Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Articles about specific states - Epidemic or Pandemic?

Hello!

The title for state articles follows the following paradigm 2020 coronavirus pandemic in State. Maybe it should be epidemic? Since from an individual point of view it's an epidemic, the term pandemic is from a global point of view. Or maybe we should use pandemic so as to explain what the effects of the pandemic were in every specific state? Has there been any discussion on this detail? - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Klein Muçi — it's always pandemic. A pandemic is per definition always a global (or multi-contintent) event, and any region that has an outbreak as of now is part of the pandemic. As such, there are no epidemics of COVID, anywhere, just one pandemic. The precise term when it is localized is "outbreak", but with the WHO declaring a pandemic, using "outbreak" is silly. Carl Fredrik talk 20:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF, the last sentence is what I was talking about. The precise term when it is localized is "outbreak", but with the WHO declaring a pandemic, using "outbreak" is silly.. If you think the precise term is outbreak, the question is if we should say 2020 coronavirus pandemic in State or 2020 coronavirus outbreak in State. All those outbreaks then create what we know as "COVID-19 pandemic". Basically what you say that is silly. Is it really silly? I don't wanna oppose you. To be honest, I'm an admin at SqWiki and we are discussing this exact question at our VP these days and we were wondering if there had been any discussion for this here to see the arguments that were used. So, maybe you're right and it is silly but can you explain to me "why"? (Again, I'm just doing the devil's advocate here because I'm interested in the arguments used.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, silly might be the wrong word. The point is that it's basically a scale, from outbreak to epidemic to pandemic, depending on size and social impact. Outbreak is a generic term for when a infectious disease spreads in a community (one that doesn't normally spread, which would instead be an "endemic" disease), whereas epidemic is more specifically a large and rapid outbreak.
There are a few different definitions for a pandemic, but key is in the Greek prefix; "pan", i.e. "fear"Incorrect attribution following a poor quality non-English source. (I'm not going to go much into the difference between definitions beyond remarking that the section in the Wikipedia article on pandemic needs updating.)
This generally means that for a disease to be classified as a pandemic, it needs to cause "fear", such as by having: low likelyhood of being contained; spread across multiple continents; and a high mortality — most often all three (i.e. you don't have a pandemic of the common cold, despite the other two criteria being fulfilled).
The short answer is that you'd be right in saying "Outbreak of COVID-19 in Alabama during the 2020 pandemic", however it's quite clunky, and it isn't wrong to say "2020 COVID-19 pandemic in Alabama", because even if it's just one case, it's still part of the global pandemic. (The same is true for the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea, despite the NK-gvt reporting zero cases. There is a pandemic in Asia, and even if it were true that there are zero cases in NK, the pandemic is affecting the country, so the name is okay). Carl Fredrik talk 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Pan doesn't mean 'fear', Carl, unless everyone is wrong?This is supposed to be light humor, I can see where he explained that above It means global. And this is a reason I think it's strange to have it in the country-level and below article titles. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF, "pan" means all. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, Tenryuu — You're right, most English sources seem to connect "pan" in pandemic with "all", with pandemic etymologically deriving from pan + demos in the same what that epidemic is epi + demos, which implies that pan in this case is "all". However there is quite a bit of confusion in older (and non-English literature), with Pan (god) being the Greek god of the "woods and fields who was the source of mysterious sounds that caused contagious, groundless fear in herds and crowds, or in people in lonely spots" (wikt:Panic). The proto-Greek pan underlies both and seems to be broader in meaning than simply signifying "all", being instead related to herding. Most English sources seem to agree with you, and what I've read are probably outdated or faulty claims linking the prefix to the god directly, which OEM denies, and doesn't seem to be correct. While the source I used is an older Swedish book, there is some interesting coverage at Merriam Webster on the "Mythological origin of panic".
As for the rest of what I wrote, I don't think there was any issue there. The definitions need to be updated, especially with a historical background.
Carl Fredrik talk 00:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Klein Muçi, we've actually had this conversation across multiple pages related to the virus already. Back before the WHO finally decided to call it a pandemic articles used to be titled "2020 coronavirus outbreak in Japan" or what-have-you. Titling more loaclised areas as "outbreaks" can be disorienting for readers, and "pandemic" in article titles should be taken to mean "the 2020 coronavirus pandemic as it affects this area". Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 23:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree with User:Tenryuu. I see what you mean User:Klein Muçi but if you read it as "the 2020 coronavirus pandemic as it affects this area" it works.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
These questions about semantics have been asked repeatedly and answered. We really should have a FAQ at the top of this page and the main one for COVID-19 for frequently asked questions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

..."pandemic" in article titles should be taken to mean "the 2020 coronavirus pandemic as it affects this area". Yeah, I understand that. That's what I meant when I said Or maybe we should use pandemic so as to explain what the effects of the pandemic were in every specific state?. And yes, I do think a FAQ would be a good idea. Before making this question I was looking for something similar to a disclaimer that dealt with this semantic problem but given that I didn't find it...

Well then, I guess that settles it. We too we'll go for pandemic in SqWiki. Thank you all for your thoughts! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Liz about having a FAQ at the top of this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Public transport

There are article's about travel restrictions and the pandemic's impact on aviation, but we might consider expanding Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on public transport to focus on the impact to global public transport systems. Currently collecting sources here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Open-source ventilator

Open-source ventilator, high or top priority article right now. Carl Fredrik talk 09:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, I also talk about it in COVID-19 related shortages#Hackers with the image. ;) Yug (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Task forces

I see an editor add mention of Wikidata's WikiProject COVID-19 to the task forces section. Maybe we should turn the "Task forces" section into "Task forces and related COVID-19 projects" and provide a list of task forces here at WPCOVID at English Wikipedia, followed by an overview of WikiProject COVID-19s at Wikipedia of other languages + other Wikimedia projects? Seems helpful to clarify which are specifically task forces under the umbrella of this WikiProject, and which are related but not hosted at English Wikipedia... Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested articles?

Is there a list of requested articles for this WikiProject? I feel that such a page could be particularly useful for such a fast-developing topic, and have a few ideas I would add myself.--Pharos (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Pharos, I've not seen one. Feel free to use this section here to create a list of red links. We can always move to project page if needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Article aggregator

Just saw this posted on reddit and this may come in handy: [1]. Juxlos (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

29,903 bases in picograms

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.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has 29,903 bases, so what is its genome size in picograms? Furthermore, are there any estimates of how much mass is has now in the global aggregate? Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Carl Fredrik talk 20:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
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.

Charity

I am new here, and I don't know much about making a new page, yet. Can someone help start this page for me? I would like to see a new page created, on the subject of: Companies which have stepped up and offered assistance during this crisis. I have a collection of links, which tell about anecdotes, but there is a lot more. I want to see these companies acknowledged for the good they are doing; and it might encourage other companies to contribute as well. Here is a link to one article, which details 50 companies which have assisted already: https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2020/03/17/50-ways-companies-are-giving-back-during-the-corona-pandemic/#703c5e2c4723. Also, I have heard about celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger who have donated millions to charities. I was going to call the page: "Those Who Helped."

Thank you, Ron Meyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javacertified5000 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think creating such an article is a good idea. It would quickly turn into an unmanageable list if we indiscriminately include any mention of a company that's made a donation — and introducing an arbitrary cutoff doesn't seem right either. Carl Fredrik talk 13:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is notable. Title can be "Charity in the COVID-19 pandemic". Sections could be :
Direct involvement
  1. Test materials
  2. Protection equipment
Financial support
  1. Companies
  2. Individuals
If a money donation section becomes unmagageable it can be cut out while the rest is still notable. TGCP (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
A more general article on Charity in the COVID-19 pandemic does seem notable, yes. Javacertified5000 — you commented on my user talk page about where you might find someone to work with. Possibly TGCP would be interested in taking a lead on this?
I do however think it's quite important to make sure that such an article doesn't become an indiscriminate list, and that it discusses donations and charity generally, only naming specific donations or drives when they are truly exceptional.
It might also be worth noting that quite many press releases and news-articles out there are using weasel words such as "giving" or "distributing" — when in fact the items are being sold. Re-purposing of factories or shipments from countries with lesser outbreaks is certainly laudable, but it isn't "charity" if the items are being sold. Carl Fredrik talk 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I prefer settings things in motion, not taking the lead, but thanks for the thought. Main Corona-Page views have stagnated at 1 million per day, possibly the largest project in Wikipedia history, but if activity decreases, we may reconsider where we best apply our efforts. TGCP (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Pageview stats anomaly in times of social distancing

As discussed on dewp, their pageview stats deviate from usual patterns since school closures and other social distancing measures went into effect in the German-speaking world around March 16. This prompted me to check some other wikis as well, most of which show similar anomalies over recent weeks. Has anyone looked into this in detail yet? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A thought

Shouldn’t there be a task force for preventing misinformation and vandalism on articles related to the Covid-19 virus? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Start one up. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Interview

Hi, I was wondering if I could get 4-5 active members of this Project to participate in an interview for the Signpost WikiProject Report which I put together. If so, please ping me here and we can get connected! Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 05:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, is this the same thing that Bri is doing (see here)? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: I'd be interested in this.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You should also get Another Believer. He's been doing a lot of good work here.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I just did a similar interview for WikiProject Tree of Life. I'll let others contribute here first, but let me know if more participants are needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: There's some overlap with questions I was recently asked by WikiProject Tree of Life. You're welcome to reference this interview or use my answers at User_talk:Another_Believer#WikiProject_Tree_of_Life_Newsletter, if helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Another Believer -- If I don't get enough volunteers I'll drop you a line. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, I would also be interested in this. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu and Bait30 thank you, the page with questions is right here. Instructions on formatting are also on that page. Thanks again! to Tenryuu: I didn't think it is, you can look at past issues of the Signpost (last month or two months ago) and see examples of this in the WikiProject Report to see what this is. To future volunteers: you can just ping me here then head over to the page. Thanks! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 15:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, You may want to redirect that link, as typing your username in all caps makes the software assume there is a different user with the handle PUDDLEGLUM2.0 and not you.
 Courtesy link: User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR
--Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The page with questions is here. Username6892 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you Tenryuu and Username6892! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
CFCF It would be much preferable if you could answer on that page -- is there a reason why you can't? I'm sorry, I don't want to put out to much personal information on Wikipedia if you understand. =) thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 18:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Hello again, I was wondering if you could ping a couple editors you know are active here and you think might be interested. My writing deadline is coming up, but I don't know which members are active and would be good for an interview. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I pinged a few more. Cheers! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually just looked and realized that two more people answered without notifying! =D I'm open for one more person if you can think of one, but I have the minimum now. Thank you all for your cooperation! Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


Update: Puddleglum2.0 has accepted answers and closed requests for more contributors. Currently undergoing the rest of the drafting process. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: The column has been completed and can be found at this here. Many thanks to Puddleglum2.0! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 05:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for answering and especially Tenryuu for massive help! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 14:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Disestablishments

Shouldn't there be a category for Category: Organizations disestablshed due to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic or somesuch? Several businesses have already shuttered, or will soon, and won't be coming back. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably better to wait until after the pandemic is over, and probably better to name it Category:Disbanded organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic or "following" instead of "during", if we see more organizations who can't get back on their feet and disband in the coming year. Carl Fredrik talk 20:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Really too soon, hard to tell what will be permenant. For many closed organizations, COVID-19 was just the last nail: cause and effect are less clear than time.--Pestilence Unchained (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Infographics about the replication of the virus

Hello! Can someone take a look to this? Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#SARS-CoV2_life_cycle_diagram -Theklan (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Petition to enable machine translation in Content Translator

I am currently translating the Chinese provincial articles, and the lack of automatic machine translation makes the process unnecessarily awfully difficult. The difficulty comes from a) the fact that most of the articles contain heavily technical, formulaic, and repetitive language (hence machine translation reliably gets the technical terms and most of the syntax right and reliably fails at known places that can be easily fixed in batches) that is also intermixed with various Wikitexts such as citations and links; and b) tables with such Wikitexts (it is absolutely ridiculous to spend so much time just to manually retype and format every single district or city name link (bonus pain if they are repeated as in the Shanghai article), which Wikipedia takes care of by itself if you allow machine translation, as I have experienced translating from English to Chinese). The lack of automatic machine translation is the reason why I have eight articles in draft that I have barely touched. Because of the language issue, it is both impractically unfeasible as well as less accurate for me to manually translate the content. The ability to work with a semi-ready bulk of Wikitext will be extremely helpful for me. Rethliopuks (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

+1. It's sad this tool was desactivated due to abuses. Yug (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Pneumonia deaths

As the H1N1 flu is slowly ending it season, can we start plotting the pneumonia deaths on our graphs ? Something like this : https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html ? So people can have a better grasp off the situation ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not relevant to this project's scope. Carl Fredrik talk 20:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It is relevant. Iluvalar (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
You'll have to persuade other editors of your position on the talk page of the graphs you are concerned about. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Or save everyone's time by just accepting, it's not relevant. Carl Fredrik talk 19:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Project tagging, scope

Does the scope of this project include all BLPs whose subjects have died of the disease? Does it also include all BLPs whose subjects have been infected and/or recovered? Elizium23 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elizium23, my current opinion is this:
  • If they were infected & lived, almost certainly not
  • If they were known largely for covid research or releasing information, yes (imp=mostly low, mid if they were important (Ex. Li Wenliang))
  • I'm not sure whether or not they should be included if they died from it. (I'm leaning yes)
--Username6892 12:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The only reason to include those who died from it, where it wasn't a major part of a national debate or w/e — is for tracking on Wikipedia — and for that Wikidata is a much better tool than project-tagging. It's enough to put the cause of death in the infobox. So a strong oppose from me. Carl Fredrik talk 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23, I recommend looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Article report to see the range of articles covered by this WikiProject. It also provides insight into page views, which articles readers are checking out. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz, that is very edifying! I want to confess my concern in this regard: we recently had some quite contentious AFD and CFD sessions regarding people who had been infected with COVID, or had passed away. I just want to be cautious that we do not end up with a de facto categorization of BLPs that definitely shouldn't be categorized this way. As I see it stands today, we aren't doing this, so I'm relieved. Thank you again. Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Applying the talk page template

Is there a previously agreed-upon consensus on whether to apply the WikiProject COVID-19 talk page template on articles that are not directly about COVID-19 but are impacted by it? By which I mean individuals who have died from the disease, sports seasons that have been shortened or cancelled due to it, etc.? — Hunter Kahn 13:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Moved here, Hunter Kahn. Carl Fredrik talk 19:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting April's Timeline

Considering March itself ended up with a page over the size of the page covering the pandemic, are we splitting April? Both February and March have been incredibly long to the point of needing to split them, is it safe to assume that April will be the same? QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to separate some of the articles or templates up by month. I'd start a conversation on the talk page or the article or template you are interested in. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz, QueerFilmNerd is referring to the monthly Timeline pages; March had to be split up as the amount of templates were preventing citations from showing up. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
​Strong support. I think it's best we preemptively tackle the problem now than later. Did we also decide to split the February timeline as well? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe they're still deciding but I believe there is a consensus to split. (And I only asked here because this page will receive a lot more traffic than the newly created April timeline.) QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

Indefinite Extended-confirmed-protection required for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. It seems that protection is expired. Lot of vandalism has started. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

Please, can we add extended protection to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data? At an average of 1 edit per 3.6 minutes, it is already a lot of work to keep this updated and prevent unsourced changes, and now we have to deal with reversion of more edits from anonymous and newbies... --MarioGom (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

HELP! Need a State:County/COVID-19 Commons map updated please - File:COVID-19 In West Virginia County Map.svg

This county-by-county map hasn't been updated since March 27th. I put in a request over on Commons to the last editor who edited it but no response yet. Could someone please update it? I have no idea how, the stats are here: dhhr.gov website. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Photos of a new mobile testing station in Cologne, Germany

Hi all,
just in case you need photos of a mobile testing station and/or a person being tested on COVID–19: My fellow Wikipedia colleague Raymond took a couple of great photos during the inauguration/presentation to the public. They're available in this Commons category. Best regards, --Jcornelius (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Jcornelius, thanks for the photos! Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Those are great images! Would it be possible to turn 6305 to 6316 (or a selection of these) into a process image showing testing. It's a very clear visual that would really benefit the COVID-19 testing page. @Jcornelius and Raymond: ? Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kingsif. I am sorry but I have no idea how to process the images to a movie/animated gif. If anyone know to do feel free :-) Raymond (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Risk factor needs work — highly relevant

As more discussion targets the presence of risk factors or cases and deaths belonging to "risk-groups", there is need to improve the our article on the topic. There has been a significnt uptick in views since the 16/3 [2].
Carl Fredrik talk 09:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry

New article: Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the cannabis industry ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:April 2020 events

Subcategories of Category:April 2020 events will soon be applicable to many COVID-related articles. Just a heads up, if any project members care to work on articles for a select region when the time comes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I just tagged all U.S. locations with Category:April 2020 events in the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hastily split Timeline articles so references display again

At time of writing, Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 has so many template transclusions that Template:reflist will not expand, and citations can only be checked inside the edit window. Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 is in better condition but still a member of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

Both articles have existing split discussions, at Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020#Splitting proposal, Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Templates not showing up, and Talk:Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020#Reference fix. However this project talk page seems to be much higher-traffic, and the project covers both existing too-large Timeline articles as well as any future monthly Timeline articles, so I'm tryna centralise our discussion here.

Be it hereby proposed that the Pandemic chronology sections of both the February and March Timeline articles be split out into standalone articles. This will reduce template transclusions on the February Timeline article by over 400, and reduce transclusions on the March article by over 600. For the new article titles I suggest Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in February 2020 and Case chronology of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020, but I'm sure there's a guideline or MOS entry somewhere that has clearer guidance for a title. We can also discuss splitting out the Mainland China section of the February article and/or merging the Mainland China section of the March article, but my point is we should do a split soon, so readers can check our references per WP:V and all.

Pinging prior discussion participants @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, Tenryuu, Bondegezou, Username6892, 73.121.138.28, 72.209.60.95, Onetwothreeip, Randy Kryn, Bait30, Alucard 16, Moxy, TheGreatSG'rean, and Elishop:.

@Wow: sorry missed you in the initial ping storm. Folly Mox (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Probably good to keep the protection level (technically: add it to the new pages). --mfb (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How to Split?

Since it seems there is unlikely to be someone who disagrees with a split, how do we wish to split the page? By date? Inside/outside mainland china would not work (as is suggested on the February timeline). If wanted, we can move this discussion to the itself. QueerFilmNerdtalk 00:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, there was a discussion (which I currently can't find) where an editor suggested splitting "governmental responses" from "pathology timeline." They're already under their own sections so splitting them should be rather easy. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok so a crude, quick way to split this (for now like now the nom suggested) is to split the pandemic chronology off into its own page while keeping everything else on its own page. However for this to work the Pandemic chronology would have to be stripped of all other non-essential templates considering this section is using 718 {{cite}} templates on its own and we still have 10 days left in the month. Meaning the entire case statistics section would have to be left out of the potential pandemic chronology timeline page for this to work in its current form. Leaving that section in would cause the potential pandemic chronology timeline page to become overloaded. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 11:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Alucard 16, another alternative is to wait tilt he end of the month and see where we could possibly split? As we would know (more roughly) the size of the page. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A simple way forward would be a split by calender week with a monthly article sumarizing and linking to the individual weeks. Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We should probably split soon, the you can't see the refs now aha. QueerFilmNerdtalk 23:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: The March timeline has been split into Chronology of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 and Responses to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in March 2020. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

U07.1 vs U07.2

Do we have any systematic info on which governments are following the WHO recommendation of using both U07.1 and U07.2 for ICD-10 cause-of-death codes? The PL medical agency is using only U07.1, so this keeps the COVID-19 death rate a lot lower than it would under if both U07.1 and U07.2 were used.

There's also a question of where this information would be useful, if we had it available systematically. Coronavirus disease 2019 seems a bit too focussed on the disease "in general" rather than the pandemic; the choice of health authorities to use either only U07.1 or both (or only U07.2 in countries with no tests available at all?) is related to the pandemic, rather than the "disease itself". Any suggestions of pages are welcome, in case this info becomes available. Boud (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Coronavirus disease 2019 is too focused on the disease, that's the subject of the article. 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is focused on the pandemic. There are somewhere between 500-600 articles that touch on the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd recommend tracking down the sources of information you are looking for yourself as every editor is working on their own specific interest area, whether that is focused on the health aspects of the disease or the incidence of cases in specific countries. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In summary, you don't know. Thanks for the info. :) Anyone who does, please add info here. Boud (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlighted open discussions / Current consensus section at top of page?

What's up with the Highlighted open discussions / Current consensus section at the top of this page?

Does this serve a purpose? Is this an archiving error? Should we delete? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, pinging Doc James: Are we putting together a current consensus right now or is it being imported from elsewhere on here? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it could be useful. We could alternately create a "best practices when creating/maintaining a coronavirus page for your country/region" page. It should be on a subpage, though, so that it can be EC-protected, as with the ones at the main pandemic page and Donald Trump. I'll add one item to it now. Sdkb (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of sourcing for our totals

Stats timeline as prose

In general, is it okay to remove paragraphs like "On March 19, there were # new cases. On March 20, there were # new cases, bringing the total up to #. On March 21...", which essentially duplicate the charts in a less readable manner, from timeline sections? There are a lot of articles that have paragraphs like that. --Yair rand (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think are any "general" rules. This WikiProject is only about 2 weeks old. It's best to bring up your concerns on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Try adding prose sections that add more descriptive aspects of the pandemic - thinking of the long-term encyclopedic value of the article you're interested in working on - what did authorities and citizen do to prepare? what were the first most prominent events (first infection, first death)? what were authorities' and citizens' groups' main actions to handle the pandemic? how did the national situation relate to the regional or worldwide situation? have the authorities programmed a loosening of controls before the epidemic reaches containment phase (as in Poland: all public gatherings are banned now, but from 12 April, gatherings of up to 50 people will be allowed, per the 31 March official regulation)? After you've done that, editors of the article might feel more comfortable compressing the raw timeline prose parts. But as Liz says, that's for negotiation among the active editors of the article. Boud (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand:, I think it depends on where the region in question is at with infections. If it's a smattering of say, maybe 3 or 4 cases a bit more detail is okay; once it gets to around 25 or more is when that should probably be relegated solely to data. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

BCG vaccine to reduce severity of COVID-19

https://www.mcri.edu.au/news/murdoch-children%E2%80%99s-research-institute-trial-preventative-vaccine-covid-19-healthcare-workers
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-health-coronavirus-australia-vaccine.html
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042937v1
Any thoughts? should we incude them into article? Ckfasdf (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can be mentioned in the COVID-19 vaccine article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
but, it is BCG vaccine, not COVID-19 vaccine. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ckfasdf: This is clearly relevant to COVID-19 vaccine. The medrxiv preprint correlations look quite impressive from a quick look at the diagrams and the claimed statistical significance. The BCG vaccine might not formally qualify as a "COVID-19 vaccine", but it's a vaccine that looks very much like it has a significant role to place in preventing COVID-19 in people who are presumably SARS-CoV-2 positive but suffer less from COVID-19 symptoms (and death). You could also consider COVID-19 drug development. Edit and discuss on the talk pages! Boud (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A single sum

For deaths, confirmed cases, and recoveries should be used more. Have started using this one {{Cases in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}. We need the ability for rounded numbers to appear here aswell. Have asked User:Waddie96 who built it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:United States Man who figured out how to make this work. We know have a single place to store sums to be used in various places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: since building this template, I've been called to the frontlines in my home country South Africa and have very little to no time for Wikipedia at the moment (as for the months to come), please ping me to get my attention as I only look at my notifications now and no longer my watchlist. Best, comrade waddie96 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Well we have the total at the above template. In my opinion it would be useful to have similar templates for each country. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly similar templates for each country could be helpful or a single template to store the numbers of each and every country? comrade waddie96 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and understand. Good luck and wish you safety and health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Definitely better than updating individual pages. Great idea! Not sure if we need more templates or if this one can be the "central repository" for such data. Probably one central source would be better. Maybe with a "country" parameter. Is it doable @Waddie96:? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: With a country parameter, it's doable yes :-) and then "world" in the country parameter could return the values that the template currently outputs. comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19

Just FYI, for people interested in Wikidata: wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject COVID-19 ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there also one on COMMONS? COMMONS:COM:WikiProject COVID-19 or somesuch -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I've not seen one at Commons. I'd encourage someone, especially an editor familiar with WikiProjects at Commons, to be bold and start one if there are ways editors can collaborate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Related: commons:Category:WikiProject COVID-19 ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter

At the request of Another Believer, I'm transcluding the Tree of Life Newsletter for this month, which features a story about WikiProject COVID-19. Enwebb (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Shortcut
March 2020—Issue 012


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Argentinosaurus by Slate Weasel and Jens Lallensack
Wolf by LittleJerry
Horseshoe bat by Enwebb, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Cimicidae by Cwmhiraeth and Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Enwebb
Coronariae by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Dank
Ardipithecus ramidus by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by starsandwhales
Ooedigera by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Hog Farm
Bathyphysa conifera by Awkwafaba, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Calliphora vomitoria by Y.shiuan, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated content

Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations by Britishfinance
Bathyphysa conifera by Awkwafaba
Moniliformidae by Mattximus
Disease X by Britishfinance
Mandarin Patinkin by Rhododendrites




Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


Main article: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic related shortages

Hello all ! The news cycle is now full speed on makers, hackers, DIY, open source ventilators & co. If you want a snapshot on this issue, this feature video ("'Health Care Kamikazes': How Spain's Workers Are Battling Coronavirus, Unprotected") by The New York Times is as good and quick as you can get ! That's what we document. In past week 60+ sources were integrated into that article but this shortage/DIY topic is now a in the spotlight of news agencies, so we need more people to scan the news on this shortages and solutions matter and help improve and expand that article. Please help as you can, "one statement-sentence with its source" at a time is a great contribution ! Best, Yug (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey ? Am I on the wrong page to call for contributors ?? Is everyone overwhelmed ? Yug (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the right page. Probably a lot of people are busy with other issues—there's a lot of work to be done on COVID-19 articles right now. But I agree with you that the shortages article is important. I added a sentence, and I'll try to add more if I come across relevant information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger:, yes, we need more content contributors on the meta articles, the "Issues" and others, which are making sense of the daily factoid poured into the national 2019 pandemic {location} and timelines. But I don't known how to make that call.
I also see a BIG need for something like Health care workers in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. So much news coming this past week on their ground fight, risks, creativity, sickness, deaths, activism and censorship and job dismissal (! ). Is someone aware of some existing HCW in COVID19 section ? Mental health during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic isn't it. And my 4 lines coverage is Shortages_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Health_workers is far, so far from what could be collected. If not, I will expand the section cited and create an article from it asap. cc @Boud, Jax 0677, Mx. Granger, and Tobby72: Yug (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yug: PL: There's one sentence at the end of this section about 38 hospitals/hospital sections being closed; which is both about healthcare workers and patients; there's a section on medical personnel censorship here, with the ombudsman defending the health workers' freedom of speech. Boud (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Boud: Thank you ! :D Yug (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"How Indians Are Making A Difference In Wikipedia's Fight On Coronavirus Misinformation"

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has COVID-19 information in Bangla, Hindi, Tamil and 6 other Indian languages"

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus updates in Hindi, Bangla, Tamil and 6 more Indian languages on Wikipedia"

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Iran Blocks Wikipedia Amid Coronavirus Crisis, Says Net Group"

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject_COVID-19#Press_coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucial new study by Imperial Available

Main article: Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team

A lot of info for a lot of different articles. Very interesting.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-Europe-estimates-and-NPI-impact-30-03-2020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mostly relates to transmission modelling. Reproduction numbers and impact of interventions. Current estimation of infected and other related arguments across 11 EU countries.

Example of important info:

Population infected by country
ICCRT's model projection for March 28[1] WHO lab-confirmed March 29
Country Population[2] Infected

(95% range)

Infected

(mean %)

Cases

(est.)

Cases Detected

(% of pop.)

Austria 8,999,973 0.36%-3.1% 1.1% 99000 8291 0.09%
Belgium 11,579,502 1.3%-9.7% 3.7% 428400 9134 0.08%
Denmark 5,785,741 0.40%-3.1% 1.1% 63600 2201 0.04%
France 65,227,357 1.1%-7.4% 3.0% 1956800 37145 0.06%
Germany 83,792,987 0.28%-1.8% 0.72% 603300 52547 0.06%
Italy 60,496,082 3.2%-26% 9.8% 5928600 92472 0.15%
Norway 5,407,670 0.09%-1.2% 0.41% 22200 3845 0.07%
Spain 46,767,543 3.7%-41% 15% 7015100 72248 0.15%
Sweden 10,081,948 0.85%-8.4% 3.1% 312500 3447 0.03%
Switzerland 8,637,694 1.3%-7.6% 3.2% 276400 13152 0.15%
United Kingdom 67,803,450 1.2%-5.4% 2.7% 1830700 17093 0.03%
Note: WHO reporting laboratory-confirmed cases on March 29, 10am Central European Time.

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Check out Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team ;) Yug (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yug: Nice! We could put this in the 2019-2020 Coronavirus pandemic page in the "country response" section next to Europe. With the data on "avoided deaths" due to the lockdown measures. What do you think? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_population&oldid=948306542#Table

{{Current COVID}}

I have created a custom version of {{Current}}. Please feel free to improve. If there are no objections I'll apply it in place of {{Current}} to COVID related articles.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC).

Hey, we already have :{{Current disaster|event=pandemic|date=January 2020}}. Is there a clear gain in your action creation ? Yug (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
That is probably worth merging the new template into. Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC).
I'll spend some time on this this evening and come back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC).
Maybe the following code {{Current disaster|event=2020 COVID-19 pandemic|date=March 2020}} into {{Current COVID}} would do:

Yug (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough and Yug: I don't think it's necessary to split off a separate template; just use the parameters already in {{Current}} as needed to customize. Also, which articles should or should not have the template is a controversial topic — please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#When_should_articles_have_the_Current_template? and share your thoughts there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
One of the reasons a separate template is a good idea is that we can tune the wording to make it clear where it should be used. That is why I used the words an ongoing situation relating to the so that it is not used in inappropriate ways.
Secondly all the uses of {{Current disaster}} as of last night were COVID related. So it's not a case of the tail wagging the dog.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Coronavirus impact on X articles

It strikes me that, as a general rule, "Coronavirus impact on X" is a lot less unweildy sort of title than "Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on X", for most of the specialized subject articles.--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've started an example one here: Coronavirus impact on teleconferencing.--Pharos (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
If the article is supposed to focus specifically on COVID-19, then I would use the word "COVID-19" rather than "coronavirus", as the latter term includes SARS, MERS, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I feel like for consistency's sake, that article should follow the "impact of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic" naming pattern.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Pharos, per Granger, which coronavirus are you referring to? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that coronavirus pandemic in the main series of titles is effectively under the same moratorium (26 March + 30 days, at least) as move requests as the "main" page. That doesn't necessarily block new (or newish) titles, in which case it would be reasonable to predict the likely outcome of future move requests, to minimise the impact of future move requests. It's clear that coronavirus impact would be rejected; 100s of millions of people are infected by coronaviruses in temperate zones every winter, and that's been happening for a very long time. COVID-19 impact ... (with pandemic implicit) or COVID-19 pandemic impact ... would be reasonable, it seems to me. Boud (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm referring primarility to COVID-19, though I wouldn't be opposed to having some information related to social impacts of the SARS and MERS epidemics in the early 21st C. Obviously the impact of all coronaviruses every winter isn't really an encyclopedic topic, so going for a shorthand. COVID-19 impact or coronavirus impact would both be fine for me, though I do think impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is rather too much.--Pharos (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Pharos, "coronavirus impact" would not be okay, because, again, which coronavirus would you be referring to? You may be able to get away with "Impact of COVID-19" as it's more specific and the disease is recognised. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be merged with above discussion here: COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm going to have to disagree with you on that; the other section is more focused around what we refer to coronavirus disease 2019: as the full thing or as its shorthand. This is considering ditching either of those and referring to it as the general "coronavirus" family. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 12:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu:Yes what I meant is: we are already having a discussion about those standards in that discussion. This is a third proposal in that discussion. Although I think it's clear from the sources reported there that just using "Coronavirus" is inappropriate (it's not a precise/accurate name). I would continue that discussion instead of branching out. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

For article names WP:COMMONNAME is unambiguous, we should be using COVID-19 for the disease, so " COVID-19 pandemic" would seem reasonable. There's no need to disambiguate by year. (I prefer the all caps, but may remain neutral on any discussion on that.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Highlighting Simple-English articles

Many of our articles, especially on COVID-19 topics, are long and complex. We have readers who will struggle to understand them, for whom the simple.Wikipedia is a better resource.

We should of course, be checking that articles there are of good quality, reliable, and up-to-date.

I have made {{Simple}} as a hat-note template for such articles. I hope we can agree that it should be used.

It needs improvements, to pick up links automatically from Wikidata, and perhaps to be more prominent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Herd immunity claims in Wuhan

See the Hubei COVID-19 talk page for Time and Telegraph references. The Telegraph reference would imply that Wuhan is getting close to herd immunity and that the official figures are more or less nonsense. Boud (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Given <100,000 recoveries out of 10,000,000 Wuhan citizens... we have 1% official herd immunity. Need 70%. Let me laugh. Yug (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If there is herd immunity (which doesn't necessarily require 70%, for various reasons) then the official Chinese figures for infection might seem wrong. But these are only the confirmed cases, the received wisdom seems to be that actual infected figures are 10-100 times greater - because of untested mild cases which we have some idea of, and a largely unknown number of asymptomatic cases.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Transmission: Important WHO update

Important WHO update on their stance here. We should probably update sources based on this report (see "Subject in focus").

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_4

Of note the fact that references to "coughing" or "sneezing" are absent. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Highlights:

  • 17 sources/studies for transmission are reported
  • Symptomatic transmission "COVID-19 is primarily transmitted from symptomatic people to others who are in close contact through respiratory droplets, by direct contact with infected persons, or by contact with contaminated objects and surfaces."
  • shedding highest in upper respiratory tract (nose and throat) within the first 3 days from onset of symptoms. More contagious around the time of symptom onset as compared to later on in the disease.
  • Pre-symptomatic transmission: The incubation period for COVID-19 is on average 5-6 days, however can be up to 14 days. During this period, also known as the “pre- symptomatic” period, some infected persons can be contagious.
  • There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission. This does not exclude the possibility that it may occur. Asymptomatic cases have been reported as part of contact tracing efforts in some countries.

Clear shift here in language. Probably explains why the guidelines on mask use are changing --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Immunity, antibodies and convalescent serum

These are sources that tell us what is going on, though I realize we're looking for WP:MEDRS. What can be done in the various articles on this topic?

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241498231.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article241498861.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241638786.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article241724531.html

And I've already asked whether any of the articles mention convalescent serum:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/article241461011.html — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Google's COVID stats sidebar, with data from Wikipedia

Hi all – wanted to give you a heads up that Google is using several template pages (as of this writing, Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state and Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data) to create a statistics table/visualization that appears at the top of Google search results for COVID-related terms. You can see a screenshot of this to the right or see it in action by Googling "covid," "corona," "coronavirus," etc. This isn't a formal partnership between the Wikimedia Foundation and Google (Google made the decision to use this data on their own), but we're communicating about the feature and their upcoming plans for it. As the community gathers more granular stats on cases, deaths, and recoveries, Google is interested in potentially making use of these additional pages to expand the feature.

I'm going to cross-post this notice to the talk pages of the relevant templates, and I'm watching this page and other COVID content via my volunteer account. If there's a new discussion about moving, deleting, or making major changes to the structure of these templates, I'd super appreciate a quick ping either to this account or my volunteer one so I can let the folks at Google know and they can adjust where the feature points accordingly.

If you have any questions about this, please let me know! MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Big authoritarian centralised secretive organisations like Alphabet Inc, which owns Google Inc, have enough resources to check whether Wikipedia pages get updated or not without needing help from us. How about helping Duckduckgo, Qwant and other attempts at creating more privacy-respecting, community-based search engines rather than GAFAM? Last week we had an advertisement flashed across the en.Wikipedia top bar to let the whole world know the name of the WMF CEO. Fine. We know her name now. Now let's get back to community issues. Boud (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
That's very interesting, MPinchuk (WMF). Even more pressure to be accurate. I'm not sure if the editors that focus on editing templates participate much on this talk page so it's good that you cross-posted this info to the template talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
For anyone who wants to check them out, the cross posts are here (archived, some discussion) and here (no discussion yet). @MPinchuk (WMF): if, while you're in contact with Google folks, you're able to do any sleuthing about this, that would be good to know. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb:, thanks — AFAIK Whatamidoing's response is pretty spot-on: I'm told that Google never manually intervenes in search results rankings. They might remove results altogether (e.g., imagine if someone got a court order for that), but they don't decide whether to push Wikipedia up or other things down. Also, as noted above, results vary by person and place. If I search for the title of this article, it's the first hit. If I search for coronavirus pandemic, the WHO is the first hit, and this article is the second hit. Other people will get different results, but these seem pretty good to me.
Google doesn't share the specifics of their SEO ranking with us or anyone (because that would obviously open them up to gaming), but the team working on the stats card does want to share COVID-related Google search query data with the Wikipedia community to shed light on what kinds of stats are most in-demand by readers right now. I've started a mailing list where I'll be posting weekly updates from that team, and I'll cross-post a link to the public archives here and on the other relevant talk pages. First post is here (the table got a little garbled, so I'll repost here in wikitext format in a new section), and the list is here for anyone who wants to subscribe and ask any follow-up questions or give feedback/bug reports on the Google stats card feature. MPinchuk (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

When should articles have the Current template?

At 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the stable (albeit pretty much undiscussed, as far as I can tell) consensus seems to be not to use {{Current}}, but it still appears at many sub-articles for individual countries. The guidelines at the template seem to discourage long-term use, but the de facto practice seems otherwise, and for some of the lesser-trafficked pages, I could see an argument for a strong prominent disclaimer that contents may be out of date. Regardless, we should strive for consistency, so: should we use {{Current}} on pretty much all of the COVID-19 pages, on some of them (as decided by some criteria we could formulate here, or just ad hoc), or on basically none of them? Sdkb (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Presentation slides from a presentation at Wikimania 2018 covering some of the results mentioned on this page.
Should be removed all over....just makes readers have to scroll for nothing....the message will not change what people read (and there's already a notice about content accuracy)..but the banner will cause some to get less information....as we know most will only scroll 2 times and if they don't get to the TOC in those 2 scrolls they are gone. raw data.--Moxy 🍁 02:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: Okay, I'll start taking them out. At the least it'll drive more attention here if people disagree. And yes, I read that study after you linked it the other day. Very interesting. Holding people's attention is hard. Sdkb (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a big mistake, Sdkb. This is a big change to make based on a couple of comments. Many of the pages are not regularly updated and these notices serve to make that clear. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Liz. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
As this has been contested and Liz made a request, I'll stop removing the template from articles where it previously existed for now. I issued an invite at the template page for others to come here. The view I think I'm coming to is that it should depend on the prominence of the article, with the more prominent ones (which are updated frequently) not having it but the less prominent ones retaining it, as they have greater need for the disclaimer. Sdkb (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Pls just slow down ...you have multiple proposals on the go in the middle of you learning how it all works. No rush.--Moxy 🍁 11:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: We all always have more to learn, but I think I have plenty enough tenure to understand the fundamental relevant considerations here. WP:NODEADLINE is always good advice, but so is WP:SENIORITY. Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This is going to be going on a long time. I do not think the template is really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My first instinct was "of course it's current and info will for sure be out of date!". But I agree with User:Doc James. This will continue for a long time so keeping that banner just because a page isn't updated in real time with every tiny bit of data or statistic is probably not that useful. The pages will consolidate and the data will show the date of last update. I support removing it but agree "no rush". Let's remember we are all in this together and take it easy guys. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Current tag Merged from duplicate discussion by Sdkb (talk) at 18:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why articles about coronavirus pandemic in countries don't have {{current}} tag?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It mainly depends on activity level. If there are say, more than an edit a minute on average, then it might be needed to indicate that it is a current event that has high editor activity. Thus readers and editors are aware that the page changes quickly, revealing new content and conflicts in saving edits. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd say the opposite, actually. The most important function of the template is to note that the page might be out of date, and that's more necessary on the smaller, less-frequently updated pages. Edit conflicts will explain themselves if/when they come up, plus we should be designing pages for readers, not editors. Sdkb (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The template's reason has become muddy over the years. This is one reason a separate template might be useful, which we can modify as we see fit. There are a few messages in the template, mostly addressed to readers, although the template documentation says that it is targeted at editors:

  1. A warning that information may be out of date.
  2. A warning that news reports may be unreliable.
  3. An invitation to edit the article or discuss on the talk page.

It's not clear that all are appropriate in our use cases.

In 2009 the template was:

This had the advantages of a) Clarity for the reader and b) Clarity for the editor. It was typically applied to a breaking news and for a day or so.

I have created a custom template, {{Current COVID}} which, should we so desire, can be edited to fulfil the exact requirements for this project. Please feel free to edit this template. I would urge that editors prefer simplicity to features.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

I agree with you that the template has become a bit muddy/bloated over the years. I think the best solution to that is to update the template itself, introducing new parameters if needed, rather than creating a new one from scratch. Creating a new one just adds unnecessarily to the byzantine collection of templates. Apologies, but I'm going to bring it up at TfD to get more input. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think now is the time to overhaul {{Current}}, though if you wish to start that process off by all means do so. When you have completed it we can merge back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

Easter/12 April relaunch of infection rates

Do we have info in any countries apart from Poland - maybe those with big Catholic church political influence - where lockdown measures will be loosened on 12 April/Easter? We know about Shincheonji and the Christian Open Door Church that were responsible for big launches of infection rates. In Poland, the 31 March 2020 government regulation, published in Dziennik Ustaw, allows religious events and burials to jump up from their present maximum of (5+religious/funeral personnel) during 1-11 April, up to 50 maximum in total starting from 12 April 2020. The regulation says nothing about Easter, but that's the obvious motivation. There's no time limit on the loosened constraint.

If there are other countries that are planning to loosen lockdown-type conditions "for Easter" it might be useful to put this info together, since this is a pandemic management policy quite distinct from the standard ones, which is likely to accelerate the lab-confirmed cases curves. Boud (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Tetrandrine

The obscure drug Tetrandrine has been mentioned in the media as a possible treatment to prevent mild cases from progressing to ARDS. The stubby article needs attention. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DATED infoboxes

I am concerned about infoboxes becoming dated and very, very quickly. There is a field in {{Infobox pandemic}} called "date" and I believe it is used to provide an "as of" date. I propose using {{as of}} in the date parameter and adding the currently-updated date to all instances of "Infobox pandemic" in the hope that those who update the infobox will consistently update the date (yeah, right.) Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Support other languages Wikipedias are doing this.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Resource Response

So, this my question / idea is similar to "Charity", however it encompasses a broader range. If a Category or Page(s) already exist with this information, I do apologize, as I wasn't able to find one. Anywho, onto my brainstorming...

Either creating its own sub-cat within the COVID-19 Portal or adding portals within geographic locations with lists of resources available to citizens within each community. For example:

  • COVID-19 Resources in the United States
    • " " " in [State Name]
      • """ in [County]

Then, each page would have resources divided into sections by type; i.e. Household Supplies; Food Donations; Childcare; Education, etc. Alternatively, there could be lists of resources by topic > location, instead:

  • COVID-19 resources
    • Educational Resources
      • Distance Learning
        • Video-conferencing Platforms
        • Educational Websites
        • Home-based games and activities
    • Locational Resources
      • Government-provided [in Country]
        • Gov. provided [State]
          • Gov. provided [County]

Something to that effect, anyway. AbeautyfulMess06 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There were 2 projects for responding to the risk of H5N1 influenza pandemic in 2006. They might be useful for the Wikipedia page for Pandemic and/or this WikiProject.

  • The FluWiki was an experiment in collaborative problem solving in public health, meant to help local communities prepare for and perhaps cope with a possible influenza pandemic. Sections on the illness prevention, diagnosis,treatment, preparedness, international contingency plans, related issues and brainstorming. The domain expired but the site can be accessed here Archive.org link to the FluWiki.
  • Pandemic Reference Guides was a website designed to be shared as a compact disc for those with computers but no internet access. Topics included prevention, diagnosis and treatment for the flu, pneumonia, and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), protective equipment, infection control, end of life, emergency preparedness, quarantine, home school, emotional support. There was also a pdf of pages that might be useful to have and share in printed form for reference. Files were pre-downloaded from sources like CDC, WHO, Red Cross, etc. The domain was active from 2006-2014 but not renewed after that. A disc image can be downloaded from a Dropbox file here Pandemic Reference Guides disc image. After downloading, install/mount the cd, then click on a html file to view the information in a web browser. Earlybird2 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Earlybird2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_4&oldid=1137391465"