Template talk:COVID-19 testing by country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Brazil and rapid/express tests

Some user added rapid tests to Brazil stats1 few days ago. But that nonsense. Rapid/express tests don't uses for any diagnoses. WHO recommends to use PCR tests instead. China sends millions express tests around the world. And that's all broke current table and stats (other countries don't add express tests to own stats).--88.200.214.166 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Rapid tests are antibody test that are used for diagnoses, I don't see where you've got the info that Rapid are not used for diagnoses. WHO recommends to use PCR test to find the final result over the positivity of a patient. Rapid being used as a preliminary test to investigate, if positive, they undergo a PCR test as they are more expensive, limited in qualities and time consuming. This applies to most country that I'm aware of include US, UK, France etc...

I don't understand as to why Brazil's can't have its antibody (rapid) test included to the total tests done while the US data includes it following how the CDC calculate the total test including both viral (PCR) and antibody (rapid) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html AND this report both Texas and New Hampshire mention they include both test in their totals. https://covidtracking.com/documents/CDC_Report_CTP.pdf which I've found over a quick research.

Same could be said for the data of France, UK, Spain, Sweden etc... who have rapid test included in their totals. Having Brazil only to include its PCR (viral) while others are free to include their rapid (antibody) test to their stats makes this table totally bias. You've stated that no other countries add rapid (antibody) test in their own stats yet you haven't brought any evidence over that. RichardDesvaux (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Rapid tests from Brazil are NOT antibody tests (what's why it's RAPID, not antibody calls). It's China's express tests with very low positive rate. China's rapid/express tests actively used in February-March all around the world by many countries but it doesn't included in official stats.--109.169.215.61 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is broader effort to distinguish between PCR and other (rapid, etc.) tests, I am sure the type of tests used can be added to the table, into the Units column, for example (= "PCR samples", "PCR and rapid samples", etc.). Editors would need to go through the statistical sources used in the template, and indicate what types of the test are, per the source, used. As I did for Bhutan, for example. (For sure someone will soon find out a better way.) When we have info about the majority(?) of countries, I am sure User:UnladenSwallow or another editor will undertake the job to check and add that to the table. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked specialist and he confirmed that some rapid tests are good antibody tests with chips, cartridges and equipment for analysis. But Brazil uses pregnant style tests (5 million tests from China's Wondfo above). That's bad tests. Most countries have abandoned them in favor of PCR tests. BUT I don't think it can be tracked for each country. So I returned rapid stats to table. I recommend to make a footnote about Brazil stats in the table (that it uses rapid tests). That topic can be closed.--109.169.215.61 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Other countries are also using rapid diagnostic tests (e.g. Nepal, Venezuela). It doesn't make sense to single Brazil out for this, so I'm removing the note. It would be nice if we had a column specifying what types of tests a country is using, however, that's something for the future, as currently we don't even know testing units (cases/samples) for many countries. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently US data is from covidtracking and it does not contain any (negative) antibody tests since those states who reported originally had separate it out. However many countries do include antibody tests or even border tests from their counting. I think it is OK to keep rapid tests there, but suggest making a note how the number is separated if possible.Atzhh (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 Testing in Brazil

The Covid-19 Testing page mentions Brazil has tested 10,697,205 samples, while worldmeters mentions 999,836. Can anyone confirm these numbers? I could not confirm from the source mention on Wikipedia as I don't know the language. me_arunkt (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This site is the one listed in the table as the source (along with this one) but apparently in the last two days Brazil removed the historical data from the first site, including how many people had already been infected, which has created quite a stir. (If you use Chrome you can get at least part of the sites translated.) The number in our table must represent what they reported prior to removing that info. Looks like we’ll have to stay tuned. — Swood100 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way according to today’s worldometer, there have been 711,696 cases in Brazil, not 999,836. So it looks like Brazil is causing turmoil everywhere. By the way beside the number 10,697,205 in the table code is this comment: "Teste PCR and Rapid live data [in the first reference, CDC data include both rapid (antibody) and PCR (viral test) in their stats same applies to France, UK, etc...]" so maybe they had been counting antibody results in this number, which would help explain the uproar and the reason for revision. — Swood100 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rapid test vs PCR

A difference should be made between rapid testing and PCR. The former is easier to do, so countries that are only relying on that are misleading high.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Italy's Update June 29th

Cases 3,235,505 Samples 5,341,837 Confirmed 240,436 people (milions) 60.24 source Dipartimento della protezione civile

Matteo Falcone

Thanks I have updated to 1 August but will leave population for now. Awbfiend (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Correct typo Novemberr to November 86.187.232.91 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

.

. 2405:201:A006:9256:E4AE:FCCC:72ED:8F2C (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Update

Hi, when will this template updated? I need it for a R programming course, and it has to be updated. 31.222.101.180 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please Update this template

I need it for a R programming course Spandan7143008 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please could you update the template