Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 36

• Strongly support option 1: This is a better option in all regards. Even when used as an example of misinformation, it is dangerous to present Trump's statements verbatim without a fact check. Linking to the office of the U.S. presidency rather than Trump's article is nonsensical. The New York Times source is authoritative and pertinent, whereas the ABC News piece just shows Trump backpeddaling. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'll also note that the image of Khamenei that one of the two just introduced has no consensus behind it at talk and should be removed immediately, along with changing the caption back to the status quo while this discussion takes place (hopefully it won't take long). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Looking back to this discussion about Khamenei's photo, it seems like that was centered around diffs that inserted the photo in isolation: objections included that Khamenei was being made a poster child for misinformation, that it was undue weight, or that a narrative was being spun. I feel that including Khamenei and Trump together resolves many of the objections that have been raised with their photos and/or captions in isolation. At the very least, it changes the how the overall figure is viewed and hence changes the nature of the discussion. Einsof (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support option 1: per Sdkb. Trump is no scientist.   —
  G. ツ
  11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Veto on option 1 Trump suggested Extra researches to William N. Bryan from the DHS. "You gonna have to use medical doctors". Any claim that he suggested anything else to anyone else should be treated as misinformation and political push. According to Nancy Pelosi, "The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs". [5]. If we are going to present POV, we have to present all of them clearly. As a side note, Trump say that disinfectant DOES get into patient lungs. He was most likely talking about traces of Chlorine dioxide in patients lungs, which honestly could use more researches. Iluvalar (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 and option 2: no consensus behind it at talk, see this recent discussion here, and the discussion I started here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 and option 2: it was a miscommunication, since president Trump later claimed to have spoken sarcastically (i.e. with a sharply mocking taunt). It did misinformed persons temporarily because the retraction did not came inmediately. I agree that it was odd that as soon as the joke bombed, Trump should have made it clear that we has being sarcastic. This is a serious falt on his part, given that it was a press conference for a serious matter, but it does not qualify as misinformation anymore. Whenever a person publicly retracts the intention of a statement, encyclopedias have to give him a charitable treatment, in my opinion.Forich (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ambivalent: I am strongly against Option 2, because it almost feels like lying by omission (leaving out the actual content of Trump's statements, which are what made those statements newsworthy in the first place). However, I'm hesitant to endorse Option 1, simply because from a medical point of view, the contents of the statements were extremely dangerous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Option 2 almost seems to violate the
  principle of least astonishment. Relatedly, I see from reading through the previous discussion that some editors objected to this caption (and/or the inclusion of the image at all) because it was seen as US-centric or as a cheap political shot. In that case it seems like the picture and caption of Khamenei could be left in for balance (the previous discussion that resulted in its removal having taken place in the context of Khamenei's picture appearing alone). Einsof (talk
  ) 12:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  We objected Option 1. Option 2 is a place holder text, I don't believe it was proposed as a permanent option. Presenting this as 2 definitive option is in itself a push for Option 1. And to give a look of consensus to it. Feel free to oppose both. Iluvalar (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 is more informative in both the text and even the references cited, as Sdkb says. (If the user(s) who added option 2 to the article intended it only as a placeholder, it would be useful to mind that this is a live and heavily viewed article and not something in draftspace where one can just leave up placeholder wording, and therefore, to provide whatever actual alternative wording is being proposed...) -sche (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose All: For reasons mentioned above. David A (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - because that is what happened.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both options and remove file. Entirely UNDUE and unbalanced to focus on one person. Hzh (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  There's a clear benefit to readers of having the section be illustrated, as we established at the last discussion, and if we do that, we're going to have to choose an example. A video of Trump works well, both since he's probably the most prominent politician spreading misinformation about the disease, and since he speaks English, whereas a video of e.g. Bolsonaro would be unintelligible to most en-WP readers. We use a photo of the president of Taiwan wearing a face mask in the face masks section; does that give that section an UNDUE focus on Taiwan? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is an entirely wrong example since misinformation is about people doing something wrong, and there is nothing wrong with wearing a mask. The image of someone wearing a mask is neutral, but image of someone accused of spreading misinformation is not, which by its nature would raise question of DUE and NPOV. Whether the language used is English or not is entirely irrelevant here, you can use a picture of Trump without audio and it would not make any difference. It is also not clear if it was a case of misinformation or just an attempt at sarcasm. Using an unclear example like that to illustrate misinformation can be considered POV and non-neutral, and should not be allowed. The Iran president's one is a more clear cut example, but that was removed also, so I don't see how this one can be used at all.

• Strong Oppose All - Any mention of Donald Trump speeches should not be mention in this article as he known spread misleading information to viewers.Also to stop increasing article content size to make it easier to load as we address it.Regice2020 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - Of the two, #1 is the most accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - A full transcript of his comments: "So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me." Option 1 is an accurate and neutral summary of these comments, and importantly includes the fact that what is being said here is false. This is definitely a notable example of misinformation as it was reported worldwide.Wikiditm (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  "you said you’re going to test that" [...] "So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with." That's a crucial part of the passage. I start to wonder if everyone here also understand the context, this is the middle part of the 22th press conference were typically medical experts are invited and trump just do the padding. No one in their right mind would mistake Trump for a medical expert able to do "suggestions" as we seems to imply here. Iluvalar (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  That part is also untrue (this is definitely not going to be tested) but the big misinformation which was picked up in various sources, and should be covered here, is the claim that injecting disinfectant helps in any way. This claim is in the line "it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs."Wikiditm (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  To do a number on: To hurt or harm someone or something. [6]. Are we talking about the same thing ? Iluvalar (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs." I think we're talking about the same thing yes. This is the key section. The claim being made here is that injecting disinfectant helps with covid-19. That is false.Wikiditm (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the word "do" by the word "test" and the whole thing make common sens. The disinfectant DO clean in a minute but tests are needed to know what impact it get in the lungs. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. How can we test ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support option 1 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Retaining the video as opposed to Khamenei was already decided upon, and Option 2 fails to describe why what Trump bloviated was misinformation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose option 1 Wikipedia is becoming a tool to slam Trump and conservatives. This section is another example. For example, it lists "cconservative" media as a source of misinformation. Ironically, option 1 then says that Trump suggests ingesting disinfectants as a way to cure Coronavirus. The very clip clearly shows him asking the medical professionals if there is any way this might be developed into a treatment and if it should be studied. The clip does not support the summary. So where did the summary come from? The media. The media rephrased what Trump said to hurt him politically. This is misinformation by the "liberal media." Those that support option 1 do so because they have bought into the misinformation and want to hurt Trump politically. This is not the direction wikipedia should go. It hurts the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NTAbbott (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment All arguments posted against option 1 seem to be on one of two grounds: One is that this should not be included at all, and the other is the claim that this event didn't happen as widely reported (either that Trump did not say what he is recorded as saying, that he has been misquoted, that he was sarcastic and didn't really mean what he said, or that context provides a different interpretation to what was said). The former argument is irrelevant as this question has already been established. The second argument is seen to be false from reading the transcript posted above.Wikiditm (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  The argument is very valid. I think my main concern is in the double meaning of the word "suggest", if we were using an unequivocal term like "seems to argue", "evoke", "hypothesized", I'd be fine with the whole sentence I think. But if we use the other sens of the word suggest : "recommend/advocate/urge/encourage" it become inaccurate and highly political. And the dichotomy between the two IS the misinformation i'm aiming to illustrate. Iluvalar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  The "recommend" sense of the word suggest is fully supported by the transcript, as Wikiditm tried patiently explaining to you above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  No that's bullshit, the transcript end by "So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with". It's CLEARLY indicating that this is a call for more research, not a direct recommendation to try anything at home. This is a clear political push. Iluvalar (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion — Should the caption include the fact that there were people who actually tried this method and ended up calling poison control centres? -
  EelamStyleZ (talk
  ) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Has anybody found credible information opposing wearing face masks? Nrandazzza (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@

summary style, so we only try to add the most essential information). Possibly, if I remember correctly there were quite a few statements in the media saying that wearing a face mask outdoors wasn't really helpful, but in any case I'm not sure if we want that covered here or at the other article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian is correct that this isn't the place, but to answer your question very quickly, there's a reasonable argument to be made (and which is the position of many governments) that since the stock of masks is finite, the mass wearing of masks is actively damaging as it diverts supplies from high-risk sectors like medicine, policing, social care etc. There's also a defensible position that since the protection offered by non-surgical masks is relatively low, they can give wearers a false sense of security and encourage them to engage in risky behaviours that increase the risk of transmission to degree which outweighs the protection afforded by the mask. ‑ 

Iridescent

15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

One new argument I heard yesterday against face mask is one that would certainly apply to me. A face mask causes most new wearers to touch their face more often, adjusting it and the like. Touching the face is discouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[7],

doi:10.1136/bmj.m1435, and [9]. Bondegezou (talk

) 07:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article says the earliest case with symptoms was 1 dec, yet the UK atrticle says there was a Welshman with symptoms on 25 Nov - surely this is earlier and should be mentioned here https://news.sky.com/story/fighting-coronavirus-one-of-the-first-british-sufferers-describes-his-ordeal-11950631 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not clear whether there is official confirmation that this was truly the coronavirus... We should wait until this gets mentioned in press briefings by authorities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is Reuters saying "Reed got confirmation at the end of December that he had COVID-19."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-wuhan-britain/briton-struck-with-coronavirus-in-wuhan-recalls-i-couldnt-get-enough-air-idUSKBN20Y22F

so that is an earlier case with symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your posts as you have been told on your talk page previously per

WP:THREAD. —DIYeditor (talk

) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in question "However, the first case may be traced back to 17 November, 2019.[1]"

Is this edit okay? I haven't been too involved in the discussions about the date of the first case, but I seem to remember there being some, and I'm guessing this probably violates it and might want to be reverted. And we should probably add whatever the current consensus is on it to the list. Doc James, you just made an edit to this portion, so pinging you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yah it was originally just in the body of the article and not the lead. The source does support https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back but not sure if it is strong enough for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, the amount of space in the first paragraph now devoted to the date of origin is now undue, so it'd need to be streamlined, if nothing else. I'm a little hesitant to make the reversion myself, though, given I haven't followed this aspect that closely, and that I'm running up again my revert limit for this article for today. (You may want to review the recent addition of an Asia map; imo the only continent-level map we should currently have is Europe.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay have moved here for further discussion. Agree different sources come to different conclusions and it is best to discuss in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The date of the earliest known case should be based on what

WP:MEDRS state. Reports in normal news media about this sort of scientific question should not be held as reliable. The dating of the first known case to 1 December 2019 is based on this Lancet paper. There have been unconfirmed media reports of earlier cases, including a claim in the SCMP that the first case in China has been dated to 17 November ([10]), but I think we should regard these reports as potentially unreliable, until they are published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, such as The Lancet. I would not include any mention of cases before December 2019 in the lede, but we can discuss unconfirmed claims of earlier cases in the body, as long as it is made clear to the reader that those claims are not yet certain. -Thucydides411 (talk

) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed scientific publications which include this claim, and they are citing the SCMP source for it. The date of the first case is not so much a scientific or medical claim, but a historical one, and SCMP is a good enough source for this in my opinion.Wikiditm (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which scientific publications? Can you link to them here? The date of the first case is very much a scientific question, and the SCMP alone is not a suitable source for this claim. We need an actual scientific journal as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears as background info in a large number of publications addressing related issues, for example [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I also found modelling and forecasting work which uses the mid-November date: [16]. None of these are publications seeking to answer the question directly "when was the first case?" and I couldn't find any studies trying to answer that question apart from through modelling. I don't think it would be appropriate to cite any of these studies for the claim for this reason. This really does seem to be a historical claim rather than a scientific one - it is treated as a historical statement in most studies I found, and so citing a news report seems reasonable to me.Wikiditm (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James, Thucydides411, and Wikiditm: A relatively new editor just changed the date in the infobox. Feel free to revert them if you wish. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for the date of the first case to meet

WP:MEDRS as this is historical information and bears no chance of harm. SCMP is a plenty good source. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 14:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with this, it's a tricky one. The WHO have the earliest confirmed case being in December. The SCMP is a plenty good source, but the WHO isn't too shabby either.Wikiditm (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

WHO is

wp:primary here, as they have been pushed around by PRC. We should be able to find some ok big newspapers. SCMP for Asia is about as good as it gets and i thought is highly respected. If we have a respected source saying it is earlier than the WHO, we can use the earlier date and attribute it unless there is some later some 'medical consensus' on what is correct. But the WHO's statements relating to dates and early suggested course of action (dont close flights, position on masks, etc) is all very very suspicious in my opinion and there are now a lot of source that point to PRC influence. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

US and UK are the highest and second-highest number of deaths. See [17]. As worst hit, it seems reasonable to give them substantial coverage.Wikiditm (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopia country Belisa Mahadi Beker Belisa Mahadi Beker (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi, kindly change the number of recovered patients in the United States to 645,974 as of June 2, 2020 under the Epidemiology tab. Thanks. 42.60.88.59 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To change that, go to Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. CrazyBoy826 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The source does not provide that figure. CrazyBoy826 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As both the main page and this talk page are getting a bit less attention of late, I don't think automatic archiving of all threads with no new replies in the last 36 hours is still warranted. Limit could be set at 7 or 14 days, perhaps. Speed74 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Speed74, agreed that some increase is appropriate. I'm a little worried about increasing it too much, though (partly since it's an impediment to clearing out the periodic conversations-that-just-won't-die™ that happen on this page). I'll double it to 3 days, and let's see how that works out before boosting it further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My daily look through the changes to this page resulted in reversions of 4 editors today. I'm safe with

I'll watch more closely--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Protests could accelerate spread of coronavirus, experts say and[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bravo, Holmes, (this isn't aimed at you or anything, I'm just saying that it's quite astonishing that nobody mentioned this before) this is obvious and if it isn't already in the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDRS? I would think that if we are saying in wikivoice that some activity contributes to the spread of disease, that statement needs to meet MEDRS. I have also read (that probably also doesnt meet MEDRS) that outside activity has a low role in spread. Thus I am not sure this inclusion is warranted. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I also think that it needs to be sourced on a MEDRS.Forich (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The text we currently have is Starting in late May, large-scale protests against police brutality in at least 200 U.S. cities in response to the death of George Floyd raised concerns of a resurgence of the virus due to the close proximity of protesters. The phrase "raised concerns" is helpful — we're not claiming in WP's voice that the protests contributed to the spread (that claim would indeed require

WP:MEDRS), but just reflecting widespread media coverage that the protests are part of the story of the pandemic in the U.S. I'm certainly in favor of searching for the highest-quality sources we can find on the topic, but I think the text should be kept. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

06:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I dont have a big problem with raised concerns. It seems the concerns are unfounded, but that is my opinion and worthless. But we do have sources stating that concerns have been raised and it is nice to be able to wikilink to the Floyd protests article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. The article's actual short description reads:

Ongoing pandemic of COVID-19

but it is being displayed as:

False information about the COVID-19 outbreak

(In searching the archives of this page I found "Wikipedia talk:Short description#Short description broken at COVID-19 pandemic and possibly elsewhere".)

I don't know how to fix this, even after reading the instruction in the "Wikipedia:Short description" article. Would someone else please be so kind? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It was transcluded from

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic with {{#lsth:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic}} in COVID-19 pandemic#Misinformation. Fixed by <noinclude>...</noinclude>.[19] PrimeHunter (talk

) 10:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to change the legend for the map for the infobox on top - but I'm no expert for the wiki syntax. How do you like this representation - and could you insert it, please? --Traut (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

personally don't know how to, however it does look good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The vertical display looks empty since it was just changed here. But I agree that a horizontal legend bar will be an improvement if we can get it to work. I think the template we're looking for is Template:Legend inline; I'll take a gander at implementing it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so we can easily get   None/no data   0–10   10–30   30–100   100–300   300–1000   >1000 ... I might need to add a parameter to the template to get it to work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Traut (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm fairly stumped on the technical aspect of this. There's also the issue of how to handle the gray box, which isn't just "none" but "none or no data". One solution might be to keep the current vertical display rather than switching to horizontal, but to use two columns. I'm bad with tables, so if someone else wants to try implementing that (and can do so without breaking mobile), go ahead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that 'none' is worse than "no cases or no data available" - but I doubt that you need it that super-correct. The map is used on lots of other pages - many of them without any legend at all. I just want a short and clear legend, without repeating the same redundancy again and again. But I would not like a 10-30|30-100|100-... since the breaking value 30 would be part of both intervals. And 10-29|30-99|100-... is even worse, since the actual number could be e.g. 29.5. --Traut (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: a recent edit expressed concern that with a horizontal legend it is less clear whether the label goes with the color to the right or the left of it: this could be addressed by adding middot separators (as are used to separate items in certain 'series'/'topic' and 'navbox' templates) or some other spearator, if people otherwise want a horizontal label for compactness or other reasons. For example, here's a spaced middot separator:

  >1000  ·    300–1000  ·    100–300 [...]

-sche (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

for people reading from left to right an increasing number looks more obvious to me than zig zagging 300-1 000 | 100-300 | 30-100 | 10-30 --Traut (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, though I suppose the numbers are probably listed the way they are because one does not normally(?) see "1 000-300". We could avoid the issue by listing the options from smallest to greatest, i.e. "0-10 ... 10-30 ... 30-100". Also, shouldn't the ranges be non-overlapping, i.e. ""0-10 ... 11-30 ... 31-100"? Otherwise what colour is a country with exactly 30 cases (per unit being measured), under the current legend?. -sche (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

-sche, the labels were non-overlapping, but there's been a bunch of tweaks made to them, and at some point (I think fairly recently) the non-overlappingness was lost. I don't mind too much, since no country is going to have exactly 1000, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It probably never will be exactly 100 - but i won't be exact integer numbers either. So taking values 10–30 | 31–100 will no fit for 30.5. Typical solutions are

• 0 | < 10 | < 30 | < 100 | < 300 | < 1000 | ≥ 1000
• 0 | ≤ 10 | ≤ 30 | ≤ 100 | ≤ 300 | ≤ 1000 | > 1000
• 0 | –10 | –30 | –100 | –300 | –1000 | 1000+
• 0 | ..10 | ..30 | ..100 | ..300 | ..1000 | 1000..
• 0 | [0–10) | [10–30) | [30–100) | [100–300) | [300–1000) | [1000-∞)
• 0 | [0–10[ | [10–30[ | [30–100[ | [100–300[ | [300–1000[ | [1000-∞[

I guess not everyone is used to the last two mathematical intervals --Traut (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As of 5 June, the Key for the 'Deaths' map is incorrect (okay when you click on link, but small one on this page appears to show "over 1000 per million" color for countries (e.g. the US, "321" is less than "1000"). Thank you. --18:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.200.242 (talk)

Wow, I'm not sure how that error slipped in, but thank you for catching it! Fixed now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When searching covid-19 statistics on Ecosia (the ecosia extension for chrome specifically, check this link https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=covid+statistics&addon=chrome&addonversion=3.2.0&method=topbar), a preview of this wikipedia article appears at the top of search results.

However, the name of the article incorrectly displays as 'CCP Virus' due presumably to someone creating a redirect link for 'CCP Virus'. Here is a screenshot of the incorrectly named article preview: https://imgur.com/a/qORMQRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfinetube (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• its being discussedWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#CCP_virus--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The map of world lockdowns (National responses section) is inaccurate and inconsistent with the table that is linked to in the caption (Template:COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns). For example Japan in the map is coloured in light blue suggesting regional lockdown, but there have not been any lockdowns in Japan, as confirmed by the template page. Also it is unclear whether the map refers to *current* presence of lockdown, or whether there has been a lockdown at all. Arguably the latter would be more useful. The map needs to be updated and clarified, or I will continue to press for its removal. Speed74 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Slightly separate point, "lockdown" is a word open to different interpretations, so I still think there's a risk the map could be considered original research. It may be useful to somehow use the data amassed by Oxford university (https://covidtracker.bsg.ox.ac.uk/stringency-map; set the map to 13 April for example, gives a good overview). Speed74 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:RECENCY). Courtesy pinging Nice4What. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

07:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the matter on the map file's talkpage (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:COVID-19_Outbreak_lockdowns.svg) Speed74 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am again seriously tempted to remove the map, at least until issues with it have been fixed. It is pretty much unpresentable in its current form. Why is all of Africa in grey? Nearly every African country has had a lockdown (see the map by the Oxford university researchers which I linked to above), and indeed still has a lockdown. For many countries, whether there has been a lockdown or not depends on who you ask. For example on the commons talk page a user asserts authoritatively that there has been no lockdown in Armenia or Georgia, but other sources (including the Oxford researchers) will tell you that there has, at least in Georgia. Speed74 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speed74, I reluctantly have to agree with you at this point. I just commented it out and added a note that it should only be brought back once it's been made reliable. That will make it easier to add back when the time comes and less likely to pop back up before then.

Have we been able to contact the original map creator(s)? Is there anywhere we should reach out that might have editors likely to want to work on getting it back in shape? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick summary of improvements I think need to be made before the map can be made visible again:

• It should be verifiable which means it should exactly match the list given at Template:COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns, which has references. To give just two examples of discrepancies between the map and the table: Japan and Mongolia. There are many others. (Potentially the map could be made verifiable in other ways, but to get it to match the table at the template page would be one way.)
• It should focus mainly on whether countries have used a lockdown at any point, even if the lockdown has since been lifted, for two reasons: one, this is more notable in the long-term than whether there is currently a lockdown in place; two, it is unfeasible to keep the map constantly updated with the latest situation in every country in the world.

To answer your point about who to contact about improving the map, several users seem to have contributed to it (their usernames are visible at the file's page on Wikimedia commons, under file history). All of them could be pinged potentially, and I myself might be willing to work on the map if I can figure out how, although it will take a lot of work to get it completely up to scratch. Speed74 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another idea: the map could be set to a specific date, for example, it could give the global situation on 15 April, again going by the data in the table on the template page. This would make it much less vulnerable to repeated edits that can be hard to keep track of. Speed74 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To add I would prefer if we used the map from the Oxford source. As mentioned "lockdown" itself could mean differently. In the Philippines for example uses several terminology for different lockdown measures (general community quarantine to enhanced community quarantine). At one point all provinces and cities are under some form of "lockdown" (not just the areas on the table on the main lockdown page) See COVID-19 community quarantines in the Philippines. In short the table is also a messy attempt, in its current state, to document lockdowns across the world.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Inaccurate figure for number of deaths in table. The figure stated is in the region of 360,000 deaths. By most estimates, including the value of individual countries, give the number of deaths as 396,699. This is verifiable via John Hopkins University Covid Resources Centre. 82.0.25.57 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

should you look at the current table it reflects neither of the numbers you've indicated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the page to requests update to the table. Rather try at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

COVID-19 makes you cough and sneeze. So to avoid it don't cough or sneeze. 72.180.71.104 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure this is right... Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Covidemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Covidemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronacaust. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Coronacaust until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corona baby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Corona baby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Interstellarity

 – Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

lets talk before tagging article for 'too long', please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I will move this discussion to the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic because that is the most appropriate place for improvements for the article. If you would like to discuss further, please reply there. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is too long and should be condensed. What are your thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

we could remove some of the countries in 'national responses'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Which countries are you thinking about removing? Which ones do you want to keep? Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

maybe condense the countries(subsections) in Europe, to a single section dedicated to Europe( which would talk about every country) this would shrink significant article space...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: How about an edit like this? [20], is this what you're talking about? Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

impressive...however we should put in one sentence for each country[21](that's not a lot)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoa there! We really just going to cut out almost all discussion of the European pandemic, including the entire Italy section, which was the first epicenter for the virus outside of Asia, and the UK section, which has the highest European case count and one of the highest in the world? We might wanna establish consensus before removing all of that! BlackholeWA (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, an entry for Sweden is specifically mandated in consensus point 5, which also says that France and Germany should not have subsections (which were added in the edits). I have reverted them for the timebeing because there is clearly a lot that needs to be addressed before changes are made BlackholeWA (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, apparently the France section was already there, despite the consensus point. ...I'll let someone else clear that up BlackholeWA (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

that's correct France was already in the text[22], furthermore I would support reducing this section(Europe and its subsections) as the article has become too long...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If we're going to have a vote we should phrase more clearly what we're asking, because I would support across the board content trimming of the national responses section, but not the removal/ground-up rewriting of particular countries. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: three-phase combined history/countries

It's overwhelmingly obvious looking at File:2020_coronavirus_cases_by_date_of_report.svg

and File:Covid-19_new_cases_in_top_5_countries_and_the_world.png that the history so far is in three phases:

• China (Dec 2019/Jan-Feb 2020)
• Iran/S.Korea/Europe (Mar-Apr 2020 - exponential growth and then homeostasis)
• Americas (+India) (May- 2020)

Sources for the division should be easy to find. Due weight to be given to different countries would make sense mostly following this historical structure, apart from exceptions such as Sweden (claims to have a scientifically better justified policy, and an implemented policy that is clearly different from the other European cases). This would make it possible to compress the History and National responses sections together. Right now, the tiny section for Brazil compared to long sections for the rich countries is clearly out of proportion (the other sections are proportionally too long), given that Brazil is driving the daily infection count.

This would be a lot of work and require a lot of careful consensus building and making sure that valid content is shifted to the more topic-specific (e.g. country-specific) pages, since I'm sure people who've contributed to the content won't be happy to see their content "disappear". But my feeling is that this would:

• shorten the page;
• make it more balanced;
• bring it more up to date;
• refocus the "what country is more significant" debate into the COVID-19 historical context.

("Up to date": Just as the "second phase" has led to most of the China new cases being imported, the "third phase" will tend to lead to Europe (west of Białystok) getting to a stage where many of the new cases will be imported from the Americas/India, as intercontinental non-goods-related travel is gradually loosened.) Boud (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear it's time for another big discussion on how to structure the country-specific content on this page. We should have some meta-discussion here first, though, about how to structure that RfC to make it most productive. Last time (see the current consensus list for link), it got a bit muddled since we hadn't fully moved to continent-level coverage at that point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel that File:2020 coronavirus cases by date of report.svg does not help very much to understand any kind of development how corona spread. The overlay with a second axis and the "Total" line does not help either. File:Worldwide Coronavirus Curve 6-7-20.png is a second chart which has very little useful information. --Traut (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 288,630 confirmed cases in Spain.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Per item number 3 in the COVID-19 consensus above, we do not use WorldOMeters as a source anymore. The current source that we're using for Spain^[2] appears to be up to date. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I found out that Total cases is the sum of total cases detected by PRC and antibodies tests. If you want the real source it's right here: ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Some editors who are unable to edit Template:COVID-19 pandemic data are posting their requests on here rather than on its talk page. Should another edit notice be created to redirect their suggestions to over there? I'm just worried another one might be overkill on edit notices. Alternatively, the one in the middle could be edited to include a link to the template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, the second edit notice is basically already that, but I share the concern. Linking to the data template definitely sounds like a good idea, since I think some of the ignoring might be from people who see it but don't know where else to go so just decide to ignore it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, the link to the talk page for the template on this article isn't very obvious. A bulleted addition to the edit notice like "If your edit request has to do with the table of total cases, deaths, and recoveries, please go to Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data" might be helpful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Here's a draft update to the editnotice:

Extended content

This talk page is not a forum for general discussion. It is for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This page receives many views with some topics raised repeatedly. Use the search box to see whether your topic has been covered. The current version is often a result of prior consensus . Do not post about updating tables, images or maps. There is a delay in how often these are updated. Bring up issues with the main table at this page. Unless they are severely out-of-date, posting about this only clutters the talk page. Using high-quality sources, please be bold and update things yourself. If you do not know how, please post at the appropriate image or template talk page. Do not discuss updates for other Wikipedia pages here. Discuss other pages at each individual page's talk-page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 . WikiProjects are one way to connect with other editors with similar interests. There is a WikiProject Medicine and a WikiProject COVID-19 , which are open to everyone! Please do comment if you still believe it will be helpful!

How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, it appears that it is the only table (thankfully) on the article, so I don't think "main" is necessary. Otherwise I'm all for it! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, sounds good; I'll make it an edit request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: The edit notice has been edited as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m using the Wikipedia app and underneath the title of the article (the subtitle of description maybe?) it says “False information about the COVID-19 outbreak” which doesn’t seem right at all. Icedmorning (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This also shows up when searching for covid-19 through wikipedia search bar. https://imgur.com/tvoq9Sa I couldn't see where that was included in the source code.Alsidprime (talk)04:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Alsidprime, It's a problem with the short description; will fix. Thanks for pointing it out! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

global confirmed cases should be 7.2 million now, please update accordingly. BlackSun2104 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Then go to Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data and fix it yourself! But keep in mind, the source within the text is based on official numbers from the WHO, while other sites, such as JHU and worldometer use different, estimated, higher numbers. --Traut (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

BlackSun2104, if you took this information from WorldOMeters, please note that per item #3 on the COVID-19 consensus up at the top of the page, we do not accept it as a source due to potential double-counting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Under Section 3.1 (Transmission), after the sentence "Some medical procedures are aerosol-generating and result in the virus being transmitted more easily than normal." Please can you add: "The risk of transmission to medical professionals performing aerosol-generating procedures such as tracheal intubation has been estimated at approximately 1 in 10 for the month following first performing the procedure.^[2]" Dannyjnwong (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{

reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk

 page! 19:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. Please provide a

reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk

 page! 20:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, am I missing something? Anaesthesia appears to be a reliable peer-reviewed medical journal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk

 page! 20:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes sets particularly strict conditions on editing here. --RexxS (talk

) 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for clearing that up. That being said, could it act as a supplementary source if a sufficient secondary source is provided? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: If you find a good secondary source discussing estimates of transmission risk, you won't need the primary source. The point of a source is it's something that we can use to write content from; it's not there as "Further reading" (we have a different section for that). --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

The deaths are now 431,000... Not 429,000...103.100.11.3 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This question pops up again and again. 1) check for the sources. Numbers here are taken from WHO or ecdc.europa.eu, but not necessarily the numbers from JHU or the estimates from worldometers. 2) fix it yourself if you got the proper numbers. --Traut (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

vandalism - says china wuhan virus pandemic

please delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.230.159 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Fengryffen. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

good read

• Colavizza, Giovanni (12 May 2020). "COVID-19 research in Wikipedia". bioRxiv: 2020.05.10.087643.
  doi:10.1101/2020.05.10.087643. Retrieved 17 June 2020.…--Ozzie10aaaa (talk
  ) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, with oppose citing

WP:SNOW. How long a move moratorium should be is an open question, though this and the preceding very long discussion are rather strong consensuses. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 00:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

---

COVID-19 pandemic → Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic – Still confusing how title of Wikipedia page about the pandemic/epidemic is. I suggest the title of the page to be accurate (for example: title should be named to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic). I think that would be better than current title of article. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:495:F136:5E0:109B (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The name of the disease is either "COVID-19" or "Coronavirus disease 2019"; what it definitely isn't is "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)". I don't see how a name you just made up could possibly be considered "more accurate". ‑ 
  Iridescent
  17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per reason above. please see guideline on the top talk page. 114.125.253.19 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, as Iridescent explains. We also have a consensus for the current name, as listed at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus above, and we have had far too many people trying to move this (and other related articles) to different titles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. We've covered this already in consensus item #2 above. COVID-19 is
  WP:COMMONNAME, and anyone looking for more information is more than likely going to use that as the search term. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝
   ) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This just makes the title longer than it should be. I suspect this will be

WP:SNOW closed within the next few hours. Interstellarity (talk

) 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Move to
  Coronavirus pandemic per my comments in the previous discussion. Also note that "Coronavirus pandemic" site:bbc.co.uk gets about 128,000 results compared to only about 49,800 for "COVID-19 pandemic" site:bbc.co.uk. Crouch, Swale (talk
  ) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to
  Coronavirus pandemic – 'Covid-19' is jargon, confusing, and less common than 'Coronavirus' as a name for this disease in common discourse. We ought use the names people actually use for things, not the names handed down from above, as per our COMMMONNAME policy. RGloucester — ☎
  21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This just makes the article title longer than it should be. Please see the guideline of the talk page. 180.244.146.165 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snow close per Iridescent and
  WP:CONCISE, and time to implement a much longer move moratorium, until the end of September at the least. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language
  ) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose and snow close. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:56, 17 June 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.

Australian guidelines recommend consideration of remdesivir

https://covid19evidence.net.au/ --115.70.230.159 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"C-pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect C-pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#C-pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to talk less about COVID-19 itself

The article talks a lot about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. It should talk only a little bit about the disease and virus, and more about the pandemic of the disease.--RaiBrown1204 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? Isn’t the pandemic the spread of the disease? It goes into it perfectly--BaseFree (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RaiBrown1204, but that's the point of talking about the pandemic: how the disease is affecting the world and what the current status is on its prevalence. Specifics of the virus or disease are mostly confined to the lede, or in their own sections which also have a link to their own articles. Responses to the disease are listed further down. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Should excess deaths be quantified ?

I noted BBC remarks give a number for excess deaths here.

At least another 130,000 people worldwide have died during the coronavirus pandemic on top of 440,000 officially recorded deaths from the virus, according to BBC research.

Should the Deaths section give a number for excess deaths ? Should the LEAD mention of numbers include it ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, for the lead, I think there's only room for one clause, which is currently resulting in more than 452,000 deaths. We might add a footnote to that, though. And I think there's certainly room in the deaths section to talk about excess deaths — it's a useful measure since my sense is that it's harder for vested parties to manipulate than the deaths count. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong statistic for Kazakhstan

Starting from June 3rd Kazakhstan Authorities started to split official COVID-19 statistic into 2 groups. Authorities withdrew people who have been tested positive for COVID-19 but have no symptoms (known as asymptomatic) from the main official statistics. Data on the main page of the reference site (reference 109) https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ is for people tested positive and have symptoms only. There is another statistic for people who have been tested positive for COVID-19 but have no symptoms on this site. For example, for June 18th please take data from here: https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ru/o-bessimptomnyh-nositelyah-koronavirusnoy-infekcii_a3663512. We should add up 2 these numbers to get correct number of confirmed cases. For example, for July 18th the number of confirmed cases in Kazakhstan is 16 351 + 7 609 = 23 960. Otherwise statistics won't be correct. This article is semi-protected and I don't have rights to make changes by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михаил Гулидов (talk • contribs) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump & Khamenei misinformation images/videos: NO consensus

After careful thought I believe neither image/video should be included. My recent edit was reverted, with the following edit summary: "Reverting back to consensus". However, there seems to be no clear consensus, see the recent discussions here, here, here and here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The is no real consensus for the inclusion of the Trump video. The last discussion was on the image caption even that argument was all over the place. If people want to keep the video, they need to have a clear consensus for its inclusion, otherwise it's a violation of UNDUE and NPOV. Hzh (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 no consensus at all. Iluvalar (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been settled. All three of you participated in the prior discussions and consensus did not go your way. It's time to

drop the matter, not to forum shop by raising it over and over again. "I disagreed with the consensus" ≠ "there is no consensus". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is NO consensus. You just opened a vote between a dissatisfying option 1 and an absurd option 2 that no one ever wanted. It doesn't make option 1 impossible to change after the vote. YOU are the one who categorically refuse to try to reach a consensus. Iluvalar (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That discussion wasn't even about whether to have the Trump video there at all, so it is entirely wrong to argue that there is a consensus on keeping the video. It also disappeared from the talk page before closing, so even the vote on the options wasn't decided on (I counted 8 for option 1, 7 against option 1 including those who wanted neither, no one cared about option 2), that is not a consensus. Hzh (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, there is no consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone can probably start a RfC on whether to keep the Trump video or not. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

good idea...(item 13 indicates it should stay)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Given that there is no evidence of consensus, then item 13 needs to be removed as a false assertion of consensus. There is also the question of whether Sdkb improperly asserted consensus in Current consensus when there is none. The editor needs to remove that edit. Hzh (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

National responses section

This section needs more global coverage in summary style. Currently only some countries are covered in excessive depth while others are not even mentioned. This section should have subsections on Continents (like Asia, Africa etc.) with only few paragraphs on heavily affected nations in those continents.

• Current version
  • Asia
    • China
    • Iran
    • South Korea
  • Europe
    • Italy
    • Spain
    • UK
    • France
    • Sweden
  • North America
    • US
  • South America
    • Brazil
  • Africa
  • Oceania

India, Russia, Turkey, Peru, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia; these all heavily affected nations are missing. This section needs rewriting.-Nizil (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

if you add all those 'missing' countries, how long will this article get?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nizil Shah, you may want to take a look at consensus item number 5, which has two links ([ 1 ] [ 2 ]) discussing the criteria to include countries in the Responses section to prevent it from being too bloated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, those discussions don't mention Brazil, for example, so where did the consensus come from for COVID-19 pandemic #Brazil? France is excluded by the discussions, but currently has a section. It's clear that the situation (and consensus) changes with time. I'd suggest that the criterion for including a national section here should be contingent on having a separate article "COVID-19 pandemic in Xyz", and that the section here should be a brief summary of that article per WP:Summary style. Cutting down on the over-detailed sections would go a long way toward reducing the size of the article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Before it was archived, we were having a discussion about a new potential RfC on this matter after some contentious edits last week. It stalled a little when attempting to decide what sort of question we should ask, but most people agreed that the section should be re-balanced. I'm not sure if it would make sense to vote on specific countries, or a broader criteria for inclusion. Somebody suggested we organized the section by the main "phases" of spread as indicated by the pandemic curve, Asia, then Europe, then the Americas, but that seems messy to me. But perhaps there's a more even handed way of determining where weight should be given to particular countries. BlackholeWA (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• The addition of specific countries has changed over time, so they needed to be adjusted when the situation changes. France can be removed since it is not particularly interesting and its inclusion was not agreed on, but Russia and India can be added. I think some country sub-sections need to be trimmed (China and US), maybe limiting to four or five paragraphs. Otherwise it is fine as it is. Hzh (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we want to shy away from specific countries, COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory has short paragraphs for each continent; though of course these might be too short for our purposes here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Updated recoveries in Chile

Wrong page for this; try the template talk. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Chile has 191,491 recoveries ^[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.51.215 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/chile/
2. ^ https://www.gob.cl/coronavirus/cifrasoficiales/

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.

"spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times"

What does "the outbreak spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times" mean? It seems to be far more common to say something spreads by a factor of N, rather than "by a factor of N times". This was tagged "clarify", but then the tag was removed without clarifying the text. Does it mean the disease spread to become 100-200 times as widespread as it had been? Can this be rephrased for clarity? -sche (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Bar chart for cases/deaths for world situation

According to the WHO, cases worldwide are accelerating [23]. At least, that how The Guardian in the UK is reporting it. For the reader to quickly verify the assertion, and the situation generally, it would be good to have that horizontally-aligned bar chart covering cases and deaths for the world as a whole. This is the chart used in most of the country-specific articles. Any opinions on the matter? Arcturus (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how this should look like. How does a horizontal bar chart show that cases are accelerating? Those bars would just show a current status, but not any development. How would you like to present the bars - in absolute numbers? You feel worried about the 1 mio cases in Brazil? Yes, that's a lot. But when you compare Brazil (1 032 913 cases) to Chile (231 388 cases) - which country is worse? Brazil has a population of > 200 Mio, Chile not even 20 Mio. So comparing cases per population, you have Brasil: 493 cases/100k, Chile: 1235 cases/100k! Or take the deaths. What's worse: United States (119 112 deaths) or Belgium (9 695 deaths). Per capita that's US: 36.4 deaths/100k, Belgium: 84.9 deaths/100 k! It's not that easy to have a chart of countries with a very different size. --Traut (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It should look exactly like this [24], using the three figures currently at the head of the InfoBox and detailing the worldwide situation. This template is used in just about every subsidiary country article, so it would make sense to use it here as well. In the same way that the US has this chart for the overall situation there, that article has 50 sub-articles for the US states, and most of them use this chart. It would just give the overall global situation at a glance, which is not easy to deduce from the plethora of complicated graphs currently near the top of the article. Arcturus (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ok, got it - it a bar chart for the whole world. I don't know how recoveries would be estimated, but the WHO does seem to provide this guess. It could go above or below /{{COVID-19 pandemic data}}/ --Traut (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:DWAP aside. We unfortunately don't even have room for a navbox at the bottom, so a bar chart almost certainly wouldn't fit. There's work to be done improving the charts in the cases/deaths sections, so that might be a more productive area in which to focus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk
  16:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too big, and I'm not sure that we, as editors, should be bothering about WP:DWAP. One obvious change would be to strip out the vast amount of material about national responses, nearly all of which is duplicated in the country articles. And, many of the sections in this article also address country-specific stuff, which can also be reduced significantly. So at the end of the day, we need to be cognisant as to the needs of readers, and not so much of editors. When the average reader sees stuff along the lines of the WHO assertion mentioned above, he may well come here to quickly view the relevant data. The chart I'm suggesting would very much facilitate this. Arcturus (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Add 'disputed' tag to number of cases within China

The American Enterprise Institute published a non-scientific paper in April on China's potential obfuscation of their case numbers. While this paper is in no way definitive proof they have done so, it brings up a lot of good arguments. China has also under-recorded case numbers in the 2003 SARS pandemic, and while that is by no means damning evidence, it does show that there is precedent for such a move by the Chinese authorities.

I propose that a [disputed] tag be added to the running number of cases in China. I feel it's a relatively neutral way to show the numbers China is and has released are disputed by some, or in this case, this source.

Link to PDF of paper here: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Estimating-the-True-Number-of-Chinas-COVID-19-Cases.pdf

Porcelain katana (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

AEI is a political organization. I would be against using their claims to make any statements about the number of deaths in China, or to put a "disputed" tag next to the numbers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again stating here the obvious. China stopped the testing on Feb 4. After 3 research such as this one [25] shown that covid was already spread all over wuhan (from who knows where) with an IFR <1% . While china up to that point was managing it as a >10% IFR virus. There is no international laws that forced China to test and they never claimed they were testing anyway. The massive error was from WHO who waited from feb 4 to march 11 for evidence that the virus was indeed pandemic (waiting for confirmation), instead of immediately announcing that they have no evidence that it's not pandemic based of previous knowledge of coronaviruses. Iluvalar (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what spread in China has to do with whether it was a pandemic which requires spread through multiple regions. If it was just in China no matter how wide spread it is unlikely it would be considered a pandemic. Just an epidemic limited to China. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers.info

Discussion is now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Worldometers.info. Please direct further comments there for centralization. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Interesting CNN article about

Worldometers ( https://www.worldometers.info/

):

• The Covid-19 pandemic has catapulted one mysterious data website to prominence, sowing confusion in international rankings

Cited twice on COVID-19 pandemic, Twice on COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, six times on COVID-19 pandemic in Iraq, twelve times on Pandemic, and 219 times on all Wikipedia pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, according to project consensus 3 (in the headers at the top, above the consensuses for this specific article), Worldometers.info shouldn't be being used as a source anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:46, 21 June 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

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

Add Trump Virus to the search that redirects to this page 2600:8800:4600:171C:2053:346A:3B8E:8C88 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Article size.

This article is too big.

It's a pain, really, and could be compressed into a smaller article and entire sections could be turned into pages. Many have, but the main article still retains unnecessary info. I suggest limiting the details (this one article has OVER 1,000 references) and replacing some subsections with links to the full article. At least, for the time being, mark it with a banner that says "This article may be too long to navigate comfortably". It's the least we can do.

BlindmanJr (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought up a few times but I've yet to see any kind of significant change or concrete proposal. One possibility under discussion is trimming the "National responses section", see above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A good start would be to delete everything that does not comply with

Wikipedia’s policy that it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. But there may be little left ... I did not make it past the first section of the article without finding speculation based on primary studies. (Perhaps such issues are part of why Edit requests are going unanswered?) Perhaps something in the range of 4 to 5,000 words, avoiding policy and guideline breaches, is attainable? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Covid crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

Covid crisis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Covid crisis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages

06:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

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

I suggest adding the following to the History section, perhaps as the first sentence, or alternatively at the end of the first paragraph of the History section:

The virus started spreading successfully among humans at some point between mid-September 2019 and early December 2019, based on estimates using the virus mutation rate as a molecular clock.[1][2]

Great article, by the way - thank you, Wikipediacs. 86.161.80.143 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "COVID-19: genetic network analysis provides 'snapshot' of pandemic origins". Cambridge University. 9 April 2020. Archived from the original on 16 April 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
2. PMID 32269081. Archived
   (PDF) from the original on 16 April 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.

 Note: The second cited source (which is referred to in the first) has some letters from other scientists which seem to dispute its results. Expert attention required, and I'd ping Doc James (who was helpful with the last edit request here) but he appears to have fallen prey to some wiki-drama recently so I'll wait for some other qualified person. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right about the letters, but that was long ago and the dispute seems to have been settled because Altmetric states the paper has been cited by over 80 scientific articles in the past few weeks, here.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.70.190 (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed the authors have responded to the critics here. [27] Judging by this reply the criticism is unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.65.201 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Cited by over 80 scientific articles" does not mean the same as "supported by over 80 scientific articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Spread of covid-19/timeline should be updated to reflect new info, that sewage samples contained Covid-19 in Italy in Dec, and that a man was found to have been infected in France on Dec 27th. [28] There may be other articles in circulation which clarify whether these early cases detected a posteriori exacerbated the spread of Covid-19 in certain countries. Narnesandboble (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a

Talk

) 23:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:MEDICINE? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 00:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@

Talk

) 00:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Saw the request at WT:MED. I would not recommend adding it, as it is a primary study. And based on modeling, which could later be refuted. And NOTNEWS. But you may find someone else from WPMED who believes Wikipedia should be reporting breaking news of primary studies that have not been vetted by secondary sources, and it is my impression that plenty of same is present in Wikipedia’s COVID coverage already. But my two cents is that Wikipedia should not be in the business of spreading unvetted medical primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• I also saw the note at
  narrative review) from a reputable journal, that does more than give a passing mention to this claim. Given the rate at which COVID-19 papers are being pushing through, such a paper might be available soon (or maybe even now). WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Up the archive period

A three-day archive period is no longer necessary here; how about trying five ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sounds fine to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

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

Is the map about the school closure a live map?? If it is, you to have to update it. If it's not a live map but a map representing the school closure during the whole pandemic, your map is totally wrong. Like saying that France hadn't any school closure is totally wrong. Grégoire Heymans (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make specific edit requests at the file page on commons. Danski454 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

corona

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

62.254.169.99 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

not clear in terms of the request....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 23 June 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 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

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

* NOTICE REGARDING THE ONGOING

Current COVID}} to reflecft and focus the ongoing situation of virus in which country spreads, and maybe worldwide. Learn more at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/who-says-coronavirus-enters-new-and-dangerous-phase-as-daily-cases-hits-record.html and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who/who-reports-record-daily-increase-in-coronavirus-cases-idUSKBN23S0V2 for information. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:D416:8655:233A:60DC (talk

) 08:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently at

WP:COVID-19

the first point of consensus is:

There is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, although the matter has previously been discussed here. The de facto practice has been to include them for less-trafficked articles but not for the most heavily trafficked ones.

This is one of the more frequently-trafficked articles, so it is unlikely this will happen.—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Where is to discuss the issue in order to get consensus like this one? To Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19? 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You're going to want to go to

WT:COVID-19, though I strongly suggest you read the previous discussion that I've linked in the quote before doing so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: although the matter has been previously discussed here?[29] It was said the {{Current}} to be added on request by Sdkb but its discussion got a lastly bit and short-term with meaningless, while Liz stating that is a big mistake. 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. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is one of those highly trafficked pages; it's ranked as a top-importance article. We're also getting an average of roughly 116,000 daily page views. It's also being edited every day, so it is "regularly updated". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I did say in this discussion. Alright. It has been needed to discuss the issue. Indeed, per current consensus. I didn't forget that, after I woke to read the statement: There is no current consensus about whether to use Template:Current at the top of articles covered by this project, although the matter has previously been discussed here. I'm satisfied. 2A02:2F01:6504:6200:94D8:3E88:C1D1:F671 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Peru numbers

Resolved

 – Typo fixed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The statistics for Peru state 260,810 total cases; 8,404 deaths; and 1458,437 recoveries. Obviously there’s an error in the number of recoveries, but since the sources were in Spanish I wasn’t able to find the correct number and fix it. — LissanX (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

LissanX, looking at this source, it appears to be 148,437 people who have been discharged or released from isolation; I've gone ahead and fixed it. PS: For future inquiries about the table, please go to Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of transmission reads poorly

COVID-19 spreads primarily when people are in close contact, when a well person inhales contaminated droplets, often produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks or sings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.131.241 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

and your suggestion for the first sentence is...?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

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

Please remove this sentence in the "Sweden" paragraph: "On 19 May, it was reported that the country had in the week of 12–19 May the highest per capita deaths in Europe, 6.25 deaths per million per day." Telling that Sweden has the highest per capita deaths in Europe during one week is really not relevant when describing in a few lines the Swedish situation during the whole pandemic. And what about the other weeks?? This sentence is really not describing objectively the overall situation in Sweden. Grégoire Heymans (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Symptoms

Please consider updating the "Signs and symptoms" section of the page to reflect the content within https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234765. This is the largest evidence synthesis of symptoms of test positive adults with COVID-19 to-date. It shows the global prevalence of symptoms which differs to those stated on your page. Thank you. Ryckie Wade Ryckiewade (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting this article/systematic review and meta-analysis --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market photo request

Should File:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.png be included, maybe in the "Background" section? Or should the photo request be deleted? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

in the absence of a better image...sure the 'background' (or other) section could benefit from it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of that image when I added the photo request; it's really not a great image (basically just a road), so I'm on the fence about whether including it is a net positive or not. I'd say maybe leave it out and leave the request up, and perhaps we'll get a better photo at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that its dated March, it would be better if we had one around the time the market was just closed but from searching on Commons we don't appear to. Unless we stated "in March" in the caption it might make readers think it was when it just closed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now created Commons:Category:Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market which I've managed to add one other image to (a map) if anyone has anymore images, preferably around the time the market was just closed that would be good. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, be careful — the other image you added is one promoting a conspiracy theory about the virus's origin. It was added for a few days a while back until we noticed what it was depicting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: OK, I'll remove it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

florida

• running away w/ it ~9000 cases/ one day[30],and the next day on 27 June [31] w/ 9,500 cases.... separate subsection in U.S. might be good idea(and Texas too) on 'virus resurgence'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add

Demand for dexamethasone surges after publication of the preprint.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B060:19EC:7590:8C1E:E5:AE94 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is primary. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 06:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Covid-19: Demand for dexamethasone surges as RECOVERY trial publishes preprint BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2512

It started in November 2019 per the History section...

...so to me it is fairly obviously wrong to have the lede stating that it started in December. I am suggesting that the consensus that I understand was reached about December must be re-examined. I did what I could to tidy up the messy history section, then updated the lede to reflect what the History section says, and indeed already said. Uh-oh, can’t do that...my edit was reverted. So,

I propose that the lede be updated to read: "The outbreak was first identified in Wuhan, China, in November 2019." Boscaswell talk 10:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Define "It". COVID-19 started in 2019. November, december - or yet to find any proof, maybe october or earlier, we will see. But as a pandemic this was not before december. A global pandemic arrived in March 2020. But the 17 November source is named as "According to an unpublicised report from the Chinese government" - so there is not sufficient proof for this date, while the 1 December dates are very well referenced. --Traut (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

useless picture

File:COVID19_deceased_in_Hackensack_NJ_April_27.jpg is a useless picture and adds to the geographical bias on WP. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

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

Change number of recoveries in Sweden from "No data" to "10 176". Reference to number of recoveries for Sweden: https://platz.se/coronavirus/ Dmtcake (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dmtcake:  Not done: There is a comment in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data that says "Do not use recoveries from platz.se, as the given source explains, there is no comprehensive and reliable source for it". GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Korona pandemic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Korona pandemic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Korona pandemic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Corona Chasers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Corona Chasers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Corona Chasers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Draft:Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 20:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)