Talk:Social distancing

Missing history section

I think this article could use a history section if anyone is inclined to add one. Sdkb (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to find much in the way of history other than the references to leprosaria and Leviticus. If you have access to more information, please feel free to add it yourself. Cmacauley (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There may not be too much history in terms of the development of the concept of social distancing. My thought was more to take a bunch of the examples of the history of the use of social distancing (mostly from the effectiveness section) and consolidate those into a history section, probably ending with a sentence about the coronavirus (which is conspicuously absent from the article currently). Overall, I feel like this article needs some restructuring, but I'm having some trouble articulating to myself exactly what, so I'm trying to figure that out before making too many edits directly. Sdkb (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Low importance? Really??

Anyone who follows the news these days will have heard repeated references to social distancing from public health experts, and specific discussion of the measures described in this article, which are being implemented in over 100 countries at this time. Cmacauley (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I upgraded it to mid for Medicine (as someone with expertise in sociology, I think it's importance rating there is appropriate). In my experience, importance ratings are notoriously out-of-date and inconsistent; next time, follow WP:BOLD and go ahead and change it yourself! Sdkb (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject importance-rating is always in relative to (or with with-respect-to) the topic of that WikiProject. For Medicine WikiProject, high importance is about the general overview of Medicine (e.g. history of medicine, types of medicine, manufacturing of medicine, content of medicine etc), mid importance is probably medicine as in per individual case or country (e.g. cough medicine, migrane medicine etc), and low importance is those individual name/brand/company of medicine (e.g. panadol, etc). So again, even if one Panadol cause death to a one million people, that medicine will never even achieve top importance in medicine level. in disaster management wikiproject, probably, yes it is high importance. so we need to see the context first. Chongkian (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Increased visibility of this page

I've wikilinked this article from the intro sections of Coronavirus disease 2019 and 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, so this page should be getting additional views. I've added a pageviews tracker above so we can see. Sdkb (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please feature and animate the EXPONENTIAL not the gaussian

Social media is starting to pass this around and the gaussian doens't match what they are seeing in the mainstream news reports. Media show the exponential because it is number of cases, a count. The gaussian is number of cases per unit of time, a RATE. Inherently hard to understand. Total cases is what the media report and this ... which is a NIFTY ANIMATION by the way ... should match. Why are you showing it? No one without a background in functions & distributions is going to understand how the two relate to each other. Understanding is key to effecting change. If they don't understand it they won't get engaged. Easy to "flatten" the exponential and animate it in exactly the same way. Please make this simple change! THANK YOU.

Here is an example: The COVID-19 tracker at Johns Hopkins university. Just like almost every other virus information cite in the universe, it uses an exponential (see bottom right of window) TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation can be derived from this. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk) My advice would be simply create the same animation for the exponential, and put it top of article with suitable brief explanation. Explaining the connection is a mathematical exercise that may ... or may not ... be of interest to sophisticated readers coming here for info about "flatten the curve". If I had to guess I'd say NOT because if someone really wants to understand differentiation & integration of functions there are other great articles for that. This page is more like general reader who wants quick understanding of what the CDC is talking about. And maybe grab that animation to send all over the social media landscape. Now if CDC is getting it wrong too and talking about rates not counts, then we're stuck.  :) Thanks for listening. TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

OK I've thought about this some more, and maybe RATE really is what you want. If it's rate that overwhelms the healthcare system. So an animation that translates rate into count and back again would be very cool! Thanks for what you are doing. TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

These curves don’t appear to be rooted in hard, literal data. Rather, they are illustrative of the exponential spread of pandemics, and how we might impact their speed of growth ... But mostly, she kept the graphic as close as she could to the original in terms of shape, because as a journalist, she didn’t want to editorialize the work of scientists ... "The difficulty with these diagrams is showing uncertainty. Even though it’s a diagram of a concept and not a model from real data, it’s easy for people to interpret it as a precise prediction, as it looks like a chart and we’re used to charts being precise," says Pearce. "Once you’ve drawn these shapes, they look authoritative, even if they’re intended to be illustrative. That’s why I keep as close to the CDC’s as I could." Perhaps a note under the illustration could say something like "The above curves are not rooted in hard, literal data, but instead are intended to illustrate basic concepts." Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this basically supports the importance of social distancing—at least in one person's opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This even more pointedly addresses "flattening the curve". Bus stop (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Which images at the top?

The Lazzaretto of Ancona is an 18th-century building constructed on an artificial island to serve as a quarantine station and leprosarium for the port town of Ancona, Italy.

Two lepers denied entrance to town. Woodcut by Vincent of Beauvais, 14th century

Preventing a sharp peak of infections, known as flattening the epidemic curve, keeps healthcare services from being overwhelmed, and also provides more time for a vaccine/treatment to be developed. Spreading the infections over a longer time frame allows healthcare services to better manage the volume of patients.

Model showing the importance of early social distancing.

I submit that the "Flatten the curve" gif and caption cogently convey the effectiveness and importance of these measures, leaving readers better informed and wiser. The gif is particularly salient given that the vast bulk of readers of this page are looking to better understand the current response to COVID-19, per the daily pageviews graph at the top of this page. The Lazzaretto is interesting but historical. We're not currently shunning lepers. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the image presentation from earlier today, with the "flatten the curve" image at the top. When you look at the page views for this article, it had hardly any until the recent spike due to current conditions. Readers are looking for information relevant to them right now. The graphic provides more relevance than the historical illustrations. Btw, this article was #292 in Top 1000 articles viewed yesterday. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• The "flatten the curve" graphic should be uppermost in the article. Both of the other images—the "Lazzaretto of Ancona" and the "lepers denied entrance" should be removed from the article as irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM, it's important to keep historical examples of social distancing. WP is an encyclopedia, not a how-to manual. I'm re-adding them. Sdkb (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The cartoon looks unprofessional and, well, cartoonish. I've seen on various news sites the same concept represented in a single gif. Perhaps someone could make one that looks less like it belongs on a blog. Here's one that someone could probably convince the creator to release. Natureium (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. Sdkb (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• The cartoon looks excellent. This is a perfectly appropriate way to illustrate the concept in question. We are not always required to look dull and boring. The 18th century building and a wood cutting from the 14th century can go in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way I am seeing this "flattening the curve" graphics across dozens upon dozens of media outlets and formal publications. That we were one of the earlier sites to start using it is good for us / a positive story. If you havn't spent time looking at this concept I would recommend that you do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• None of the current pictures seem good. None of the cartoons work well for this topic as they all show people engaged in social interaction. The "flatten the curve" one says litle about social distancing - just one line at the end about staying at home. The "stop the spread" one actually shows a crowd of people with two of them making a high-five. The "alternatives" one shows another crowd of people making weird gestures. The Lazaretto one is just a building and so doesn't illustrate the issue well. The "lepers denied" picture seems best in addressing the concept but doesn't illustrate it well. What we need a picture which conveys the concept best. I've been looking around and found some candidates but they don't seem to be CC. I'll keep looking for something similar:

1. What is social distancing? – poster by Toronto Public Health which explains and details it
2. Please keep social distance – emphasises the point of maintaining physical distance – seems to be another Toronto Public Health graphic
3. Tweet – shows people standing in line (queuing) with a wide spacing

As user:Doc James is Canadian, perhaps he can help in getting a CC release of those Toronto Public Health illustrations of the concept? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of a photo showing people standing far apart. I don't think the photo from the tweet is very visually appealing, though, and it doesn't look freely licensed. Let's keep searching! Sdkb (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The diagram is more an illustration of why social distancing is important rather than showing social distancing itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Isolation (health care)

Is there really a need for this article, when we have a nearly identical double: Isolation (health care)? Tshuva (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think so. The articles have different focuses. Isolation is primarily written about the measures taken for a patient/sick person. Social distancing is about society-wide behaviors. Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The articles aren't identical at all. Isolation (health care) is about isolation of patients inside healthcare facilities, and the precautions that are taken by medical staff. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty new at this, but I believe it is pretty important too. This will teach people about how to care for themselves out while socializing, which is still important and needed for people to grow during these times. We cant just shut ourselves in a room. Especially when a lot of news outlets and medias are using this term. Now kids will be using this term too, such they will be growing up with it. How do I put my name at the end here.

Hi Victorcyho, to sign your name at the end of any talk page comment, just type 4 tildes: ~~~~. Then when you publish, your signature and a timestamp will be added to your comment. Schazjmd (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Example of social distancing

Alternatives to handshakes

well for examples, we dont have to be scientific about it do we? or get sources? We can put examples of what people are doing now, at stores or malls, or outside. Not everything NEEDS to be ONLY about the United States. Sure this illustrates a bit of New Zealand culture (ie Hongi). This is a possible not a negative thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

yes agree w/ above editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I have reviewed the image and the source. I agree that it is good to share this as examples of ways to greet people that can be done from a distance. JenOttawa (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A comic about how to greet people doesn't seem to me like encyclopedic content in an article about social distancing. See WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE — Omegatron (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's an important part of sending the non-physical greeting message now, and a valuable historical artefact of the kind of social change and communication process that happened in this 2020 pandemic. I don't think being a bit lighthearted is problematic. If campaign and information posters from the 1918 flu pandemic had been in cartoon form, they'd be on that page. It's a sign of the times. Hildabast (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The oversimplification of the concept of "social distancing" embodied in the graphic is counterproductive. The graphic is misleading. One can violate all of the principles of "social distancing" while still abiding by the instruction provided by the graphic. Additionally, the reader doesn't need instructions in how to nod to a fellow human being, "elbow-bump", or mumble "hey—how ya doing?" Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well that is the thing. Elbow bump is not listed as it is not appropriate either. So looks like it was useful just there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This ridiculous cartoon does not add anything encyclopedic to the article. The lack of professionalism is overshadowed by the uselessness of it. Natureium (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a few rudimentary line-art images and would be happy to make others if there is anything in particular you would like to see. Cheers, gnu57 02:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Social distancing line art 1.svg

File:Social distancing line art 2.svg

Have trimmed the attribution / logo as those are at commons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternatives to hand shakes is important. It could come under a section titled methods. The CDC/WHO all talk about it. The cartoon would illustrate the text quite effectively. It's easy to recall. Some fun is quite welcome at the moment. I might have a go at looking at "methods". Whispyhistory (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah I now decline to shake peoples hands User:Whispyhistory, both that of fellow staff and of patients. It is really a little jarring and I imagine it will take a few weeks to get use to. I have been using Namaste. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

🙏🏽 Namaste to you all. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Have there been studies of the spread of infectious diseases in countries where it is customary to touch when greeting compared to those who don't? One imagines it might be significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any...but adding one review article on hand shaking. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, we're lucky to be able to have these high quality and suitably educational comics in a licensing situation that we can utilise. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is an educational resource, and for STEM subjects, in a lot of cases the educational potential of the articles isn't maximised because of an unnecessarily dry tone. Sceptre (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Covid-19-Handshake-Alternatives-v3.gif (discussion)
• Covid-19-curves-graphic2-stopthespread-v3.gif (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Social distancing" now known as "physical distancing"

WHO is changing the phrase "social distancing" to "physical distancing" to encourage people to stay connected through online means during the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. [1]

Therefore, I recommend changing the article lead from "Social distancing is a set..." to "Social distancing (also known as physical distancing) is a set..." 162.221.124.29 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why not move the article itself to Physical distancing? Neutrality^talk 21:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• We can when people start using that phrase instead of social distancing. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2020

Social distancing → Physical distancing – Major bodies, such as the WHO have gone out with different terminology. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support and request speedy close — There is no question about it, this terminology will shift fast after the WHO's position statement to this effect [1]. This is not WP:Crystal, and should be very clear to everyone involved — if the World Health Organization uses it there WP:ins't a snowballs chance in hell that it wont be adopted. Social distancing was not in the common vernacular prior to the current crisis so WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (for the time being) It's too late, social distancing has already entered the public lexicon. That might change but it also might be too late for the WHO to change it. The WHO doesn't determine how the language is used. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll find this to be wrong. It's unfortunate if we need to be slow about it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It might help also to make more clear the difference between physical distance and social abstention. Eissink (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
• Comment We can include a section on the distinction in the article ("it's not social distancing, it's physical distancing"). People will continue to be social and adapt to the restrictions, but I'm not yet persuaded that "physical distancing" will ever enter common speech the same way "social distancing" has. Sugarcoils (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Just because the term has only been around for a couple of months doesn't mean WP:COMMONNAME can be ignored. A common name for something can easily be established in that time, and that's clearly what's happened. Our opinion on whether the common name is going to change is irrelevant. Wait until it changes, and then request the move. There's no urgency. Smyth (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. All the news articles has been referring to it as "social distancing". An op ed hasn't changed that. Natureium (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per common name. Peaceray (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and probable WP:SNOW - WP:COMMONNAME is clear that official names are not the preferred option if there is a more common name, and in this case it's very clear that there is a common name: in case there's any doubt, a Google search for exact text finds more than half a billion matches for "social distancing" and less than half a million for "physical distancing"... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - a redirect from physical distancing is sufficient for now. Cmacauley (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

New image

Perhaps this animation is more clear than the simulation currently used. I have not edited this article before, nor even read it fully, so I'll leave this here. Here is a webm-version (renaming already requested). Greetings, Eissink (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

With social distancing hypothetical spread is avoided, which brings down the rate of transmission of a disease and can stop an outbreak.

We seem to have independently uploaded it with a few hours between us — the only difference being I was bold enough to throw my copy into a bunch of articles at once.

I don't think we ought to remove any of the other images, they complement one another well. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed you used your own upload, when I thanked you for applying. It feels a bit funny, disappointing really, to see someone uploading an image to a page where I had already brought it to attention. While in fact it is of course totally indifferent what file is used, I uploaded it earlier, and sometimes it is nice to get some credits for volunteering and it feels funny to see the 'bolder' one now harvesting. Anyhow, you know how Commons works: not only gets the youngest of duplicates deleted, unless there are good reasons to keep an other version, f.i. when filename and description are more to point and it would be troublesome to copy that all. That said, if it makes you feel good, please refrain from following the normal procedures on Commons. Sometimes the bold have half the world, but I wonder whether it is the better half, so it's yours, Carl Frederik. Eissink (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

Eissink — It will probably be caught up on commons soon enough, I don't have the tools to delete and redirect there. However, it's odd that the upload wizard didn't inform me of the duplicate, which it normally does. However, credit does go to you, as you did find it first. As for mentioning boldness, it wasn't meant as a ploy against you, rather a nod to an influential Wikipedia guideline called WP:Be bold. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I failed to connect your words to WP:Be bold, so that's my mistake, and I see that it gives a different flare to your boldness, so excuse me for that. It's okay now, thank you for your message on my Talk page. Eissink (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC).

Cartoonishness of graphics

I'm still not totally comfortable with the series of graphics that has taken over the article. They're accessible, yes, but we can be accessible without being cartoonish, and the extremely informal font in particular just doesn't feel appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially for a page on a serious medical topic. They also don't carry as much informational weight or medical authority — for instance, it's clear that for the "alternatives to social distancing" graphic, the artist just drew an arbitrary line saying "okay, if the response is strong but short-term, I'm going to draw cases going up this much". Compare that to something like the excellent (albeit not freely licensed) article the Washington Post put out about this, which uses some statistics and actual simulation to give the results more credence. I'm not going to say we should remove the graphics since I don't know of anything better currently available to replace them with (and yes, I recognize that criticism is cheap), but I do think we ought to recognize that they aren't the ideal, and if something better is created/found, we ought to be open to replacement. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've also raised the broader issue of cartoonish graphics over at MOS images to see if they can provide any guidance, and invited folks at the Graphics Lab to join this conversation. Sdkb (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Deaths due to polio

The article refers to deaths due to polio. I hadn't realized it was that dangerous, unless of course you fall off the pony. EEng 05:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)