Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 28 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Southeast Asia High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thailand High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand (32 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,509 10,509 Background 3,106 3,106 Timeline 21,472 21,472 Government response 77 33,651 International travel restrictions 13,414 14,596 Restrictions on travellers from risk areas 1,182 1,182 Medical supply regulations 1,882 1,882 Lockdown, curfew, and inter-provincial travel ban 4,403 4,403 Tracking application 459 459 Wastewater surveillance 4,342 4,342 Health education 749 749 Communication 1,783 1,783 Vaccine 5,360 5,360 Impact 11 19,328 Economy 2,798 2,798 Education 1,068 1,068 Sports 3,183 3,183 Tourism 3,865 3,865 Xenophobia and racism 3,964 3,964 Criticism of government response 4,439 4,439 Possible spread to other countries 2,420 2,420 Transition to endemic management 1,556 1,556 Statistics 78 82,817 Charts 13 82,739 Cumulative number of confirmed cases, recoveries, active cases and deaths 34,887 34,887 Confirmed new cases per day 16,254 16,254 Confirmed deaths per day 14,787 14,787 Confirmed recoveries per day 16,798 16,798 See also 123 123 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 External links 1,485 1,485 Total 176,519 176,519

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article could do with some major restructuring. I'm not going to attempt that just yet, but here are some major points that should be mentioned or expanded. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Department of Disease Control's response plan, especially the oft-mentioned three-phase model
• Surgical mask shortage, the Department of Internal Trade's interventions, and alleged corruption scandal
• Inconsistent quarantine requirements for tourists as opposed to returning residents
• Shifting port-of-entry screening and policies, as well as mandatory vs self quarantine
• Illegal workers returning from South Korea
• Testing capacity and indication requirements (esp. potential exposure), and screening coverage
• Mid-March's major spread being from the boxing stadium and Thong Lo–area bars
• Mid-March's outrageously messed up confusion over medical certificates as entry requirements for returning citizens
• The government's generally poor handling of public communications (especially Anutin's personal comments), delays in case reporting leading to public distrust
• Impact on the highly tourism-dependent economy, which was already being felt early February

Can someone fix the formatting for the cases bar chart? The cases for 22/03/2020 doesn't look nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennypc (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Patt, right, so what's the big deal? What do you not agree at on that part of content removal in the page?

Flix11 don't make edit summary reasons for the revert so just forget this user. For now there is only two people that is truly interested in this edit that is you and me so the talk should remain in personal talk pages of either you or me. Unless a 3rd person jump in, or in case we two can't reach a consensus after some discussion, then we might put the stuff in the article's talk page.

I have stated explanation for this content removal in the summary box, please read them and make further arguements if you want to.IWeeBoo (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them and already made my counterarguments in corresponding edit summaries since our "discussion" earlier this morning. While I'm still

assuming good faith that your intentions are to make the article more concise and easy to follow by reducing clutter, I do not agree with deleting entire parts that are still essential or excessively trimming out certain words in such manner that compromises the readability or accuracy of the article. Your argument for the section's removal is that it is "outdated" and "irrelevant", neither of which I think is true. The travel restrictions have significantly affected travel plans of Thai citizens living abroad trying to return, and triggered widespread outcry and media coverage (1, 2 and 3

) after additional measures were announced on 18 March. Merely deleting the whole section is not constructive at all and it should be left there until another editor expands the section with more up-to-date information rather than entirely removed.

As for other two reverts you made, the first one was not done to only "make the intro sounds more interesting", but rather for improved flow as it is follwed up by the second, third and fourth cases, etc. in subsequent paragraphs. For the second, the word "significant" is necessary as the damage the virus had done to his lungs were not mild and therefore contributed to his death.

Moreover, you keep persisting by claiming that a consensus has been "formed" although it is obvious that there is none, keep reverting other users' edits (including de facto reverts that re-removed content that you deleted) and refuse advice from other users by claiming that they are the ones at fault. I sought a compromise by rewriting certain paragraphs for more brevity as you intended and gave my reasons (1, 2 and 3), though you kept reinstating your edits without providing legitimate reasons (1 and 2; just because "it looks awkward" doesn't justify its deletion, try reformatting instead). Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Patt. Thank you, I will try to make my commenting points simple.

• About the word "significant", it's a subjective evaluation. We should avoid using such evaluative words here.
• About the trimming of words that make it hard to understand. It's not that hard to understand. This is not Simple English wikipedia, I'm surprised that a near-native English user like you find the writings hard to understand. By reading through the 2nd, 3rd,...cases the readers already understand the big picture.
• About the restrictions of movement sub-section. Now this is the messy part. "The travel restrictions have significantly affected travel plans of citizens living abroad trying to return, and triggered widespread outcry and media coverage". Every countries have that sort of problem. The movement restrictions is a complicated issue. I will think more about this. I won't delete but will try to do some rework on this part as you wished to see if it fits.IWeeBoo (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of "significant" in this context is just reporting facts here, it does not violate

notable enough

be included as well. The government's abrupt announcement of new travel restrictions put a lot of pressure on Thais living abroad due to the short timeframe given to them to gather the required travel documents. If not included there, this could be listed under a "criticism" section, along with other important points that Paul has laid out.

Also, please

ad hominem talking points to forward your argument like you just did again ("I'm surprised that a near-native English user like you find the writings hard to understand"), I've observed you have done this multiple times but chose to not call it out until now. It can come across as borderline aggressive and does not help with consensus building at all. — Tony Patt (talk contribs) 12:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tony Patt, good job, now that the page's structure is vastly changed, I just literally lose any interests in talking with you. I just saw you adding a new section that is not so necessary. Happy editing the page in anyway you wish!

On the first case area, the second paragaph begins with "Thailand's second confirmed case ...", so readers now already knew that the first story (in the above paragraph) is the first comfirmed case. The two paragraphs are linked. It's just a method to avoid repetitive writing.

I don't get how you find the word significant is "fact" reporting. It's an adjective of subjective evaluation/comment. I could very well evaluate that the damage is in fact mild but the patient lungs are just weak.

I don't think you understand all of my points. Please re-read them and consider undoing some of your own edits on conflicting areas we have been discussing.IWeeBoo (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IWeeBoo: Thank you for seeking a compromise. I have ceded the first two points and did not make any further edits regarding them; however, I did restore the date of announcement of the first case and slightly reworked the sentence as those do not conflict with our discussion. If you don't mind, it would be appreciated if you could help expand the content of this article as well, as there are several sections that desperately need expansion in order to make this article a comprehensive coverage of all the major aspects of the pandemic. Take care and have a good time on Wikipedia! — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the timeline section off to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, since it carried a bit too much detail. Most problematic currently, however, are the templates, which are causing great difficulty in loading the pages. They will need to be dealt with somehow. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the statistics section should probably also be moved to the sub-article. Maybe rename it to

Yes, more prose is preferrable in the main page as opposed to being inundated with interpretting and analyzing tables and graphs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the tables and renamed the target article accordingly. They could probably be split sometime, but there are citations in the timeline article that currently refer to references in the templates, so that will need to be sorted out first. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of cases/deaths in the intro paragraph isn't the same as the one in the infobox. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

attributed to a specific date: As of 8 July 2021 ...—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]