Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Guidance on sections
If anyone can suggest ways to divide sections and in which order, it would be helpful. There is quite a lot of cross-over. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Reliability of sources
I recommend using largely government sources via the Department of Health and Social Care and/or Gov.uk (updates 2 pm each day) for the latest infection figures. Media publications are expected to be far less reliable and may be unable to confirm the numbers accurately. A non-governmental research source via the John Hopkins University seems to be reliable. The source may be behind the latest figures and take longer to update. Link: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Cruise Ship Death
Should the death of the Brit on the cruise ship outside Japan be added to the total? TuplinJ (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe by precedent the death is counted as occurring in international conveyance, which includes any cases on cruise ships.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Cardiff case (5th March) not mentioned on the page
Here's the report: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-wales-cases-public-health-17870485 Has it been omitted for a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaunt (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Map Update - Pembrokeshire
Map needs updating to include Pembrokeshire (or Dyfed as the map shows). 2 cases confirmed. [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.111.246 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Map: Wales
This is out of date. There are confirmed cases in Pembrokeshire and Cardiff. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51800298
Daily numbers, increases and percentages
The last two days don't add up and the percentage s are incorrect. Adm281156 (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Data Presentation
The gov.uk Coronavirus information page is updated everyday in the afternoon, supposedly at 2pm but it's typically later. Today the webpage has gained information about the location of cases, and as far as I know, this is the first official source of location data that we have, albeit it is currently only NHS regions in England that are shown.
Unfortunately the graph and table on the page may become quite large in the coming weeks, so it may be necessary to change the layout of these too somewhat going forward. —TechGoblin (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with TechGoblin, the current format will suffice.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The site today says "105" but news reports are around the 115/116 mark. We should decide if we are taking the c. 2pm figures every day, then label the table accordingly. If we want to maintain a more dynamic count, this should probably be separate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: The site says 105 in the table, which is just cases in England, 115 is shown above in the text. Perhaps we should show confirmed cases and suspected cases (where suspected is from news reports, etc) in separate boxes? TechGoblin (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @TechGoblin: Yes, especially since Public Health England isn't releasing the data I need for the detailed map. Swapped out for a density map using the data you linked. Smurrayinchester 09:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Smurrayinchester: What are your thoughts on adding figures to the map, such as with this BBC map? Would this create too much work? I am new to editing so I'm not sure how much effort it takes for you to update these maps. TechGoblin (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- For the area map, that would be fine. I'll have a go, see how it looks. Smurrayinchester 13:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Smurrayinchester: What are your thoughts on adding figures to the map, such as with this BBC map? Would this create too much work? I am new to editing so I'm not sure how much effort it takes for you to update these maps. TechGoblin (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
In terms of the graph as it grows larger, the equivalent cases graph for China handles this in a very nice way and that can be implemented on the UK one as and when needed.
- @Buttons0603: that graph looks good, I expect this will be needed soon as the data from today (7th March) didn't fit, I've updated the scaling to 2.5 for now.
I would like to make you aware of this data on the gov.uk website, which gives the number of cases by "upper tier local authority" daily (England only). This may be useful for a more detailed density map. TechGoblin (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I have just done a logarithmic plot of the graph using the same data (I would upload it but wikipedia is refusing a simple jpg). It is very instructive and is almost a straight line showing a factor-of-10 increase (positive gradient) every 10 days. If you extrapolate this as a straight line then we are at 3000 cases in 10 days and 30k cases in 20 days. I would recommend adding a log plot too so others can extrapolate as they see fit. A-bj-q (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- The data for Scotland are also available by health board, updated daily at 2pm: [1] Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 12 March 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: Moved by Lugnuts. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Natg 19: @DeFacto: Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per continuity with the other articles. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support it was a pretty uncontroversial move and should not have been reversed. Important to maintain consistency with the main article and various other country articles, which were moved from "outbreak" to "pandemic". Elshad (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support consensus was already established for the set, und blindingly obvious. Why this is not supposed to be a pandemic in the UK is inexplicable. Agathoclea (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support Sun Creator(talk) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Further comment we really shouldn't wait 7 days to move this if a consensus develops. All the other country articles have been moved and this one was only reverted by the actions of a single editor who did not gain consensus before reverting. Elshad (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CONSUB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment per WP:BOLD, etc, I've moved it. Full rationale in my edit summary. Now wash your hands. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me17:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why England only?
Why does the current map in the infobox only show cases in England? The UK is not just England. Elshad (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Only data for England is available, unless you have data for other countries. Ythlev (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is Health Board-level data for Scotland available on the Scottish Government website. 185.58.164.45 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Earlier on I removed the top map as it was incomplete (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were missing) and it had no key to explain the colours and no explanation of what the divisions were. My removal was swiftly reverted by the map's creator though. Since then, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been added, with without the same level of detail as for England. But the colours are not described, the nature of the 'subdivisions' is not givem, and the date and source of the data is not given to allow
). 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)- Maps indicating the spread of the virus are fantastic, but are only useful if the person uploading them is willing to update them as and when new information appears in the media. Jimand the soapdish 21:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I was the person who reverted the initial undiscussed move to this name, and I missed the chance to contribute to the subsequent move discussion as it was open for less than 8 hours. However, I would have opposed the move as I thought there was only one coronavirus pandemic, and not one in each country, and certainly not one in the UK as I haven't seen the UK outbreak described as a pandemic in any of the reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- By definition a pandemic is something that involves countries/continents around the globe. This is not established on a country level. This article describes the part the UK plays in the larger event, not an event happening in the UK alone. Agathoclea (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think the name is fine, but take your point as it is an epidemic in the UK. The wording of the article should reflect this, as an epidemic within the UK, as part of the worldwide pandemic. The name seems good to keep within the collection of related articles however. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Herd immunity
Discussion on Herd immunity is over the UK news today. Sun Creator(talk) 14:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Different data reported on the NHS and gov.uk websites
As of now, the data reported on gov.uk covid infos for public are:
Number of cases
As of 9am on 13 March 2020, 32,771 people have been tested in the UK, of which 31,973 were confirmed negative and 798 were confirmed as positive. 10 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 have died.
on the Daily Indicators map we find (link:https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=bc8ee90225644ef7a6f4dd1b13ea1d67):
date | total Uk Cases | NewUKCases | TotalUKDeaths | EnglandCases | ScotlandCases | WalesCases | NICases |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/13/2020 | 797 | 207 | 10 | 645 | 85 | 38 | 29 |
Please update the informations of the wiki page: I cannot do that for privilege reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaoloMera (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Guernsey not part of UK
While it almost certainly doesn't require its own outbreak article yet (and hopefully not at all!),
- Thanks. An editor has reverted the addition of Guernsey. --Wire723 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was added back, so as promised in my last edit summary I'll just provide a quick, referenced (where possible) explanation as to why Guernsey should not be considered part of the UK.
- Guernsey (the island, the Bailiwick, and the remaining Channel Islands) are unequivocally not part of the United Kingdom.[1] In 2008, Guernsey (along with the other Crown Dependencies) signed an agreement with the UK including a number of clarifications regarding the international identity of the islands including, "each Crown Dependency has an international identity that is different from that of the UK".[2][3][4]
- Just to illustrate how Guernsey cannot be likened to Gibraltar: Unlike Gibraltar, whose citizen's UK identity was affirmed by extending them the vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum, Guernsey citizens were not extended such a privilege. Additionally, the UK government may/will not legislate for Guernsey; the island has it's own legislative, executive and judicial bodies entirely separated from that of the UK. For UK legislation to apply, precedent suggests this is not possible without the island's consent. (NB Whether the UK actually retains any power to legislate, even as a last resort, is doubted now – the Attorney-General of Jersey suggested this power had fallen into 'desuetude').[5]
- I should also add that the main source used for most of the data, the JH Map, classifies Guernsey under 'Channel Islands'. While I personally think that's about as helpful as having Germany, France etc. listed under 'Europe' and Guernsey and Jersey should be separated out due to their constitutional independence, it's still more correct than including Guernsey within the UK! —wiki10:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Guernsey is not part of UK. Guernsey#Constitutional_status and as it's not part of the UK, reliable sources are not going to report it's outbreak numbers as part of the UK. Sun Creator(talk) 10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can confirm that (original research alert) I've only seen local articles (so far) report on the Guernsey case and seen no mention of it in the BBC's UK specific updates and totals. —wiki10:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Guernsey is not independent and not internationally recognised. It is not part of the United Kingdom, but not recognised as a distinct entity. It should be included in this article along with all UK territories as is done with France and Denmark. RandomIntrigue (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. See above, and the relevant articles: Guernsey is recognised as a distinct entity, is internationally recognised (has own relationship with EU for example, and has been officially declared as above) and is most certainly not a UK territory. —wiki14:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. See above, and the relevant articles: Guernsey is recognised as a distinct entity, is internationally recognised (has own relationship with EU for example, and has been officially declared as above) and is most certainly not a UK territory. —
- ISBN 978-0954977504.
- ^ "Framework for developing the international identity of Jersey" (PDF). States of Jersey. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
- ^ "Framework for developing the international identity of Guernsey". States of Guernsey. 18 December 2008. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
- ^ "Framework for developing the international identity of the Isle of Man" (PDF). Isle of Man Government. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
- ^ "Government Response to the Justice Select Committee's report: Crown Dependencies" (PDF). Ministry of Justice. November 2010. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
While I fully agree that Jersey and Guernsey are not part of the UK, and should have their own entries on the main page countries table, the fact is that between this page and the main page, they fall between the cracks. Editors keep removing them from the main page, and editors will not include them here. Editors need to get their heads together and determine where they should go. Same applies to Aruba, Curaçao, Faeroe Islands etc, which are not part of the "mother" country but have separate status. Ptilinopus (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject COVID-19
I've created
Upright
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Could you [DeFacto] clarify your use of upright in the coronavirus article please? I don't see anything in
- Portrait-style images (height greater than width) look disproportionately large in comparison the landscape-style images (width greater than height) if the default size is used, so I was thinking of "
tall, narrow images may look best with upright of 1 or less.
" inMOS:UPRIGHT, and 'upright' defaults to scale (0.75) which I think is more appropriate for this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)- I removed it on a couple. They all seem to appear at the same width and look very uniform now. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: It's not uniform width that makes them look balanced though, it is uniform area. That means the width of the landscape images should be about the same as the height of the portrait images, and the height of the portrait images is about the same as the width of the landscape images - which is what the use of 'portrait' does beautifully. As it stands now, with the widths of 3:4 aspect ratio photos being equal for portrait and landscape images, the portrait image areas are about 1.8 times the area of the landscape images - which is why they look so unbalanced. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: take a look at some of Wikipedia's best articles, and you will see that they generally follow this formula. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think the page looks wrong, despite the areas being different. I understand what you are saying but the page looks fine in practice. That's probably why the alternative is only an option, not a rule. Perhaps we see the page differently. Are your screen settings non standard? Mine are standard options. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I removed it on a couple. They all seem to appear at the same width and look very uniform now. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020
This 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please will you include an indication of the magnification factor (scale) of any micrographs you publish as without this it is impossible for readers to know the size of the subject of the micrographs. The best way to indicate the scale of the micrographs is as on a road map, using a bar of a specific length and an an indication of how many nanometres or microns it is on the scale of the micrograph. It might also be useful for the public to be told that the colours in any electron micrographs are artificial. This is also true of the colours in lots of photomicrographs, especially those of biological specimens. suggestion submitted by Chris Niesigh86.215.221.142 (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 86.215.221.142 (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree this is generally a good rule, though the image used in the infobox looks to be computer generated and so probably not suitable to be treated as a micrograph. I expect if/when we have a suitably updated map this image will not be used so prominently. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Template disabled as no specific change was included . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Splitting Table
The
- Should be a table of variables by council. I know the data is kept. Wallie (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Data anomalies
Totals each day do not agree with the graph. Which one is correct? Also the not yet classified column contains minus figures. Maybe some mathematical type can explain this to me. I'm sure it is confusing to readers. Wallie (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing of death toll
On multiple occasions, the figure has been altered to contradict the cited source. Right now, it gives the figure as 10, but [2] still says 8. It's true that a source [3] for the 10 has given, which might be a pretty reliable source, but this doesn't change the fact that it's at odds with the gov.uk page.
Furthermore, there's a comment there - "Always use the GOV.UK official source for this total". But this instruction has been breached. Furthermore, looking at the gov.uk page, it states, "Eight patients who tested positive for COVID-19 have died." As worded, this is telling us that 8 of the confirmed cases have since died, without telling us whether their deaths had anything to do with the virus. This is making me wonder if we can rely on it as an indication of the coronavirus death toll.
So we have a few things to consider:
- Can we really use the referenced gov.uk page to source this figure?
- Should we allow other sources, such as BBC News, to be used if they seem to be more up to date and sufficiently reliable?
- If not, what source can we use?
Once we've figured this out, we can update the citations and comments to reflect what we decide on. — Smjg (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- The official government website is clearly only updated once a day. Do we want the number to be accurate or official? Jimand the soapdish 09:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- My inclination is to keep government sources for the table/graphs/maps etc., but we could allow reliable sources for more up to date changes. However, I don't feel strongly on this and generally favour pragmatism - I think if we try to stick to out of date figures there will be an endless battle over the numbers. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see it's been updated to 55. So why is it still citing that BBC News article that gives the number as 10? Meanwhile I've tagged it {{not in source}}. I see the comment has changed: "Please do not update this value with anything other than data from GOV.UK or ArcGIS". The gov.uk page seems to have stopped giving the number of deaths, and ArcGIS appears to be a subscription-based service. Hmm. Whatever we do, we need people to stop updating the number and ignoring to update the sources. — Smjg (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see it's been updated to 55. So why is it still citing that BBC News article that gives the number as 10? Meanwhile I've tagged it {{
Data Anomalies 2
The data in the table headed COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom by area disagrees with the data in the chart "COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom". I see the other chart for new cases has now been removed. I don't want anything helpful like that removed, just to have the numbers corrected. Maybe we need an accountant, not a mathematician. Wallie (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
the source linked to the 69 deaths says there has been 55 deaths so it needs source or information changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.143.50 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public says information will be updated on death count later today (its currently 6pm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.143.50 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Statistics number error?
Ascexis (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Could be a source issue, or a minor miscalculation in the statistics table. The Total, New Deaths for 2020/3/16 is listed as 55, which is not the sum of the previous day 35 deaths plus new deaths 21, totalling 56. This in turn throws off 2020/3/17, which uses the incorrect 55 total deaths as the base to add 16 new deaths. Correct numbers should be 2020/3/16 new deaths 21, total deaths 56; 2020/3/17 new deaths 16, total deaths 72
- Sources like this one are putting today's total at 71. A further death occurred in the Cayman Islands, which I guess would account for the 72 number. I updated some of the information yesterday at 9.28pm, and at the time the figure stood at 55, but that may have changed later on. This is Paul (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020
This 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of fatal cases on this article is inaccurate, it reads 60 when in fact it is 71 according to the BBC. 2A00:23C8:B01:1900:C5F7:77F2:98BA:ACB2 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: This article is using the updates from PHE as linked in the references. When they update the number, we will. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
March events
20200319 Tesco's announced 3 items maximum per person & all stores closing at 10pm.
20200319 Bill introduced to prevent evictions during pandemic. OYMYO (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
20200319 Mobile networks remove data charge for people accessing coronavirus information on NHS websites OYMYO (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
20200320 The Guardian & Sky reports “zero prospect” of a London lockdown, CNN reports London tube stations are closed, School is closed except for children of "critical workers and vulnerable children"
New Imperial Report
Someone needs to add a link to the new report just out I cannot because the page is locked to me now. It's one of the most significant breakthroughs to date - actual scientists overturning the SPAD views in WHitehall. A-bj-q (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Added that 16/3 report to the existing text in the intro; should be added to body also. --Wire723 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done I've added it into the forecasting section also. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The link was already there (ref 84). I see if each individual report is to be cited. There are also other models by other epidemiologists and a secondary reference would be good. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done I've added it into the forecasting section also. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
But new modelling released by Imperial College London then prompted a change in approach.
It warned the policy of a managed spread could still lead to more than 250,000 deaths with hospital intensive care units getting overwhelmed.
Ministers are now seeking to suppress the spread completely - hoping in the process to keep deaths below 20,000.[1]
Can we add some high-level information like this please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Coronavirus: What next in the UK coronavirus fight?, BBC News, 19 March 2020.
Edit Request - some perspective
Per Public Health England's stats, available here on gov.uk, "Surveillance of influenza and other respiratory viruses in the UK", 'associated' deaths in the last four years for which complete data are available were, per page 51, 28,330 (2014/15), 11,875 (2015/16), 18,009 (2016/17), 26,408 (2017/18). Deaths on the specific nature of this page are c.104. Which number is bigger? 104 too many, and not played out yet, but some perspective? 2.31.45.181 (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- What's your specific edit request? Jimand the soapdish 22:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
This 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the date on the chart for 21/3 has been incorrectly posted as 20/3 94.247.186.148 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- This appears to have been done, can't see any error in dates now on the charts. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 09:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
This 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |