go. --MarioGom (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I work as editor from Bangladesh

I can infrom you so fast Sahabuddin2383 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can verify stats to a reliable source, ideally a government source or health agency, absolutely! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Sahabuddin2383, the template is semi-protected, so new users cannot edit it directly. You will have to post your edit-update request here, on the talk page (I think). We also need the link toward your source for Bangladesh number. Yug (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

{{subst:trim|1=


change hong kong death toll from 4 to 5

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


Countries and territories count

Is it possible to align different sources for the number of countries and territories affected? At time of writing, Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data gives 235, whereas Template:Territories affected by the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic and the infobox at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic give 210. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It Is Me Here: I'm not sure how to do it. We do not use Worldometer for this template and there is an ongoing discussion to stop using it in any COVID-19-related article (WP:WORLDOMETER), but {{Territories affected by the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic}} uses it. We'll have to check where it is used. But anyway, it will be hard to align since other places use the number of territories from JHU CSSE, which is also different from the number used in this template... --MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion about this here: Template talk:Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Proposed merge. I'll give it a try. --MarioGom (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT : Update cases/deaths France

Hello, Indeed, there is an error about the number of cases and deaths that you report to us via Wikipedia.

As of April 18, 2020, according to the source you use (the French government site), there are 111,821 cases tested in hospitals. But also 22,163 tested cases confirmed and 39,972 cases not tested in “EHPAD” and “EMS” (these are retirement homes). All that remains is to add: a total of 133,984 cases tested with COVID-19 in France and 173,956 cases in total.

Regarding the number of deaths, there are 19,323 deaths in hospitals and 7,481 deaths in “EHPAD” and “EMS”. A total of 26,804 deaths in France.

Thank you and good luck in this difficult period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.13.214.175 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You can check on "Santé Publique France"[1], the number of cases of COVID-19 in France: 111,821 cases in hospitals and 62,135 cases in EHPAD and ESMS. It's just ! --Wikiliz972 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikiliz972, check here for the full breakdown: [1]. 111,821 is the total number of confirmed cases (not in hospitals, it includes confirmed cases in EHPAD). 62,135 is the total number of confirmed and probable cases in EHPAD. Both figures overlap. --MarioGom (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Santé Publique France".

RfC: Criteria for territory listing

From 27 to 30 March, we ran an RfC that resulted in the split of some territories (Link to RfC). While the decision did lead to a more stable situation, it did not cover all possible territories. These were deferred to a future discussion but no agreement was reached so far (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). After the implementation of the decision, we also faced some implementation problems such as the lack of reliable sources for overseas France after 26 March (example discussion) or that our criteria for some territories such as Åland Islands and the Akrotiri and Dhekelia was completely unique and not backed by any reliable source. Further discussions did not lead to any clear consensus to solve these disputes, and the original RfC did not provide enough guidance to solve them either. The goal of this RfC is to agree on more comprehensive criteria for territory listing. --MarioGom (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal A (MarioGom)

This proposal consists of using the World Health Organization as a baseline with some exceptions based on other reliable sources (WP:RS).

The primary criteria for territory listing will be the scheme followed by the World Health Organization Situation Reports (example: 7 April 2020). The following exceptions will be applied:

Also, territories that are not listed at WHO Situation Reports at all, may be listed if all the following requisites are met:

  1. There is at least one reliable source for the statistics.
  2. The counts are not included under any other territory in WHO Situation Reports.

Cruise ships may also be listed standalone as long as they are not reported under any specific country.

Some notes about practical implications of this proposal. Territories that would meet criteria to be listed standalone:

  • The partially recognized states of Palestine and Kosovo both meet all criteria to maintain the listing. Both because of WHO Situation Reports as well as all other cited reliable sources.
  • All British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies except Akrotiri and Dhekelia (see below) meet all criteria to split them. Both because of WHO Situation Reports as well as all other cited reliable sources.
  • Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will be maintained split from the United States per WHO Situation Reports as well as part of the cited reliable sources.
  • Greenland and the Faroe Islands meet all criteria to maintain the split from Denmark.
  • Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten meet all criteria to maintain the split from the Netherlands.
  • The Caribbean Netherlands meets criteria for inclusion since they are split by the World Health Organization (listed as Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba).
  • Northern Cyprus currently meets criteria to be listed since it is not counted under Cyprus by any source and reliable sources exist for it. This is additionally backed by Reuters.
  • Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic currently meet the last criteria for listing since reliable sources exist, and they are not counted in Ukrainian or Russian statistics by any source. Note that statistics from Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts published by Ukraine do not include cases in areas currently not under de facto control by Ukraine.

Territories that would not meet criteria to be listed standalone:

  • The Åland Islands are merged with Finland because neither WHO Situation Reports or any reliable source publishing worldwide figures split it.
  • Transnistria is kept merged with Moldova for the same reason as above.
  • Akrotiri and Dhekelia are merged with Cyprus for the same reason as above.
  • At the moment, the only cases confirmed in Western Sahara occurred in areas under Moroccan control (see MINURSO report: [3]). As such, they are reported under Morocco by their authorities and the World Health Organization. Most cited press sources list Western Sahara but it is unclear if cases are double-counted in Morocco's entry. This might change in the future.

Unclear status at the moment:

  • Somaliland
  • Nagorno-Karabakh
  • At the moment, Abkhazia has one confirmed case in its territory. It is still not clear how/if this will be reported by the WHO and other sources.

Proposal B (MarioGom)

Same as Proposal A, but without the French exception. This would mean that the only reliable source for France (defined as metropolitan France excluding overseas France) would be WHO Situation Reports. Updates would need to be delayed up to 24 hours if we want them to be consistent. The text would be as follows:

The primary criteria for territory listing will be the scheme followed by the World Health Organization Situation Reports (example: 4 April 2020). The following exceptions will be applied:

Also, territories that are not listed at WHO Situation Reports at all, may be listed if all the following requisites are met:

  1. There is at least one reliable source for the statistics.
  2. The counts are not included under any other territory in WHO Situation Reports.

Cruise ships may also be listed standalone as long as they are not reported under any specific country.

--MarioGom (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Add your !vote here. Please, take your time to carefully read each proposal before !voting.

  • I prefer A. Heitordp (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I find A better. Amkgp (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: Mainly because it would be more maintainable and falling back to WHO Situation Reports for France would cause an avalanche of complaints because we would be +24h delayed on France updates. Reliable sources are quite split on this one anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: French overseas territories are completely different than metropolitan France.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A seems to be the best option here. A good compromise, a decent balance of the reality of the situation regarding the differences between British and French dependencies, and ensures clarity in a rapidly changing situation. I support option A. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: I am for the maximum separation possible. For me the geographical spread is more important than political considerations or ease of sourcing. Having the French territories included in metropolitan France means those remote islands/territories apparently have the same epidemiology as European France, which of course they don’t. Incidentally the above does not address New Zealand dependencies, which while they have no current cases, certainly could. Ditto Australian external territories. Ptilinopus (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A. France is France. Most cases in the overseas territories were people who came back from France, and then only local spreading appeared. Infected people in these territories rarely or never come from neighbouring countries and territories, but from mainland France. It is no more different than Corsica and other parts of France. When people think about France and read numbers for France, it is obvious that it is France as a whole. Separating areas of France is misleading. Indicating "France" but actually removing parts of the country is factually wrong. Geographically on a map, this is not more different that putting the whole Canada and Canadian archipel in the same colour whereas only some cities in the south have significant number of cases and there is absolutely nothing in the North ; or using the same colour for all the islands of an South Asian or Oceanian country. NemesisIII (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC).
  • A: French regions are neither autonomous territories nor dependencies. Therefore I consider this to be more of a clarification on the current RfC rather than anything else. As a matter of fact, they are the only integral parts of their own country which are currently listed since it's not the case for African autonomous cities and communities of Spain, Portuguese autonomous regions or American non-contiguous states (despite all of those being administratively far less integrated than are French regions in the French unitary state). This fact explains the difficulties to maintain an artificial separated listing which can only lead to either double counts (as it is the case currently) or artificial figures substracting of different updates. As a matter of fact, option A is the only factual one. Metropolitan (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: Most people would not consider overseas territories as part of "France", and physical separation by borders or distance should be a factor in considering the distinction between territories. --17jiangz1 (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: France's "overseas territories" are more like Hawaii than they are like Guam from a legal standpoint, so it makes sense to count them as part of France, seeing as we don't count Hawaii (or Alaska) separately from the rest of the US. The France coronavirus epidemic page can show separate tallies by region. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A would be my preference. —Formulaonewiki 08:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A will be easier to maintain, as it is easier to add together what WHO reports than to try to subtract from a french report or, even worse, rely on everyone to hold their feet (or keyboards) still until the WHO has published. Agathoclea (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B As maps that uses this article data, such as this one or this one, with French oversea territories colorized the same color as France would be strange and inaccurate. As well as 17jiangz1 arguments. I am in favor of a compromise where French Overseas department cases could listed in the footnote, as it was the case a few days ago. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: Politics aside, Google is using this specific table to power their sidebar results as seen here as an example: [4]. It's better to keep things as they are and footnote the 24 hour delay that results when necessary. Cheers, u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: I would be for the French exception, but I agree with User:MarioGom's argument on update delays. This said, I hope we can find a solution for having B, as well as separating Åland Islands, Transnistria, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Western Sahara. --Checco (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: The French overseas regions are geographically distant, and so represent distinct populations susceptible to infection. KolyaSchaeffer (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: Separation of territories is important. That data for France overseas will be delayed 24 hours is a small issue as Wikipedia is not a real-time news service. Long term accuracy and presentation is more important than having the most recent figure for France, and this can be explained in a footnote.--Eostrix (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B: The magnitude of the outbreak is such, that there is a lot to say about the French oversea territories. Also most of the territories are acting and functioning semi-independent given the lockdown and the strain of the outbreak on Metropolitain France. If you join them together just as on fr.wikipedia, they will only be a sidenote in the story despite many of the territories being large enough to qualify as small nations. KittenKlub (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Also French Guyana has just updated it's website in the last hour, but even though there are complaints about some territories, this is an example of a territory whose data will not be processed until tomorrow, because it's close to midnight in France. KittenKlub (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Either, leaning towards A: I'm not versed in French territories or any disputes that may have arisen from them to deliver a well-informed answer in regards to that. That being said, if there will be shorter update delays, I'd go with A. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: There is no reason that French overseas departements should be treated separately of France especially when France numbers already includes the data from overseas departements. Or Hawai should be seperated from mainland USA in this list. Minato ku (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: For ease of updating, and to follow accepted administrative divisions. There's no reason to separate these far-flung parts of France that wouldn't apply to deaggregating Hawaii. buidhe 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A: However, I think it would be a good compromise to put a note in the France section mentioning the numbers for the overseas territories and mentioned they are updated only each 24 hours. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Discuss here.

Notification to users who participated in last RfC about territories: Checco, Pktlaurence, Formulaonewiki, JMonkey2006, Doktorbuk, Manish2542, Chbe113, Naddruf, Mtaylor848, MrX, Rich Farmbrough, Heitordp, RandomIntrigue, Akira CA, Ptilinopus, Krazytea, Eostrix. --MarioGom (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I realize it might not be clear, but anyone can vote none or add a different proposal. --MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Also a note on Proposal B: instead of falling back to the delayed WHO Situation Reports, we could continue with the current situation, where confirmed cases in overseas France are counted both in the independent entries as well as in France entry. --MarioGom (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused with Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin as it seems like they are not included in the French daily updates([5]). They are also overseas collectivities as French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna, so this may explain the exclusion. Chbe113 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe Buisson or Metropolitan can help clarifying this. Somehow I assumed from previous conversations that both were included in France totals. --MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Chbe113, MarioGom: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Reunion became French departments on 19 march 1946 when was promulgated the Loi de départementalisation proposed by the Martinican Deputy Aimé Césaire. That law made of them integral parts of France. At the time Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy were part of Guadeloupe, therefore becoming integral parts of the country as well. They became their own collectivities on February 21st 2007, however on health matters they remain locally dependent of ARS Guadeloupe, the local body of the Agence nationale de santé publique managing the Covid-19 crisis at French national level. So in a nutshell, yes, they are included in French daily updates. Metropolitan (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Metropolitan: Thank you for the clarification! Chbe113 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chbe113:, @MarioGom:: Until March 25, the French health agency site showed the number of cases by region, and also listed Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy (see archived page of March 25 and click on "Nombre de cas rapportés par région" below the squares with numbers). The total shown there for all of France included those two places despite their being overseas collectivities and not overseas regions. France reported these numbers to WHO, which listed them separately (see the WHO report of March 26 containing those same numbers).
After March 25, the France health agency stopped showing the number of cases by region on its site, but continued to report them to WHO, which continues to list them separately. It's possible to confirm that Saint Martin and Saint Barthélemy are still included in the total shown in the France health agency site by adding the numbers in the corresponding WHO report. For example, on April 6 France reported the total number of cases as 74,390. In the WHO report of April 7, the numbers are FR 73,488 + GF 68 + GP 135 + MQ 149 + RE 349 + YT 164 + MF 31 + BL 6 = 74,390.
The French coronavirus page shows numbers related to hospitals by region (hospitalizations, discharges, intensive care patients and fatalities). It also shows the total number of cases and fatalities (including those not in hospitals) but doesn't break them by region. These totals match the numbers shown in the French health agency site and WHO reports, so they still include Saint Martin and Barthélemy even though they are not shown on the map there. Heitordp (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Heitordp: Thanks for the clarification! Chbe113 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Answering to Naddruf and Ptilinopus comments in votes: There is no Metropolitan France entry listed in the table, only a France entry. Are you suggesting we should replace the France entry by a Metropolitan France entry? We could as well replace the US by an entry for US contiguous states listing Hawaii and Alaska separately. The same could be done as well to separate European Spain from African Spain. It's not very conventional though. Metropolitan (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan You can be as pedantic over that as you wish. I used the term Metropolitan France to refer to France-in-Europe. As I made clear in my vote, and elsewhere in previous discussions, my concern is not the count per political country, but geographical spread of the virus. As such I have consistently argued for separation of overseas entities. It says nothing about the spread and distribution of the virus to have islands in the Caribbean or Indian Ocean or entities on another continent etc lumped statistically with Europe. As far as I am concerned, the political issues are not so significant. Personally I have no problem with Alaska and Hawaii being listed separately - geographically they are separate. Though I don’t think that will happen! Like so many you seem to be arguing political convention, while I am talking of geographical reality. Ptilinopus (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Metropolitan:. French Guiana and the other places are listed separately, so I would assume that by France they mean Metropolitan France. If you think these are included in the "France" statistics, we would need to verify that's accurate, because it would be very confusing. As for these regions, there is a specific term for them and they are given special rights in France's constitution; I also think it's definitely relevant that they are differentiated in the source you provided (WHO). I don't see Ceuta or Melilla or any other Spanish regions differentiated; additionally they are very close to Spain although they are in Africa.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Naddruf: Yes, French Guiana is obviously included in French statistics as you can see it by yourself on Agence Nationale de Santé Publique interactive map website[6]. There is clearly double counting for French figures currently in the table, that's actually the reason why MarioGom triggered this RfC. Subdivisions having special rights is not unique to French overseas regions throughout the world, differences are even stronger in federal countries as it is the case between, US states or German Länder. Madeira and the Azores are autonomous regions of Portugal, Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía are not part of any Spanish province, the United Kingdom consists in four constituent countries, the list is actually endless and hardly relevant here. Metropolitan France is only a part of the country and certainly not the whole of it as well stipulated on the very first sentence of the France wikipedia article lead. That point simply cannot be discussed. Metropolitan (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Metropolitan: I wasn't talking about that website, I was talking about the WHO website separating them. I think we should use what's used on the WHO website. Also the Caribbean Netherlands are like the French DROM —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Naddruf: The Caribbean Netherlands are overseas countries and territories of the European Union whereas French overseas regions are outermost regions similar to the Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands[7]. EU law doesn't apply in the Caribbean Netherlands and the legal currency isn't even the euro but the US dollar. But outside legal matters, they are not included in Dutch official covid-19 situation reports[8] published by the RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu). You're obviously mixing up two different concepts here, which is the fact to belong to either the "Crown" or the "Republic" depending on country's regimes, and the fact to be a constituent part of a country. France is divided in 18 regions, 13 of which are located in metropolitan France and 5 which are located overseas[9]. The French territories which belong to what you assume as autonomous territories do exist and are the overseas collectivities of French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon as well as the sui generis collectivity of New Caledonia. The collectivities of Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélemy are in a middle ground due to the fact they used to be part of the French region of Guadeloupe and later consisted in their own administrative bodies, however they still depend on the Guadeloupe region for health matters as already stipulated above. Metropolitan (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that I left political status considerations explicitly out of the definition to 1) avoid complex disputes about comparative differences of administrative division systems and 2) focus on criteria that is backed by a significant amount of reliable sources. Also note that this RfC is not exclusively about France. I added two versions of the proposal because the French case was proven the most contentious during previous discussion, but the goal is also providing clarity for territories such as Transnistria or Abkhazia, or rare exceptions such as Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Åland Islands. --MarioGom (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • re Raphaël Dunant: How Google displays the map is really up to them. They are post-processing our data with their own criteria, excluding some locations such as Guantanamo Bay or partially recognized states. They can split France territories based on WHO Situation Reports, or our country-specific articles (which they are processing too), or whatever other source. --MarioGom (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Good point! Then I think it's better not to list the French Overseas departments and regions in the main list, for clarity sake, but in the footnotes.
@MarioGom:, note that the first case have been confirmed in Abkhazia yesterday, you may want to update the notes of RfC proposals. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Raphaël Dunant: Thanks for noting. I was waiting to have some further evidence of how/if Georgian authorities include it in their counts and how next WHO Situation Report handles this. If anyone checked any of this, please, share! --MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
One problem is that with so many votes already cast, we cannot add a new proposal now. Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Raphaël Dunant: The proposal is what you see in the green block. All further notes are the status of countries at the time the proposal was written, but the criteria is meant to be applied to new territories when they come up or when their status changes, not to come back at an RfC every week. --MarioGom (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • re Checco: Note that, as far as I can tell, there is no reliable source that publishes world counts and splits Åland Islands from Finland, Transnistria from Moldova or Akrotiri and Dhekelia from Cyprus (see analysis). Western Sahara, is a different case at the moment: some reliable sources list it independently but apparently they double count cases in Morocco, since all current confirmed cases in Western Sahara are within Morocco-controlled territory ([10]). --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You have indeed identified the problem caused by using the CIA world factbook list of countries and territories. That list is a mess, and the root of the problem is that the perspective of compiling the list is political. Here Svalbard, Åland and Greenland is considered separate entities. While the truth is that while Svalbard and Åland certainly is firmly part of Norway and Finland respectively.

Greenland, Faroes and Lapland (not found in said list despite having a parliament) indeed all 3 are in the process of going independent.

In the list here interestingly Palestina have gotten their own heading while again Kurdistan with a separate parliament is missing. And while there's political forces at work on how to manage Hong Kong and Taiwan, they are reported separately and should be kept that way for the same reason especially since the numbers are gathered based on different criteria.


But to sum this up: Åland should be merged with Finland, while Lapland (or the Sami nation) currently can be kept reported together with their main countries right now. This since the testing is carried out in one area but not the other and have been split into two parts with a closed border, which cause the numbers to be even more unreliable. Therefore no separation should be done as of this time. As a curiosity the numbers for Lapland (Sami nation) at the time of this post in April: 437 confirmed cases, 64 in intensive care, 11 deaths, 86 new cases. The statistical estimate for the coming months in this area is in excess of 100 000 infected and a CFR of ~6%. While the Danish government have reported Greenland separately, the area should be kept listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.142 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


Considering it's been over a week now that French regions are double counted on the table, I've temporarily clarified this on France's footnotes untill a result is accepted for this RfC. Metropolitan (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


  • How hard would it be to add an attached CSV file for each region/jurisdiction, that would include, e.g. the full history of total cases, active cases, and deaths by date in a clean format that could be used directly by others doing calculations and modeling. In other words, the same data that is presented in the bar graphs, just in a more manipulable format. The data presented here is wonderful, but it is often time consuming and difficult to clean it up to enter it into spreadsheets or other models. My guess is that the page maintainers have such tables. The request is to share them with users. Skaphan (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
KittenKlub: France global statistics are outdated compared to per-department statistics. However, since we are not reporting daily cases over time in this table, that should not be a problem. Official stats from regional offices are more up-to-date than official consolidated national totals in many countries (e.g. United States, Germany, Spain). --MarioGom (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a little more that "outdated", because the official figures of 10 April are 28 for French Guiana and 35 for Mayotte, while the primary data from the local health authorities are 86 for French Guinea, and 191 for Mayotte. KittenKlub (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
KittenKlub: What do you mean by official figures for French Guiana or Mayotte? There is no breakdown of confirmed cases in the national totals. You either have the local authorities and the WHO Situation Reports. WHO Situation Report for 10 April already listed 191 confirmed cases for Mayotte, and these 191 cases were included in the previously published national total of confirmed cases (the one we use as a source). Where are you taking that figure of 35 for Mayotte? I think you are just looking at a different metric, not confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Spoiler: nothing you can look at Géodes is the number of cumulative confirmed cases ;-) --MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_France. The statistics on that page are way off. I assume that if the WHO report is wrongcorrect, it's a problem of the editors. KittenKlub (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
KittenKlub The WHO report is correct and it is correctly aligned with official figures at all levels (just different times of reporting). The table is completely outdated though, and those numbers do not correspond to the cited source. It is a problem to be solved in that page, but nothing to do with the sources that we are discussing here. --MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I opened a discussion to deal with the issue you mentioned: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in France § Wrong/outdated per-territory statistics. --MarioGom (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • After 9 days of running RfC, and in the absence of a formal closure, I would like to apply some non-controversial changes: (1) merging Åland Islands to Finland and (2) Akrotiri and Dhekelia to Cyprus. I would defer any change related to France until there is a formal closure. --MarioGom (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Metropolitan: Because even if there are more !votes for A, I'm not an uninvolved editor and the consensus might not be considered strong and unambiguous. I prefer an admin or uninvolved editor determining the closure, which is officially the correct process. --MarioGom (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Åland Islands. ClockC for France. --MarioGom (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorting by recoveries

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory
 – MarioGom (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This table does not order well by the column recovery, it is possible that this column is of the alphanumeric type when it should be of the numerical type. FranchoGonzalez (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

FranchoGonzalez,  Fixed. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing "mainland" from China

I hope we will not need a RfC on this. A couple of weeks ago we decided to list dependent territories separate from their countries. Thus, the template now features several examples of territories which are not counted in their countries' totals. For consistency with other countries, I am proposing to remove "mainland" besides China. There is no such thing as "China (mainland)" or "mainland China" in other templates or lists in which territories (e.g. Hong Kong and Macau) are listed separately, notably including List of countries and dependencies by population. As I said, it is a pure and simple matter of consistency, otherwise we would have "Unite States (mainland)", "France (mainland)", "United Kingdom (mainland)", "Netherlands (mainland) and so on. Let's be logical, please. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Note that reliable sources that publish world tables and split Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are divided on this: Reuters or South China Morning Post list it as "China" while others like The New York Times list is as "Mainland China". We have a note with clarifications and I don't think the (mainland) part is required. Anyway, this has been a contentious topic in the past, so let's wait for more input. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Support removal. I also agree we should remove the "mainland", also to be concise, consistent with other countries in the table, and also consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and most news outlets. --17jiangz1 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Taking WP:SMALLFONT into consideration... It's best if we remove it. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 17:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Support for removing mainland. I have also been saying this for awhile, we even went into a large debate and had a dispute resolution. There is no mainland China as a proper name for a state or region so I am not sure why the desperation to include it. There seems to be some political or partisan reason to do so, of which I am not really sure, but the proponents are there. Either way it no longer makes sense. Krazytea(talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think previously there was a note. I don't know why it was removed. Chbe113 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Chbe113, I assume it's because Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are listed separately. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: I mean previously there was a note saying that "Excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and the disputed Taiwan", and I don't know why it was removed. Chbe113 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Chbe113, and I'm saying it's probably because the SARs are included separately on the table. I personally think that the note should be reintroduced as people might conflate them with the Mainland, but it depends on what the current consensus is on the matter. So far there's nothing there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, understood. I also think that the note should be added back for the reason you mentioned as well as to maintain consistency. I was involved in the initial decision on splitting territories and even though this wasn't discussed implicitly I think we all abided by the rule of adding a note whenever a territory was split, so I suppose this should also work for China. Chbe113 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support to remove. I support removing "mainland" only if a note is introduced to clarify the exclusion of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. The note is to maintain consistency and political neutrality. Chbe113 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree on adding the note. That's in line with every other country in the table with analogous situations. --MarioGom (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: The qualifier "(mainland)" from China's cell has been replaced with two footnotes regarding Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

US Virgin Islands

Today, and not for the first time, the data from doh.vi.gov (used by the U.S. Virgin Islands entry) varies slightly from the U.S. Virgin Islands data from coronavirus.1point3acres.com, which is used for a USVI figured subtracted from the overall aggregates in the US entry. As I write this, doh.vi.gov says 48 recoveries, but coronavirus.1point3acres.com says 46. It's reasonable to expect a time lag of a few hours while 1point3acres gathers the data, but for now we have conflicting entries for the two USVI figures. Capewearer (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as we subtract the numbers that coronavirus.1point3acres.com uses then that is the Calculation for US. But for the USVI entry, the value does not have to match that subtracted, especially if we use a different source. Not they are both now 53, so they have converged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually recoveries are still separated at 48 and 46. But I take your point about needing to use one reference per entry, and we have no way to verify which is the accurate count. Capewearer (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The USVI website is likely the most up-to-date, with other sites copying their figure with varying delay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Capewearer: It does not matter that figures for USVI at 1point3acres are outdated. They are factored out and no user will see them. The important thing for the US entry is that we subtract whatever number of cases from USVI that was included by 1point3acres in their US total, even if outdated or wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bosnia and/& Herzegovina

I see that the Google map is giving no data for Bosnia and Herzegovina cf 1000 plus cases on the Wikipedia page. I know you say elsewhere on this template talk that how Google is getting the data across is their business, but I think this is likely to be a mismatch between names ie Wikipedia uses an ampersand in the country's name, while Google uses 'and'. As the official name appears to have 'and' could I suggest changing it in the Wikipedia table, which could solve Google's problem as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.113.133 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for noting. I have contacted MPinchuk (WMF) to see if Google can be notified about this issue. --MarioGom (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Good catch! I believe this issue is fixed now, but let me know if you're still seeing any discrepancies. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

In Spain dead "change 21852 to 20852" 2A01:CB04:52D:1600:7963:6D92:C736:2F6E (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done per RTVE, El País and ISCIII. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

119.18.2.194 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2020/apr/20/coronavirus-australia-numbers-how-many-new-cases-today-deaths-death-toll-covid-19-stats-graph-map-by-postcode Australia's covid 19 on a map hope this helps you update AU map

Referred elsewhere. Thanks for the maps, but this is probably more suited for the folks who are managing 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Australia. I've posted your source over on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

US deaths source??

Why exactly are we using a website made by some unofficial people (https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en) to keep track of the number of deaths in the US, instead of the CDC data??? --Spaastm (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because "CDC does not know the exact number of COVID-19 illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths for a variety of reasons. COVID-19 can cause mild illness, symptoms might not appear immediately, there are delays in reporting and testing, not everyone who is infected gets tested or seeks medical care, and there may be differences in how states and territories confirm numbers in their jurisdictions." and that "Total cases includes 1,282 probable cases and total deaths includes 4,226 probable deaths." -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1point3acres gets their reports from local authorities. They follow the same "cases" and "deaths" definition as the CDC, and their numbers match, other than minor errors that are usually quickly corrected. CDC figures come from the same local authorities, but the consolidated report is published later. I'm not really fond of aggregate sources like 1point3acres, JHU CSSE or Worldometer, but 1point3acres is probably the best for the US. --MarioGom (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Kwasny Łukasz (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Poland: is 1,513 not 1,2513

I've changed this as requested for now, but neither of the references cited currently lists recoveries. Worldometers says 1,513, but that's no longer in use on this template. Can we find a reliable source for this? Capewearer (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Changed answered parameter to "yes" as Capewearer has mentioned 1,513 recoveries elsewhere on this talk page. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

90.73.247.205 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020 , Cuba Fix for recovered cases , Real : 341 On Page With Error: 3041

Al2.arturo (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)This. is the real data for cuba April 22 , 2020 https://covid19cubadata.github.io/#cuba

|- !scope="row"| !scope="row"|Cuba[a] |1,189 |40 |341 |[1]

 Done Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Infecciones por coronavirus – COVID-19". temas.sld.cu (in Spanish). Retrieved 22 April 2020.

Inaccurate data on Mexico

According to the Official's report on April 22th, 2020 the correct numbers are: Cases 10,544 Recovered 5,956 Death 970

Source: https://www.gob.mx/salud/prensa/nuevo-coronavirus-en-el-mundo-covid-19-comunicado-tecnico-diario-240798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvonneMunozMx (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

According to the Official's report on April 22th, 2020 the correct numbers for Mexico are: Cases 10,544 Recovered 5,956 Death 970

Source: https://www.gob.mx/salud/prensa/nuevo-coronavirus-en-el-mundo-covid-19-comunicado-tecnico-diario-240798 IvonneMunozMx (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you IvonneMunozMx Capewearer (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Applying RfC result regarding French regions

I've seen the RfC has been archived with a clear lead of proposal A: [11]. As such I'm proceeding to the result in merging France as a single country. Considering that France's figures already included counts for regions to be merged, that basically only means removing their singled-out entries. Metropolitan (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan, makes sense, since nobody has objected so far to consider proposal A as the conclusion. #Current consensus should be amended accordingly (e.g. striking the first item and adding a new one). MarioGom (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding number of infected per million

In the countries table, it will make sense to add the number of infected per million of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.133.224 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The current consensus is not adding more columns to this table. You can find the number of positive tests per million people at COVID-19 testing § Virus testing statistics by country or Template:COVID-19 testing by country MarioGom (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
We are not adding columns at this time. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 18:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sticky table header row

Could whoever implemented the ability of the header row here to persist as you scroll down help us out at Help_talk:Table#Sticky_table_headers? Thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

UK Source

For info, I changed the UK source to a different government website that delivers the results earlier than the old one. It's still a primary source. Hopefully this will be okay with anyone who's interested (the old source is still available, commented out). Arcturus (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Poland statistics!!!

In statistics from Poland more people have recovered than fell ill! 😕 Someone should correct this! Should be 1513 recovered. Afderty (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the current numbers say that out of 10,034 who have fallen ill, 404 have died, and 1,513 have recovered. Capewearer (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Afderty, if you have evidence of that, please cite your sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Palestine, wrong figures

The current number of cases in Palestine according to the reference used is 313 cases only, not 418.--138.75.191.224 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Dellux mkd: I have just noticed your edit summary ([12]). I would say that cases in "occupied Jerusalem" are already in the Israel count? --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm i am not sure about that, i will try to explore whether Palestinians in occupied territories are counted in Israel. But, it's ok, I accept the revision. Cheers! Dellux mkd (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Dellux mkd, ok. I have looked for a while and found some info on Haaretz (e.g. [13]) but nothing conclusive at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom I checked JHU CSSE, Worldometer before that edit and everywhere Palestine counts 418 cases (at JHU CSSE Palestine is named as West Bank and Gaza but the number is 418 again.) I also asked Google, everywhere Palestine number is 418. And if you ask Google about 303 cases, the result is 0 sources claiming 303 cases. Dellux mkd (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Dellux mkd, fair enough. --MarioGom (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I am sure that we should not be including the "occupied Jerusalem" under Palestine, otherwise we are double counting. Just the west bank and Gaza figures should be in this figure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion here is about the West Bank, a territory occupied and ruled by Israel. In this territory there are Area A and B(claimed and controlled by Palestine and Area C(occupied and controlled by Israel). I think that Palestine counts the cases in these Areas A and B which are in control and counted by Palestine. Area C cases are counted by Israel. About Gaza Stripthere is no doubt, this territory is ruled by Palestine and Israel has nothing to do with the cases there. This is my opinion. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
However, I just want to note that at the source for Covid-19 cases in Palestine the numbers have notes which say: The numbers about occupied territories in Jerusalem, may be inaccurate as they come from local sources in the city, not that they do not fall within the total. Dellux mkd (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Dellux mkd, I won't object to this change anymore. After looking at a few sources, I declare myself completely incompetent and clueless for this topic at the moment ;-) MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to depend on official figures. The Palestinian Ministry of Health (http://site.moh.ps/) figures now shows 334 cases, 2 deaths and 71 recoveries. 138.75.145.248 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It may make sense. corona.ps does not seem to be official. Dellux mkd: maybe we can just move to the official Ministry of Health site as suggested above? MarioGom (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom Yep! I agree. Done. Dellux mkd (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Could you please add the mortality rate defined as the ratio of number of deaths to the total number of infected cases to the statistics please?

Thank you 46.223.162.238 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If this involves another column, note we are not adding more columns, otherwise the table cannot be used on small mobile screens. Also as discussed before this figure is not that meaningful, due to limitations on testing. So it would really show how thorough testing is in a country, rather than a death rate. This would need more explanation than is suitable for one number in a table, so this should go in the country articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Resolved
 – Switched to source OP provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Statistics for Japan is off by a lot. According to this source (which had been in the reference list but recently deleted by someone), https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/special/coronavirus/

  1. Cases = 10,807
  2. Deaths = 238
  3. Recovered = 1,069

The numbers need to be updated and the reference has to be added back. 209.6.133.224 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We are using the daily official reports as the source ([14]) but we may be missing something when using machine translation, or maybe there is a difference in criteria by different sources. We really need a Japanese speaker who can explain the figures in the Ministry of Health report ([[15]]) and NHK ([16]). --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, in order of the first 3 tables in the Ministry of Health report:
  1. The left column tabulates the number of people that tested positive via PCR testing while the right shows the number tested. The rows divide the testees by location (e.g., within the country, chartered flights, ports).
  2. This table takes the value of the number of people who tested positive via PCR (10,751) and splits them into 3 groups: symptomatic, asymptomatic, and "currently investigating".
  3. The table tabulates the current hospitalisation situation: the column with the subgroups are the people requiring hospital treatment (subgroups include severity of symptoms and testing for disease), next to the number of people being discharged, and the number of deceased at the end. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, I might as well ask: is the reason we're using the daily reports because it's a governmental source compared to NHK being a major broadcasting company? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, as far as I know, it was the most cited source in other sites. We use press sources too when they provide more up-to-date reports and they are reliable. However, if the figures diverge so much, we should consider why. Perhaps both sources are counting different things. I assume we are using "discharged" from the official reports. What's the NHK figure for recoveries? Where do they get it from? For other countries, some sources give speculative projections of recoveries, or "released from quarantine" misreported as "recoveries", when people in quarantine included people who were not confirmed cases in the first place, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, Looking over at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Japan I see that they're using the NHK source instead. I'll go see what's up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, thank you for taking care of this. MarioGom (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
MarioGom, after a little further investigation I may have been partially responsible for them changing their source: I pointed out that the previous one they used were snapshots as opposed to the one they're currently using which updates daily; an active editor over there said they used NHK as it appeared to be more of a secondary source than governmental ones were. Additionally, the NHK source they're using is the same one used on the Japanese Wikipedia.
As to your other questions:
  • What's the NHK figure for recoveries? From what I can tell it appears that they're using the number listed under "退院", which means "(hospital) discharge", If that's where we're taking our recovery figure from then yes, we should be using the same criterion for recovery.
  • Where do they get it from? At the bottom of the table with the grey heading ("Totals) it says: 各地の自治体や厚生労働省に取材して判明した情報をNHKが集計したものです。 which translated to "NHK collected confirmed data from the Ministry of Health and municipalities". It appears they've added local information on top of federal data. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    Tenryuu, thanks! It looks similar to the case for Spain. We use the national broadcaster RTVE ([17]). It collects regional data and updates during the day very reliably, while the Ministry of Health publishes consolidated reports only once a day. MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right way to reply; I'm the original requester. Thanks for your efforts, MarioGom and Tenryuu. Now that things are clarified, can the numbers and references be updated for Japan? Thanks.209.6.133.224 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I support switching the reference over to the NHK source that is being updated daily. What are you thoughts, MarioGom and any other editors who update Japan's numbers frequently? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, based on the above discussion, I agree. MarioGom (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Alright, the source has been implemented and it looks like someone's adjusted the numbers already. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Stay Home, Stay Safe We are in a War with COVID-19 183.83.154.59 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as there is no request at all, but thank you for the kind words. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 15:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of country notes about testing capacity and criteria

Most countries that are not in an early stage have test shortage. We have notes for a few of them, but we could add many more. Also the fact that testing criteria is different for every country makes some notes irrelevant. We have the following general note:

  • This number shows the cumulative number of confirmed human cases reported to date. The actual number of infections and cases is likely to be higher than reported.
  • [...]
  • Reporting criteria and testing capacity varies between countries.

I propose removing all other notes about testing capacity and testing criteria, and keep only those related to reporting criteria. The notes to be removed would be:

  • United States: There are no standard requirements to receive a COVID-19 test across the entire United States. The official Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that "decisions about testing are at the discretion of state and local health departments and/or individual clinicians." People often have to show symptoms consistent with COVID-19 to be tested, although some locations will test asymptomatic people under certain circumstances.
  • Spain: Testing has been restricted to at-risk people showing symptoms. The Ministry of Health estimates that there are at least 15 times as many cases as are confirmed.
  • Italy: Only at-risk people showing symptoms have been tested from 27 February 2020 and onwards
  • France: Testing has been restricted to at-risk people showing severe symptoms.
  • Iran: Due to a shortage of resources, testing is restricted to only severe cases
  • Belgium: It is estimated that the actual number of cases is much higher than the number of confirmed cases, with testing being limited to specific people and/or to people with severe symptoms.
  • Netherlands: The Dutch Government agency RIVM reports that the actual number of infections since 20 March 2020 is higher than those reported because not everyone with potential infection is tested.
  • Switzerland: Since 6 March 2020, the Swiss government has an official policy of not testing people with only mild symptoms and the number of people actually infected is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases.
  • Sweden: Testing of suspected infections has been cut back in the whole country in the period around 12 March 2020, to focus efforts on people with increased risk of serious illness and complications.
  • Japan: A huge number of patients have been rejected for testing due to various reasons, such as their mild symptoms and insufficient medical facilities, and the number of people actually infected is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases.
  • Denmark: The Danish authorities estimate that the true number of cases is significantly higher, as testing from 12 March to 1 April 2020 primarily focused on people with more serious symptoms, vulnerable people and health professionals. Before and after this period testing was done more broadly.
  • Norway: From 13 March 2020, testing of the normal population was discontinued and is now only reserved for health professionals and acutely ill people in vulnerable groups. and The Norwegian Institute of Public Health states that there are more infected people in Norway than the figures show. The dark figures are presumed to be higher because of limited testing.
  • Finland: From 1 March 2020, testing has primarily focused on patients with severe symptoms of respiratory tract infection, as well as healthcare and social welfare personnel. Testing is also recommended for people in vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those with an underlying condition. Where testing capacity allows, specimens may also be taken from patients with mild symptoms, close contacts with a confirmed case, returning travellers, and other patient groups.

What do you think? --MarioGom (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right, there are far too many testing notes, and the one general one will do. The country articles can expand on the testing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
We could also add a link to COVID-19 testing in the general note. That article has deeper explanations, a table of number of tests, etc. MarioGom (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Added the COVID-19 testing link to the main footnote. Bumping to avoid archival for some more time. Given how disruptive big reverts are in this template, it would be good to get some more input before implementing the change. --MarioGom (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done --MarioGom (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we remove puerto rico?

My concern is that puerto rico is included separately here on wikipedia, when our source seems to include it both separately and on the total US number of cases. My proposal is to either remove puerto rico and add a note that explains that the total puerto rican number is included on that of the US, or to substract the puerto rican number of cases from that of the US, and keep puerto rico as it is now. Pancho507 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep Puerto Rico separate and subtract if required from the US figure. The same applying to US Virgin Is and Northern Mariana, and Guam. They are not considered as part of the 50 states. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Right now what we do is subtract Puerto Rico's case count from the overall USA case count and list Puerto Rico's figures in a separate row. This policy also applies to other US territories. There are no plans to deviate from that method at this time as per "Current consensus". Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 00:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Consensus to split Puerto Rico, US Virsin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Guam was expressed in two long RfCs (1, 2). --MarioGom (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Size of table

@Light show: changed the size of the table by changing the stylesheet. I undid the change as the result was much too small. But perhaps discussion about it can happen here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The size was discussed, ie. here, and since the drop-down still left white space, it was restored until someone could reduce it. So I went ahead and reduced the size of the box. --Light show (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we should reduce the box height and then again make it a collapsed drop-down to see if it achieves its purpose without the white space. --Light show (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the stylesheet is used for more than one table, so when you change it for US, it then changes all the other tables. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you write an inline style to the template to override the one in the stylesheet? --Light show (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary source for Brazil

Moved from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § Primary source for Brazil
 – MarioGom (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone find the primary source for recoveries in Brazil? The number posted here would require a recovery speed five times higher than any other country. I can find secondary sources but not the original which may show that recoveries actually means non-hospitalized like the numbers for Peru do. Of course I looked at Portuguese wikipedia but they don't report any recoveries for Brazil there. Thanks, Of 19 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Of 19, current figures come from JHU ([18]). I'm also quite suspicious about it. As far as I know, there is no official source for recoveries, except for some daily updates from Globo G1 (taken from press conferences I think). --MarioGom (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm blanking Brazil's figure for recoveries until someone can show a source that reports them and where we can verify they are actually recoveries and not a different figure. --MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@MarioGom: I've found what's probably the original source: [19]. The recovery rate seems suspect, but it's the official figure so I guess we should just run with it. --17jiangz1 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
17jiangz1, ok, I guess it's good enough. The recovery rate can probably be explained because of the reporting criteria: São considerados recuperados, os pacientes confirmados que receberam alta hospitalar ou aqueles que, sem terem precisado de internação, não apresentam mais sintomas., which would be roughly translated as [Patients] considered as recovered are confirmed patients that are discharged from hospital or those who, without being previously hospitalized, do not present symptoms. This is considerably different from countries where recoveries are reported only after two negative tests. --MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks, that's what I was looking for. So their definition of recovered is within what most nations would describe as active. So if these "recovery" numbers for Brazil are not comparable to recovery numbers for most nations, how could they be listed within the same recovery column? Shouldn't it just be left blank as no comparable recovery numbers are being reported so far? I have no connection to Brazil or Peru; it was just the unusual "recovery" rates for these two that drew my attention. Of 19 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Of 19, there are many reasons why different countries are not fully comparable for cases, deaths and recoveries. Don't expect any figures on this table to be strictly comparable. Recoveries is the metric that varies more between countries. As far as I know, there is not really a standarized way of reporting them. --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Almost all readers would assume that recovered people will not die of coronavirus and will no longer be spreading it yet neither of these is true for the Brazil statistics. Of course there will be slight differences between countries but when a country is reporting numbers so far away from any acceptable standard it would be better to report it as unknown rather than list bullshit. Of 19 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone think statistics for people who are discharged from hospitals or asymptomatic, aka people who are active cases, should be reported in the recovered column? Or should the recovered column only be for those who were sick, but are now virus-free? Of 19 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

1Point3Acres loading issues

Hi everyone, just wanted to drop by alerting everyone that 1Point3Acres (1p3a) is going through something... odd [10:57PM EDT]. It's taking my WiFi a little longer than usual to load on my laptop and another iPhone X in my house. I also got a 502 error on my Android phone shortly after.

I'm not sure what's going on with 1p3a right now, and this could be temporary. But if this persists, we need a backup source for USA besides Worldometer.

This is just a warning in advance. Even after finishing typing these sentences, I'm still experiencing issues with 1p3a.

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 02:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Update 11:01PM EDT: It's back up. Seems like I panicked a bit too early. Apologies! Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

181.128.110.246 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Colombia cases have 7+ more

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

Change number of recovered in Canada from 16,3425 to 16,425.

The number of recovered people in Canada is extremely incorrect and has skewed the numbers of recovered individuals drastically. 2607:FCC8:F2CA:6300:B55A:25CA:57F1:AD07 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The number of active cases in the Commonwealth of Dominica is at 3 now. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=132075145104619&set=a.104121334566667 A00rEdit (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A00rEdit,  Not done. The table doesn't record the number of active cases, and the update reported on the 24th has the number of active cases at 6, not 3. Do not use Facebook links as many users are unable to see them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

The number of active cases in the Commonwealth of Dominica is at 3 now, here are multiple links...... including the press briefing. https://www.dominicavibes.dm/news-264234/ https://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/covid-19-four-more-patients-in-dominica-recover-some-services-to-resume/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaDNSzrUSAM&feature=youtu.be&t=542 A00rEdit (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See above section :) Aasim 03:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Archive_12&oldid=954951203"