Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Casualties Table

I think that there should be a row for the entirety of China, as recognised by the United Nations (incl. mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan). This would include a total figure for all regions of the PRC. There could be sub-rows underneath China which detail the figures for the mainland, SARs and self-governing Taiwan. Thoughts? 07:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)JMonkey2006 (talk)

I don't think so, as these jurisdictions have their own health systems, immigration and reporting. It may also give a biased political point of view. We do not have to follow the political bias of WHO/UN. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep them separate: they have their own health systems, Taiwan is under a different administration, and we have separate figures to report. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Something like this is what I have in mind.

Country Confirmed Cases

China	                 1 995
   Mainland China	         1 982
   Hong Kong	                     5
   Macau	                     5
Taiwan	                     3
Thailand	                     7
Australia	             4
Malaysia	                     4
Singapore	             4

Please ignore display issues.

--JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Erm. No. Thanks for the effort though. This may truly start a political debate of whether Taiwan is part of China or not. Let's just treat CN, HK, MC, MO, TW as separate territories alongside with other countries and territories like we always do. robertsky (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

well isn't taiwan officially controlled by the republic of china? 39cookies (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why was the table removed? Quvsn (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bring back the table!! GoofyNoah (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the table Nickayane99 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are we referring to China as Mainland China. While I understand this term in a geopolitical sense, it has no place on a page for international virus outbreak in a list comparing countries. Please see List of countries and dependencies by population for appropriate naming and listing by country and dependencies. If an exceptional circumstance requires an exemption, it should be stated. Otherwise the term China should simply refer to the mainland and the two territories added to the list, with Taiwan as a separate nation. Krazytea(talk) 01:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add "cases" and "deaths" labels to the top of the table? I can't because the page is "protected to prevent vandalism". Kr8gz (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on map of infected cases

Which is better, a map of Greater China or a map of Mainland China?--Jabo-er (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per discussions above (#Image of Map and #Greater China map), I have replaced the map of "Greater China" with one of Mainland China, and my edit got reverted. Let me explain why I think a Mainland China map is more appropriate here:

• "Mainland China" is a clearly defined and commonly used term, while "Greater China" is a vaguely defined and a less commonly used one, and not without disputes.
• "Mainland China" is itself in the table of confirmed cases, so a Mainland China map can be seen as a breakdown by first-level administrative divisions. "Greater China", as its articles suggests, is an informal term used to refer a geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties dominated by Han Chinese. A commercial and cultural concept is not quite relevant to an article concerning a epidemic.
• If the rationale to use "Greater China" over "Mainland China" is because Taiwan is infected too, then there is no reason to exclude South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam since those countries report confirmed cases too. It would be good to have a map that shows the first-level administrative divisions of the respective countries so that we are comparing apples to apples, i.e. Incheon, South Korea: 2 compared with to Hubei, China: 1096.

User:Ratherous kept reverting my edit without ANY explanation, so I am requesting a Request for comment to avoid embroiling myself in an unwanted edit war. IMHO a Mainland China map is clearly more relevant to the ongoing epidemic outbreak.

• 
• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, you were editing without any consensus. That discussion was originally started by a sockpuppet account which was then banned, so not many people took it seriously to begin with however you did not attempt to reach any consensus whatsoever. These reasons that you are giving would be a lot more appropriate for the original discussion section rather than here. Plus I’m not sure why you keep saying i was reverting without explanation as I clearly have a very specific explanation as to why your edits were reverted. Stop edit warring to POV push and reach consensus. --Ratherous (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to give your arguments rather than attacking a blocked sockpuppet. That would be more productive to the discussion. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your second map has already violated NPOV as stated in #Image of Map: Indian controlled disputed land is in exactly the color of India in that map while PRC-administrated disputed land are in a different shaded color, thus unbalanced.

For the issue you mentioned, Greater China has no such ambiguity - few people (I've never heard any) would call South Korea a part of Greater China. Please give some source about the ambiguity you mentioned. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Indian controlled dispute land - the updated map is neutral on this part now. Thank you for pointing it out. On the other hand, since "Mainland China" is in the table of confirmed cases, readers can refer to a Mainland China map for a breakdown by provinces in Mainland China, where most cases are reported. A map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan does not serve a clear purpose here, because "Greater China" is a coined term that serves economic and cultural purposes. If a map of all infected areas is expected, then a map of East Asia ( Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan + Thailand + Vietnam + South Korea + Nepal) would be preferred over one excluding some countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No one can explain why a map of Mainland China + Macau + Hong Kong + Taiwan (but not + Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam) makes sense. It is only here because no one else has produced a more proper one.

Sadly, I have also removed File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.gif, which is itself a very good animation, for violating NPOV as it depicts Taiwan as part of China rather than a claimed territory. On the other hand, counting the cases by province in Mainland but by the whole country of Taiwan is an inappropriate comparison - only the infected Taiwanese cities (Taipei, Kaohsiung; first-level administrative division in Taiwan) should be coloured.

• 

--Jabo-er (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the reason why Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW makes more sense than Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam is the former four all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. While Thailand + Nepal + Vietnam don't have that property. If you are so enthusiastic, you can actually make a map of Novorossiya + Northern Cyprus + Islamic State + Saharawi + Somaliland, but it simply doesn't make sense. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• • That is only true about TW. Macau and HK do not claim to be all China, only Taiwan does.

• How about a map of "East Asia", including the subdivisions of Chinese provinces (or other national subdivisions) depending on the data available? This would bypass the territorial NPOV issue. A viral epidemic doesn't care much about territorial claims: it's enough for one carrier to pass a border and propagate the infection. Boud (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would go for either a map of China broken down by province and a map of East Asia or just a map of China broken down by province. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The animated map in question does not even mention China, it is merely a colored version of an existing Wikimedia Commons map (standard/latest go-to blank province map of China) and has been restored. It took a lot of work to produce and does not make any political suggestions. prat (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please be advised that the original map had Taiwan drawn in a different outline color. This was not visible under the previous coloring. With the new coloring (see image talk page) as requested, it is more visible. I believe this matter can now be fully put to rest. prat (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Dear prat, I really appreciate the great effort that you have made in creating and updating the animation and taking actions in response to feedbacks — despite the inappropriately threatening tone in the message you left on my talk page. I hope more Wikipedians can work to resolve disputes like what you did. That said, I still propose a map of Mainland China by province or a map of East Asia would be more relevant and NPOV choices that bypass the irrelevant territorial disputes, as User:Boud suggested above, and look forward to a community consensus on this issue. --Jabo-er (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Including Taiwan violates NPOV. Ythlev (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map remove File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China.webm as it is POV (like why does the PRC map also show Taiwan without any explanation?) It also doesn't serve a purpose as the grouping is arbitrary. For statistical purposes, mainland China is represented separately with provincial level number. I prefer having one map of mainland China (divided by provinces) and another map of the standard world/territories with numbers in each.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is: Mainland China + HK + Macau + TW all claims to be China themselves, and all countries (including the UN) in the world recognize one of the four as a representative of all the four, which is part of the definition of a sovereign nation in international law. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thats wrong in so many different ways... At this point your contributions are starting to feel more tendentious than here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Would you please point out in which way is that wrong? It is just a routine universal practice applied by the international communities, such as sovereign states, international organizations, etc. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Your practice, by separating all provinces of China, sounds also good. But that needs major works to be done. However, separating all provinces sounds a bit China centered, as the only other practice I've found is maps published in the US which separated all US states by treating them equal as sovereign states. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is relevant as it has the highest cases and is the origin. For the rest, a world map with country/territory is sufficient. On Wikipedia, we follow how major news reports are reporting it (like maps at [1]). The term Greater China is a political term like Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It's not useful for defining geographical boundaries.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mainland China is probably more relevant as long as this is mainly in PRC and Taiwan is de-facto governed separately. But I don't think either way is a big issue, if there is a better map (up to date, graphics) with or without Taiwan with a license, then inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan is a minor issue in relation to the map being up to date. I also suspect a China specific won't be relevant for long as this is spreading world wide and fast.--Eostrix (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder what the detailed Wikipedia policy about de facto governance: is Northern Cyprus included in a Greater Cyprus map? Is Islamic State drawn differently from Syria? Could you please quote the corresponding Wikipedia policy concerning this issue? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is. But even if there is policy for geopolitical issues, I don't think it is relevant for health and epidemics. Viruses don't respect borders. We should be illustrating on a map according to what demonstrates the epidemic best. If Taiwan is part of the epidemic and illustrates the point, it should be in. But the same is true for North or South Korea. Xizang (Tibet) so far has been so far not so affected, so inclusion on the map is not so important. This is about health and people, not politics.--Eostrix (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions – the underlying locus of this dispute is the political bias that is brought by the choice to use Greater China rather than Mainland China, which could imply endorsement of the PRC's territorial claims over Taiwan. Using a map of East Asia would not require that much of a zoom-out and would retain the benefit of also knowing what's happening in Taiwan. Jancarcu (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This whole discussion is nonsense. First, if the concern is Taiwan NPOV, then fix the reference map I reached for when creating the visualization on commons instead of hassling people who are contributing to current articles with high levels of effort. Second, it appears there is already a consensus in that design to render Taiwan differently, a difference which is visible on the current version of the animation after the colors were enhanced. Third, the map doesn't say anything about being China, it's just a square-looking area around the epicenter. The frame of reference is the caption, which currently reads "... in China" but did not yesterday. That is a quick fix. prat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Can you post the map you used as a reference? Its entirely possible you just started with a bad map. You have to be careful with images on commons as they aren’t required to meet high standards of accuracy or verifiability. On a side note given that the map's title is "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China” saying that the only place "being China" is mentioned is in the caption is disingenuous. The description also states "Animated map of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases spreading across China from 2020-01-25.” Wouldn’t you have written both those things yourself? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  I am sure Dear prat, a long-contributing Wikipedian and an administrator, will understand the discussion here serves the purpose of improving the article in respect of the Neutral Point of View policy. Nothing in the discussion so far is intended to undermine the contribution of you and other fellow Wikipedians either here or on Commons. First, File:China blank province map.svg is not a bad map. It's useful when showing administrative divisions in PRC's point of view with its claimed territories shown differently, but in an article of the epidemic, an NPOV and more relevant approach would be to show a map of Mainland China broken down by province, as "Mainland China" is a statistical unit of the infected cases. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide the link of such a consensus either here or on Commons for us to refer to, as the folks commenting here appear to provide some useful thoughts that can contribute to the consensus. Third, the filename "2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map of China" is implicative, so is the fact that it's a square-looking area around the epicenter that excludes many countries. --Jabo-er (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace with map of East Asia divided down to top-level administrative regions Absolutely Agreed. Please also note that all daily statistics released by the Chinese Health commission ( http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtm ) also include Taiwan and those Taiwanese figures need to be excised from the China overall total which is released daily at that location. First we need a proper map though. Wikimucker (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map. Replace with: Mainland China excluding Taiwan; or replace with a map of South-East Asia, including other countries in the region. -Mardus /talk 10:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map Replace or relabel the map as East Asia. This prevents any unnecessary political rhetoric warring on Wikipedia. Additionally this virus has now spread well beyond China at this point with notable cases in Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Krazytea(talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China or broader region (i.e. East Asia). There is no such country as "Greater China" and the coupling of Taiwan with the PRC seems to be POV-pushing. Citobun (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replace map with map of mainland China as current map does not respect npov (for Taiwan) and is even non-POLA (for colored parts in India claimed by China). Fleet ch (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep the map with Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as part of China by the United Nations. And apparently, Wikipedia treated Crimea as part of Ukraine in all maps, despite the fact that Crimea is not under Ukrainian control, as did in the cases of Moldova/Transnistria and Georgia/Abkhazia. We should not have double-standard here. Taekhosong (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• UPDATE. Someone has removed the map. This is ridiculous. I have asked for the commons file to be renamed without the word 'China'. The open source code that generates the map now uses the term 'greater china regions' instead of 'province'. Can we put this political crap to bed now, please. prat (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed the 'China' mention in the caption, and in the description on both the GIF and WEBM versions of the media, and restored the animation. prat (talk)

Still has Taiwan as part of the PRC though. If you want to insist on using this map just take Taiwan out and the political crap ends immediately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is currently no mention of the PRC, China or any toponym whatsoever. I have again reverted someone else's caption change to yet again remove the word China. This does not assert anything and is therefore NPOV. prat (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but thats ridiculous, this would be *extremely* confusing to viewers. I note that there is clear consensus to make it a map of East Asia and/or a map of China, this map is neither. What is it a map of? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Chiang Kai-shek on Daqiu in Wuqiu, Kinmen with a map of China

Greater China includes the Outer Mongolia region, hence I have added a mention that the map excludes Mongolia to this page. cf. the picture of Chiang Kai-shek and his map on Wuqiu Island in Kinmen on the Greater China page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Without even mentioning the case of Taiwan, it is, to say the least, "surprising" to see, on this map, coloured regions on the territory of India... It's totally non-npov. Fleet ch (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Singapore is considered part of Greater China by some as well, hence it could be a valid candidate for inclusion in this map.

some analysts see the Greater China concept as a way to summarise ‘the linkages among the fair-flung international Chinese community’, thereby incorporating Singapore and overseas Chinese communities in their usage of the term (Harding 1993, 660; also see Wang 1993).[2]

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese state media propaganda video as content on Wikipedia

In the Confirmed cases > Hong Kong section there is a video file from China News Service titled 'File:香港确诊两宗新型肺炎个案 机场火车站加强体温筛查.webm'. It's enough to take a glance at the lead of the China News Service article to see that it's a PRC state owned media company run by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Why does Wikipedia relay propaganda content from a media outlet of an authoritarian party? I understand that the Creative Commons license is enticing enough to grab every piece of content from the Internet, but where is the critical approach? This is highly questionable, especially when Wikipedia is very critical about which US news sources it accepts are reliable/trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved the content because it appeared to be a report about the cases diagnosed in Hong Kong. I don't speak Chinese, and posted a note on the Chinese talk page of this article asking anyone who can to provide captions for the video so that it can be translated and understood by others. My intent was not to propagandize. If the report is not of value, or counter to value, please remove it from the article. I did say the source of the news report in the thumbnail under the video so that it is clear who had produced it. Victor Grigas (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting this upfront: I understand, read and write Chinese, as a byproduct of the education policies of Singapore. I am a Singapore citizen and have no affiliations to China. I have watched the video. The content is purely a news piece on how populace in Hong Kong is dealing with the onset of the virus in the society: More people are putting masks on; Station crew disinfecting the areas where a suspected infected was moving about; Measures which authorities have adopted to detect suspected cases, i.e. temperature screening at arrivals; People comparing this to SARS and previous epidemics, and them saying that lessons learned will be apply for this event; Some also expressed confidence in the Hong Kong government in the dealing of this matter; How masks are being sold out at pharmacies and where there are stocks, there is a markup of prices with about HKD30 increase in the prices for masks. If there are propaganda in here, I would say that it is simply portraying how optimistic the Hong Kong residents are at this early stage of epidemic (in the Hong Kong society) in dealing with the virus. robertsky (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what we need: someone who knows the territory. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not this particular video is factual or not doesnt really speak to the larger point that China News Service cant be used as a citation for anything other than the opinion of the Government of China. Its not anywhere near a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a reliability discussion about Chinese news sources in general, and there was no consensus that they should or should not be a reliable source. At this point, in my opinion, CNS can be used as a source, but we editors, especially those who can read Chinese, would have to help to see if the article referenced is a factual piece, or a propaganda spin. robertsky (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The question asked there was "Are Chinese state media sources like Global Times, People's Daily, China Daily, Xinhua News Agency, China Central Television or China Global Television Network reliable sources on the Chinese government perspective?” which is a lower standard than general reliability. There is consensus Chinese sources are unreliable because they have no editorial independence and therefore cant ever be WP:RS, if you think you can make an argument for China News Service having editorial independence go ahead and make it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And where states the consensus? robertsky (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I provide anything of the sort, you however are required to demonstrate that China News Service is a WP:RS if you want to include it as proposed. As I said before good luck establishing editorial independence as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, you provided no proof of consensus. I am merely interested in the prior discussion(s), if any.robertsky (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes and I’m trying to tell you how these conversations all end rather than searching for a hundred different conversations all over wikipedia, establishing editorial independence is the massive stumbling block they all come to. Generally a local consenus is made to simply find WP:RS for the information (generally not too hard) or to limit Chinese state media to attributed statements about the government (for instance information about a new law). Perhaps in this case information about government actions vis-a-vis the virus should be permitted but not the random interviews. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As WP:QUESTIONABLE states, those sources suspected of such can still have limited use, despite them being potentially biased or partisan. If the source discussed here satisfies Verifiability, as Chinese-literate editors have attested above, the use of it to cite an innocuous fact falls within those guidelines. To clarify, the only sources that will be subject to blanket editorial prohibitions are those discussed in the RfC on deprecation or on the spam blacklists. With others, guidelines follow WP:RSP on applicability. Sleath56 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

robertsky has *not* attested that the source satisfies WP:VERIFY although they have argued in favor of using the source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My position is clear. The source can be used. I do not get the argument that because it is owned by the Chinese government, it is not reliable. By that logic, most, if not all of the Singapore media being used as sources should be subjected to the same position, but we have been using them throughout Wikipedia. Why the discrepancy? Because the Chinese media is in Chinese while most of the Singapore publications are in English and editors can't understand the Chinese articles? robertsky (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The logic has little to do with the state owned part, outlets such as the BBC are WP:RS. The difference is the state media of Singapore has a reputation for fact checking and some degree of independence. Media in China doesn't have either and is regular used to spread misinformation and propaganda. Seriously, just peruse Media in China, Propaganda in China, and United Front Work Department (the group directly in control of the media company in question here) and see if you can see were all these other editors are coming from. I am also correct that you have yet to attest that CNS satisfies WP:VERIFY’s very specific criteria, your position is currently based entirely on personal opinion rather than policy or guidelines. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I also note that yes in some situations using a Mediacorp owned paper for an objective take on a controversial Singaporean topic might not be appropriate. For a good general metric of how much undue state influence there is in a country’s media landscape check the Press Freedom Index which Singapore scores reasonable poorly on but on which China scores much much worse. Above only Eritrea, North Korea, and Turkmenistan in fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Criticism What do you think of the criticism section? There was an edit to demote it from level 2 to level 4, in other words to bury it. I think the section is of much interest and should not be buried.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Information on the subject seems scarce (not a surprise), but because of how important this is and China's record with covering up diseases, I think it should stay. --Colin dm (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

"other words to bury it." Let's keep this within WP:GF.

It's wholly inadequate and there used to be a comment flag regarding its critically underdeveloped status before that was removed. On its own, as the criticism is wholly laid onto the Police and Government authorities, it fits under Domestic Response as I've appended unless criticism further develops past that Jan 20 declaration. Unless criticism reaches far more substantive degrees, which may become the case in the future, some Weibo commentators and an incident of withholding camera footage feels like WP:UNDUE to merit its own top level section. The governmental response under that heading along with the potential for insertion of contrary views, such as that by the WHO in praising transparency (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who-idUSKBN1ZM1G9), will create a clumsy read under such a heading.

Reorganizing the section will keep it in line with cases such as:

• See Ebola virus disease#2013–2016 West Africa
• See 2009 flu pandemic
• See Kivu Ebola epidemic

Sleath56 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I first started this section and I will definitely expand it. It may not have a lot of content right now but it will certainly expand. Beyond censorship on the press and social media sites, there have been tons of criticisms on insufficient medical supplies and patients overhauling hospitals. Colin dm said information in this section seems to be scarce because here's China, and of course it would be scarce - but the truth is the exact opposite. Most criticisms are in Chinese and a surprising amount is from Chinese media. I suppose I'm the only Chinese speaker here so the real problem is, souces are already here but no one writes about it.

Censorship is important but for some reason, most western media have become too full of it. I suppose half of the NYT's coverages are about censorship and mismanagement from the central government's level instead of things like face masks shortages and skyrocketing food prices. I will keep working on Chinese sources in the coming days as foreign outlets seemed to have suffered from a kind of ridiculous-sounding difficulty, which is to send correspondents on-site - I can tell that the BBC failed from a video they made, and several have scaled back or moved to their regional headquarters in Beijing instead of staying in Wuhan, as the authorities locked the city and they probably don't want to die in China themselves. There are many quality journalism produced by Chinese media, especially after censorship eased these days.

Speaking of English sources, Caixin and Sixth Tone are good sources as they are relatively liberal, and they are subsidiaries of credible Chinese media, although no one heard of them. Xinhua is the go-to source for official stuff, Global Times is nationalist and conservative, China Daily is more neutral. CGTN remains close to the government yet its TV programs are relatively liberal as well. Be aware that official Chinese English-languaged media also use Xinhua's news pieces a lot. The South China Morning Post, despite having China in its name, is a Hong Kong-based newspaper, did a lot of good stories on China, and doesn't care about China's censorship. Plus, people in Hong Kong criticised their government a lot as well. These are all good sources to start with.

--Techyan（Talk） 20:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Techyan: Appreciate the response and editorial initiative. My issues with the section remain nonetheless. As it is now, it is hard to claim the section maintains WP:NPOV as an top level section. One, while media criticism of authority actions should be absolutely documented here provided it passes WP:UNDUE. The caveat is that in an developing situation like this however, it’s easy to find plenty of voices with a variety of such allegations and concerns and WP:PROPORTION fall into mind here to not bloat such a section.

Titling criticism as a top level section bears validity if such views are largely predominant or unanimous. This is not generally the case in epidemic articles, as official response is rarely so inept it attracts universal condemnation throughout the whole process without any contrary views. As it stands, there are many RS that hold positive commentary on elements of the authorities conduct in the matter, in particular from voices of medical authority. Such RS include that by WHO, which is far more relevant for WP:RS/MC than any ordinary media allegations, such as I’ve provided here: 1. Additionally to demonstrate the point of contrary reactions are political commentary such as those by Germany, who approve of the authorities’ ‘rapid management.' and 'praised their transparency'. 2. With the existence of such RS/MC, it is inappropriate to dedicate a section wholly under the title of “Criticism”.

These situations are largely reactive, the meaning can be demonstrated through the new point you've added on the Wuhan festival is definitely of far greater merit than anything yet documented in the section. The criticism directed to that event is worthy of documentation here, but the subsequent governmental response in closing further festivals as the epidemic developed should also be narrated as a follow-through case. This makes for a very clumsy section if inserted into the current state.

The solution as often adopted by other associated epidemic pages as cited, has been to file such reactions under a “Response” section, often a top level section. This allows for the capacity to add RS/MC responses (whose addition would be a priority in any circumstance), like WHO’s which indeed have not been of criticism, to balance concerns of WP:UNDUE and also satisfy WP:NPOV.

I see two means by which this can be achieved:

• 1) As this current page has already developed its own Responses sections, it would be appropriate to organize this through that direction as a result. I believe this is the most feasible and efficient manner.
• 2) Reorganize the sections to accommodate for a top level Responses section. While this may act as a compromise and indeed bring this page to equivalent styles in other epidemic articles as I've cited, the concern I hold is that the 'Prevention and Management' top section is already well developed to a degree that transporting away the Response sections from there may damage that area's coherency.

Sleath56 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is very important to be highly critical of ourselves, because it will help improve our responses to re-occurrences. This will save lives and potentially billions of dollars. This is a higher priority than concerns about NPOV. From the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission:

anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of cases ... will be nailed on a pillar of shame for eternity.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are exactly referring. It may be of benefit to reiterate what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. See WP:NOTADVOCACY. We document non-original information that satisfies relevance and notability utilizing secondary and reliable sources. Eschewing WP:NPOV as a secondary priority is a false proposition as that policy is one of Wikipedia’s WP:5P and is not a suggestion for editors but compulsory. It is “non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” Sleath56 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me restart that then. NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion I had with Techyan, which you’ve responded to, lists the issues of the titled section in its current top level form. You’re welcome to fully engage in that discussion directly. Sleath56 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Another tidbit to express my opinion: We are all this together. It benefits all to be highly critical. Bringing up NPOV seems arbitrary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the section is ignorant at best, and possibly with intentional conceal of information in itself. One most likely reason for observing infections outside China but not in other provinces within China is because between province travelers do not receive the same level of medical checks/control as between country boarder travelers do. In fact there was no body temperature motoring when you travel across provinces, just like traveling between states in the US or traveling between countries within Europe. Why did I say this second paragraph itself is intentionally concealing information? Because the above explanation was already given in a reference cited within the paragraph, yet it was not mentioned at all. And now even the reference has been deleted (reference link: https://www.hk01.com/議事廳/424736/武漢肺炎-坊間調侃-愛國病毒-地方有否-瞞報-疫情) 193.54.67.94 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That is good info. Should add it as a counter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

With reference to a better source for "Wuhan police interviewed eight residents..." (First para; 2nd sentence), I've been trying to find articles for this. I've made an edit to add a reference for an article in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/24/coronavirus-fears-rise-chinese-cover-up-40-million-lockdown/), however, this article seems to suggest a much earlier date (or they have conflated this with another earlier issue). So the Telegraph may not be an adequate source, at least not without another reference next to it. The ref. for the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/health/virus-corona.html) covers this the claim (about the eight being questioned) to a certain extent, but does not support the date of 01.01.2020. Also, it’s not entirely clear whether the 8 people were punished, or just interviewed. The wiki sentence being looked at currently states: "with none ultimately being detained or punished". But there is a BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50984025) that states that the eight had been punished. Not sure what to do. I could add the BBC article as well?SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. The lack of clarity in the sources makes this entry rather hard to trace. Normally, I'd call preference for an English source just for the clarity, but the BBC only nebulously cites "Wuhan police". The point about "with none ultimately being detained or punished" was lifted from a machine translation of the original Sina source, which credits: On the evening of the 21st, Hu Xijin revealed that relevant persons in Wuhan had contacted him to explain the situation. The source said that the public security department had invited the eight citizens to investigate, and the process was very friendly and polite, and none of the eight citizens were detained and punished.. While it's not my preference to rely on a machine translation (or if a Chinese speaker could verify), the Sina article appears to identify the source for the report, so I would say to leave as is for now. Sleath56 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: I've undone the change as the CNA article cited is a rip in that section of the BBC one already discussed by @SpookiePuppy. I'm not sure why you keep making unilateral changes without consulting ongoing discussion in Talk even though you started the thread. I'd be happy to add a reworded caveat showing that there are conflicting sources but you need to clarify in Talk. Sleath56 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was discussed here. Don't know what you mean by keep making unilateral changes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: On 1 Jan, the official Weibo account of City Police of Wuhan, Ping'an Wuhan issued a statement in a weibo post that Our police staff have investigated the matter, subpoenaed all the eight persons flouting the law, all of them been dealt with. (公安机关经调查核实，已传唤8名违法人员，并依法进行了处理。) Swoopin swallow (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a strong clarification. Adding a comment about conflicting sources seems unnecessary with this, and I think this, in conjunction with the BBC article as a secondary source in English, can supplant the claim about them 'being unpunished' in the earlier article entirely. Sleath56 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@Ganesha811: Thanks for the edit summary explanation, but Talk is a better place for it. I've reverted the edit to unify the #Local Criticism section, as I believe it merits a discussion here beforehand. The weight of criticism has been largely focussed on the local response as of yet, so at the present moment, an independent section on that area should stand as it is substantive enough on its own. The reported increase of central censorship fits under Management#Domestic response as that area is already structured around the central authorities management tactics, including censorship, particularly per the extant opening paragraph of that section. The point about the tactics to skirt censorship is the only new element, so it's been incorporated there. Sleath56 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether or not to include the flags in the infobox

The issue of including flags in the infobox describing which areas have been affected has led us into a situation with personal attacks on both sides with editors being blocked for edit warring. We need an RfC to resolve this issue and create a consensus.

Should the infobox in the article that provides numbers on areas that have been infected by the coronavirus include flags or not? Chess (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Support (Include flags in infobox)

• Support, The list is getting longer and flags are good way to quickly recognize a country. Hopefully this doesn't happen but, if the list got 50 or 100 countries long, trying to find a country in a non-alphabetically sorted list would take a while and flags can make that easier. --Colin dm (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Informative. I'm unaware of downside, if someone wants to point that out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per reasons listed by Colin dm. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support as RFCs can override decisions expressed in other guidelines. MOS is not a policy and so it can be varied. The reason to include the flags in this position is that it makes it much easier to locate an entry. This is a service to our readers. We are writing for our readers, and not just to comply with rules. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support for exactly the same reasons as Colin dm, namely easily recognizing countries. Pie3636 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'll throw my hat in the ring again, for all the points I listed in the above discussion. It benefits readability, it is not the first instance of flags being used for disease outbreaks that span multiple countries, and there are allowed exceptions in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for topics covering multiple countries; there is in fact a lot of contention on that very talk page over the issue. ApocalypticNut (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support because I genuinely find it useful for quick identification at a glance, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide accessible information for readers and not to arbitrarily follow policies. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The flags is useful for quick identification because it has many countries in it, similar to flags in infobox templates for military conflicts. Hddty (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support because while I was initially against the change I've changed my mind. The easiest way to recognize countries at a glance is with flags, and while there are issues with flags due to political issues with respect to China and in general I believe the pros outweigh the cons here. In addition, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG doesn't really apply here because the point of not having flags in infoboxes is to avoid an unnecessary emphasis on national origin as described in WP:FLAGCRUFT. It also raises issues when dealing with "Irish" or "Chinese" people as using a specific flag could be construed as endorsing a certain point of view.

In this case, the entire point of the infobox is to focus on national origin and so doesn't actually fall under the intention of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy. It's even more clear that this shouldn't fall under the infobox flag policy when one looks at the two stated exemptions, military related articles and international competitions. In those cases we actually did want an emphasis on nationality in the infobox, which is why it was decided to be alright to include flags. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support for visual clarity and intelligibility --Charsum (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support but move the table out of the infobox As more cases arise it will look ugly to have a big table inside an *infobox*. We can simply move the table to a specified section of the page and in the infobox link to the section with "see below" or something like that. I can open a separate discussion if needed. Edit: I just did. Admanny (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's easier to check if there are any new countries affected. It might not work for those who aren't familiar with flags though. --Hamingjusamur (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Haminju
• Support This is a no-brainer. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. That way, it's easy to notice which countries have confirmed cases, and if there any that are new. -Mardus /talk 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose (Disallow flags in infobox)

• Bondegezou summarizes it well by reminding everyone that an MOS item, built by community consensus, is not to overridden by local consensus. There already is a global map (File:2019-nCoV Outbreak World Map.svg) depicting the global incidence of confirmed and suspected cases, which is far better a visual than any zoo of flags would ever be. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• This isn't unprecedented, here are some disease outbreak pages that use flags:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication#2016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Zika_virus_epidemic#Epidemiology
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivu_Ebola_epidemic
  < — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin dm (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin dm, none of those examples are infoboxes. We are discussing what happens in the infobox, with reference to the Manual of Style guidance on infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unless you're trying to suggest WP:IAR, the MOS is clear on this. The flags do not add any more information that is not present in the text already. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe that flags will be appropriate if it ends up getting to 50 or so countries as it's getting hard to tell the difference. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS. robertsky (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS and established processes. Flags do not offer anything constructive to a very busy, very detailed article about a very significant and serious current event. Sometimes it seems easier to deal with flags than, say, sources, and that's the opposite of how good editors should think. The flag of China is not going to add anything constructive to this article: a quote from the WHO will. In any case, the MOS is on our side: no flags in infoboxes. Clear. doktorb _words^deeds 00:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the clear project-wide consensus expressed in the Manual of Style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the entire point of functionality of community-established mandates like the Manual of Style is that they hold primacy over local page level consensus. Any disagreements with the MOS are welcome, but they should be brought over there for discussion, not on a local talk page. Sleath56 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to MOS and also the severity of the situation; with the deluge of information, only vitally important information should be kept. If someone wants to know what the flag of Hong Kong looks like, they can easily find that information on Wikipedia elsewhere. I would not mind making the lists sortable, however. Aqua817 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The purpose isn't to teach people what flags look like, the purpose is for quick identification of countries for those who know what those flags look like. --Colin dm (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS. If the problem is the list being hard to navigate, then fix the list by alphabetizing it. The table is already sortable so if someone is looking for a specific country, they can make it alphabetical and find it; or just skim the list since it's only about 15 items. Cluttering the infobox with tiny flags that are useless to most readers is why the MOS recommends against flag icons. They're also making the formatting inconsistent with some country names on the same line as the flags and others on a separate line, so it's actually harder to scan the list with the flags. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are meant to follow the Manual of Style; we are not allowed a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.). MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear. Moreover, WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG and MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE also say we shouldn't be using the Macau or Hong Kong flags. We need very good reasons to deviate from the Manual of Style and some people liking little flags isn't a good reason. The claims that flags aid comprehension are explicitly contradicted by the Manual of Style (they are unnecessarily distracting) and the Manual of Style, as a community-wide consensus document, clearly takes precedence over individual editors' personal opinions. This article has repeatedly run into geopolitical complications with disagreements over how to represent Taiwan vs. China or what map to use. Part of the reason for avoiding flag icons is because it complicate the geopolitics. Let's focus on medicine, not flags. I have reviewed every Wikipedia article in the outbreak categories and nearly all of them obey the Manual of Style on this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a very clear MOS item. Additionally the addition of flags presume that people can identify flags by sight, most people do not know the world's flags and as a result it doesn't help with identifying and locating countries and just adds additional visual clutter and poor formatting on some screens. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Canterbury Tail and per the MOS. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. These flags serve no purpose; the map and list of countries are sufficient. Kablammo (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the MOS, and because the flag is redundant to the name of the country it is next to, too small to be useful on many screens, and visually distracting. --Jayron32 18:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Some editors above (Colin dm, Chess) raise the issue of what happens if the list of countries gets to 50-100. (Let's hope it doesn't.) If the list gets that long, it shouldn't be in the infobox. That would be unwieldy and violate MOS:INFOBOX. The infobox could just focus on numbers per continent at that point. If the list comes out of the infobox, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG clearly does not apply. Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Chess argues that The easiest way to recognize countries at a glance is with flags. I see no evidence for that. Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are most readers outside Taiwan familiar with the Taiwaness flag, or outside Vietnam familiar with the Vietnamese flag? Some flags are confusingly similar (Malaysia and US). The Manual of Style explicitly argues that many flags are unfamiliar and that they can be a distraction. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see evidence for Most readers are not familiar with flags of all the countries of the world. Are you really assume that the average readers are that dumb? Hddty (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you tell me right now what the flag of Togo is? Or of Anguilla? Most people don't know every flag. But the point here is that these issues have been considered by many editors over many years, and that led to the community consensus that is MOS:FLAG. The agreed conclusion of MOS:FLAG is that no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. If you disagree, debate the matter at MOS:FLAG, but we can't just set up our own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bondegezou (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to imply that other editors are calling readers "dumb". Most people aren't familiar with flags and there's nothing wrong with that. Not being knowledgeable about certain subjects doesn't make one unintelligent. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The list of countries has now been moved out of the infobox. Should this RfC be closed as now moot? There is a question over the use of flag icons in the table in the text, where we are still acting contrary to the Manual of Style, but in a less significant manner. That, however, can be discussed separately. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that looking at how this is spreading and reaching more and more countries, the infobox probably won't be the place to list countries. Maybe continents. This will probably be moot.--Eostrix (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Idea: Deaths chart?

Todays update has shown this disease is, unfortunately, likely not slowing down. A death chart would be a decent way to measure deaths and a quick glance of rough mortality rate by day.--Colin dm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say hold off until if/when the disease becomes more global. Right now, the only deaths occurring are in China. Aqua817 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to see deaths graphed by age to see if it continues to be the elderly primarily affected. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047399/wuhan-virus-killing-mostly-elderly-those-previous-health

Good idea, but warn readers not to draw a conclusion from cumulative deaths / cases during rapid growth phase. There's a lag in case progression. Elsewhere 2-3% is quoted, but of the first 41 confirmed cases, 15% died. Deaths are currently running at over 15% of # confirmed cases 5 days earlier. 14-15% was also the SaRS fatality rate per WHO (from the most reliable data, i.e. longitudinal survival analysis of identified patients).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonnell (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

This is really just for a one-letter typo I noticed. Under the photo captioned "People queuing outside a Wuhan pharmacists to buy face masks and medical supplies", the word "queing" should be spelled "queueing". I've been noticing a lot of minor typos and grammar issues lately on this article, so I guess just be careful y'all. Blank2nowhere (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

i'll fix. Admanny (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The recovery numbers are actually shockingly low. So I don't think they reflect an intention to spread propaganda. I would definitely include those numbers and carefully track. Kim99 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020 : May I add this plot

Log-linear plot of confirmed cases and deaths to 27 January with linear fits.

Strongly suggest epidemic remains in exponential growth.

The "deaths" line looks as if it could be better fitted by a curve. Mike Young (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Logarithm plot of confirmed cases and deaths indicates the epidemic is in an exponential phase.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Galerita (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we also add a note to the graph caption that confirmed cases almost double every two days?--وسام زقوت (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this slipping into WP:OR? Have reliable sources interpreted the data in this manner? Bondegezou (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any information that suggest that the amount of tests is not the cause of this ? 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to the note request of this graph for:'cases doubling every two days', would it would be relevant and much more clear to simply toggle the graph for a user to view both STANDARD plot and LOG LINEAR axis plot? On initial viewing, it is difficult to grasp the exponential growth of this, and your average viewer will appreciate this RAW, extreme growth curve, and I think this is the reason for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeCeeNT (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Chart for those Healed

Let's add a section on the chart for the people who have healed, as far as the information that we can find allows (perhaps provide an asterisk which states that the information about who's been healed has been collected given the most available information). We have a column for those who have been infected, those who have been killed, but what about those who have been healed? There is legitimate data out there that depicts this information, and I think that to include it in the chart would desensationalize the situation, by including a section for such occurrences alongside the causalities and the general afflicted. Or perhaps the healed column should be omitted, because this is a serious disease and people shouldn't sleep completely easy on it? People should read Wikipedia and not see any available information about those who have been healed, and this should spread a kind of pathos up the chain of command to whoever's job it is to find a cure or take the right precautions? I do not think that's the general function of Wikipedia, to spread ethical propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YelloJello33 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this and was about to set up a talk section about this. So far the stats for those who have recovered are only on the Timeline/Chronology article. It is extremely unfair and biased to leave out this information on all related articles, especially on this main one. Nebakin (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea. It has been brought up here numerous times before, but in my opinion the "healed" category is inherently dubious, abstract, and lacks the multiple sources necessary to support its creation. A 'healed' category has also never been used in previous epidemic pages on this wiki. It seems most proposals for this idea stem from the "healed" category on the primary Mainland China source- DXY. It's inclusion there seems suspect and almost seems like a PR tactic. --Charsum (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is present on another article and should be listed here as well, the source is actually from CGTN too, which has been widely used in all Wuhan virus outbreak related articles. In fact, the recoveries are not only present in China itself but also Thailand and/or Japan and was reported by their respective medias. Nebakin (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah the "healed" category, you can call it something else if you think that the word "healed" is too abstract or something, but I was relaying the idea.

YelloJello33 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)YelloJello33

New places reported ! Keep data updated

Updated November 3, 2024.

COVID-19 pandemic by location

	Location	Cases	Deaths
	World	776,695,852	7,072,496
	European Union	186,241,416	1,265,093
	United States	103,436,829	1,205,461
	China	99,381,002	122,367
	India	45,044,081	533,652
	France	39,023,328	168,091
	Germany	38,437,756	174,979
	Brazil	37,511,921	702,116
	South Korea	34,571,873	35,934
	Japan	33,803,572	74,694
	Italy	26,826,486	197,542
	United Kingdom	25,006,869	232,112
	Russia	24,547,989	403,508
	Turkey	17,004,728	101,419
	Spain	13,980,340	121,852
	Australia	11,861,161	25,236
	Vietnam	11,624,000	43,206
	Argentina	10,105,599	130,693
	Taiwan	9,970,937	17,672
	Netherlands	8,644,223	22,986
	Iran	7,627,863	146,837
	Mexico	7,622,259	334,764
	Indonesia	6,829,668	162,059
	Poland	6,755,185	120,875
	Colombia	6,394,306	142,727
	Austria	6,082,821	22,534
	Greece	5,724,778	39,606
	Portugal	5,669,374	29,018
	Ukraine	5,541,734	109,923
	Chile	5,403,559	64,482
	Malaysia	5,316,630	37,351
	Belgium	4,888,331	34,339
	Israel	4,841,558	12,707
	Canada	4,819,055	55,282
	Czech Republic	4,807,669	43,660
	Thailand	4,803,135	34,733
	Peru	4,526,977	220,975
	Switzerland	4,466,918	14,170
	Philippines	4,173,631	66,864
	South Africa	4,072,813	102,595
	Romania	3,566,466	68,899
	Denmark	3,442,484	9,919
	Singapore	3,006,155	2,024
	Hong Kong	2,876,106	13,466
	Sweden	2,764,353	27,928
	New Zealand	2,650,294	4,435
	Serbia	2,583,470	18,057
	Iraq	2,465,545	25,375
	Hungary	2,235,887	49,084
	Bangladesh	2,051,455	29,499
	Slovakia	1,883,245	21,247
	Georgia	1,863,615	17,150
	Republic of Ireland	1,750,342	9,900
	Jordan	1,746,997	14,122
	Pakistan	1,580,631	30,656
	Norway	1,523,402	5,732
	Kazakhstan	1,504,370	19,072
	Finland	1,499,712	11,466
	Lithuania	1,398,560	9,847
	Slovenia	1,359,672	9,914
	Croatia	1,347,441	18,774
	Bulgaria	1,337,252	38,743
	Morocco	1,279,115	16,305
	Puerto Rico	1,252,713	5,938
	Guatemala	1,250,392	20,203
	Lebanon	1,239,904	10,947
	Costa Rica	1,235,662	9,374
	Bolivia	1,212,149	22,387
	Tunisia	1,153,361	29,423
	Cuba	1,113,662	8,530
	Ecuador	1,078,766	36,054
	United Arab Emirates	1,067,030	2,349
	Panama	1,044,987	8,756
	Uruguay	1,041,640	7,684
	Mongolia	1,011,489	2,136
	Nepal	1,003,450	12,031
	Belarus	994,038	7,118
	Latvia	977,765	7,475
	Saudi Arabia	841,469	9,646
	Azerbaijan	836,462	10,353
	Paraguay	735,759	19,880
	Cyprus	708,559	1,492
	Palestine	703,228	5,708
	Bahrain	696,614	1,536
	Sri Lanka	672,802	16,907
	Kuwait	667,290	2,570
	Dominican Republic	661,103	4,384
	Moldova	650,542	12,280
	Myanmar	643,209	19,494
	Estonia	610,471	2,998
	Venezuela	552,695	5,856
	Egypt	516,023	24,830
	Qatar	514,524	690
	Libya	507,269	6,437
	Ethiopia	501,239	7,574
	Réunion	494,595	921
	Honduras	472,909	11,114
	Armenia	452,977	8,778
	Bosnia and Herzegovina	403,890	16,400
	Oman	399,449	4,628
	Luxembourg	395,802	1,000
	North Macedonia	352,032	9,990
	Zambia	349,892	4,078
	Brunei	349,170	181
	Kenya	344,109	5,689
	Albania	337,192	3,608
	Botswana	330,696	2,801
	Mauritius	329,121	1,074
	Kosovo	274,279	3,212
	Algeria	272,173	6,881
	Nigeria	267,189	3,155
	Zimbabwe	266,396	5,740
	Montenegro	251,280	2,654
	Afghanistan	235,214	7,998
	Mozambique	233,845	2,252
	Martinique	230,354	1,104
	Laos	219,060	671
	Iceland	210,656	186
	Guadeloupe	203,235	1,021
	El Salvador	201,960	4,230
	Trinidad and Tobago	191,496	4,390
	Maldives	186,694	316
	Uzbekistan	175,081	1,016
	Namibia	172,556	4,110
	Ghana	172,210	1,462
	Uganda	172,159	3,632
	Jamaica	157,322	3,618
	Cambodia	139,324	3,056
	Rwanda	133,266	1,468
	Cameroon	125,279	1,974
	Malta	123,114	925
	Barbados	108,835	593
	Angola	107,482	1,937
	Democratic Republic of the Congo	100,976	1,474
	French Guiana	98,041	413
	Senegal	89,312	1,972
	Malawi	89,168	2,686
	Kyrgyzstan	88,953	1,024
	Ivory Coast	88,448	835
	Suriname	82,503	1,406
	New Caledonia	80,203	314
	French Polynesia	79,451	650
	Eswatini	75,356	1,427
	Guyana	74,491	1,302
	Belize	71,430	688
	Fiji	69,047	885
	Madagascar	68,575	1,428
	Jersey	66,391	161
	Cabo Verde	64,474	417
	Sudan	63,993	5,046
	Mauritania	63,876	997
	Bhutan	62,697	21
	Syria	57,423	3,163
	Burundi	54,569	15
	Guam	52,287	419
	Seychelles	51,892	172
	Gabon	49,056	307
	Andorra	48,015	159
	Papua New Guinea	46,864	670
	Curaçao	45,883	305
	Aruba	44,224	292
	Tanzania	43,263	846
	Mayotte	42,027	187
	Togo	39,533	290
	Bahamas	39,127	849
	Guinea	38,582	468
	Isle of Man	38,008	116
	Lesotho	36,138	709
	Guernsey	35,326	67
	Faroe Islands	34,658	28
	Haiti	34,555	860
	Mali	33,171	743
	Federated States of Micronesia	31,765	65
	Cayman Islands	31,472	37
	Saint Lucia	30,288	410
	Benin	28,036	163
	Somalia	27,334	1,361
	Solomon Islands	25,954	199
	United States Virgin Islands	25,389	132
	San Marino	25,292	126
	Republic of the Congo	25,234	389
	Timor-Leste	23,460	138
	Burkina Faso	22,146	400
	Liechtenstein	21,603	89
	Gibraltar	20,550	113
	Grenada	19,693	238
	Bermuda	18,860	165
	South Sudan	18,847	147
	Tajikistan	17,786	125
	Monaco	17,181	67
	Equatorial Guinea	17,130	183
	Samoa	17,057	31
	Tonga	16,992	13
	Marshall Islands	16,297	17
	Nicaragua	16,194	245
	Dominica	16,047	74
	Djibouti	15,690	189
	Central African Republic	15,443	113
	Northern Mariana Islands	14,985	41
	Gambia	12,627	372
	Collectivity of Saint Martin	12,324	46
	Vanuatu	12,019	14
	Greenland	11,971	21
	Yemen	11,945	2,159
	Caribbean Netherlands	11,922	41
	Sint Maarten	11,051	92
	Eritrea	10,189	103
	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	9,674	124
	Guinea-Bissau	9,614	177
	Niger	9,528	315
	Comoros	9,109	160
	Antigua and Barbuda	9,106	146
	American Samoa	8,359	34
	Liberia	8,090	294
	Sierra Leone	7,985	126
	Chad	7,702	194
	British Virgin Islands	7,628	64
	Cook Islands	7,375	2
	Turks and Caicos Islands	6,824	40
	Sao Tome and Principe	6,771	80
	Saint Kitts and Nevis	6,607	46
	Palau	6,372	10
	Saint Barthélemy	5,507	5
	Nauru	5,393	1
	Kiribati	5,085	24
	Anguilla	3,904	12
	Wallis and Futuna	3,760	9
	Macau	3,514	121
	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	3,426	2
	Tuvalu	2,943	1
	Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha	2,166	0
	Falkland Islands	1,923	0
	Montserrat	1,403	8
	Niue	1,092	0
	Tokelau	80	0
	Vatican City	26	0
	Pitcairn Islands	4	0
	Turkmenistan	0	0
	North Korea	0	0

Please update {{2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and {{2019 coronavirus pandemic map}} as needed.

1 confirmed infection in Germany (Bavaria)

Official statement by the Bavarian Ministry of Health: https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmaßnahmen-laufen/ 77.183.92.215 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

URL changed: https://www.stmgp.bayern.de/presse/bestaetigter-coronavirus-fall-in-bayern-infektionsschutzmassnahmen-laufen/ 77.183.92.215 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

Acording to this: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, Ivory Coast seem to be infected. Can we list them to the template? Neutrinium 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus case on Brazil confirmed by Health Ministry

Here's the link for the news containing the info, would anyone kindly add it to the article? 200.233.220.204 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.233.220.204 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, only says that the Brazilian authorities are investigating a suspect case. Rgps (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

UAE

The case reported in UAE is a case of an entire family of four members. According to our criteria of recording individuals, this counts as 4 cases, not 1. https://www.wam.ae/en/details/1395302819592 --137.132.213.135 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Japan 8th cases

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09201.html Xinjapanpon (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Woman in 40s. She worked as a bus attendance in Japan with the bus driver diagnosed as 7th case. 2nd indigenous case in Japan. Xinjapanpon (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Suspected cases - somewhat misleading

I think that the term suspected cases is somewhat misleading. For instance, Sweden has had suspected cases, but all suspected cases have been found negative. According to the National health authority in Sweden, a test is analysed within five hours. So to put Sweden permanetely as a place with suspected cases is misleading since our vigilance is high.

Or to put it differently. There ought to be a table of confirmed cases per nation. It could have (perhaps later) a column with last date of confirmed case.

Another table could be over nations where suspected cases have been reported and the date for the report. As long as there are no confirmed cases, the country could remain in the list.

213.67.241.199 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we should include "suspected cases" at all given the paucity of accurate information and expert consensus on any such numbers. We should stick to confirmed cases only, IMO. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is essentially meaningless information and any attempt to collate the information will be incomplete and flawed, which strays into original research. If the WHO get involved and start publishing such information globally then it would be worth considering. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Suspected case in Denmark: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/dansk-patient-undersoeges-for-coronavirus-havde-vaeret-i-udbruddets-epicenter 188.228.48.155 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: false positive Goldsztajn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the fourth paragraph be moved to the virus article?

As someone who prefers for this article to be about providing legible information to the general public about an ongoing epidemic that could affect them, whereas the virus article is about discussion in terms of medical literature, does anyone else support the idea that the paragraph quoted should be moved to the virus article? Or further into the main body?

Chinese scientists were able to isolate a strain of the new coronavirus quickly, with the genetic sequence being made available for laboratories across the world to independently develop PCR tests that can confirm infection in a person.[28][29][30][31] Of the first 41 people confirmed by real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing to have been infected, two-thirds were found to have a link with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals.[32][33][34][35] The seventh member of the coronavirus family to infect humans, 2019-nCoV's genome sequence has been reported to be 75- to 80-percent identical to SARS-CoV, and more than 85-percent similar to several bat coronaviruses.[36][37] Whether this virus is of the same severity or lethality as SARS is unclear.[28][29][30][31]

Tsukide (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Edited to insert a title. Tsukide (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the fifth paragraph, isn't it? I think the actual fourth has merit of being moved into the body, though I'm also agreeable to holding off on that until the epidemic calms. Sleath56 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fatality Rate

 Done Yug (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The way we currently calculate fatality rate is very wrong. We are using current death to the confirmed case count. Confirmed case aren't in same state of progress, somes of them could be infected since 1 day, other since 20 days.

Fatality rate should be calculated from people dead vs (dead+Recovered) but this would also give bad rate (63,85 % Fatality Rate for 106 / 166.). Actually, fatality rate can only be calculated if we have a good way to be sure of the total quantity of infected and quantity of death wich we can't have.

I suggest Fatality rate to be removed untill the epidemy is ended. --Eric1212 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with removing the "Fatality %" column from the cases chart. It's too early to get a reasonable estimate by doing simple division. However, I would support including estimates of the fatality rate in the article that have prepared by professional researchers, the WHO, etc. who are looking at this more closely. Professionals can plausibly have enough details about case progression to make useful estimates of the mortality rate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Dragons flight. Tezakhiago (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed it from the template. The true fatality rate will take a long time to emerge, and the method being used in the table is flawed and borderline OR --Charsum (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not "borderline" completly OR. Fatality rates need to be calculated with the total cases, not only the CONFIRMED cases, based of severe symptoms and whether or not you come from Wuhan. There is still no evidence to even say that the fatality rate is any different from other coronavirus. 67.68.202.134 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Charsum. The suspected fatality rate must be stated (we cannot claim there is no fatality rate) but very discrete as of now, since it is really not reliable with only one-month-old epidemic and the bulk of cases still in hospital. And there is no reason to showcast it all around in table for each country. Yug (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, we can't calculate it from the numbers of infections and deaths, at least not in today's situation. Removed from the body also. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tibet

Problematic political wording in the second lede paragraph - "including in every province of China except Tibet". Last I heard, Tibet's political status was still a matter of controversy. My suggestion for rewording is not nearly as informative, but I will toss out as an alternative "almost entirely within greater China." And, if you do want a specific mention of Tibet, then add "Tibet is not currently affected." This avoids an outright declaration of Tibet as a province of China, but also does not negate it. (Viruses don't respect politics, but debatable political situations don't usually vanish because of viruses.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree 173.200.98.210 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

not needed but... Some may not like it, but Tibet is in the health administration of China. To avoid loss of information but yet not be too verbose, instead of "except" use "but not": "including in every province of China but not Tibet". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary and the discussed sentence doesn't seem provocative in any case to warrant bringing up such a discussion. However, in any case, Tibet is an internationally recognized political province of China.1 For a comparison, Catalonia doesn't similarly require having such caveat considerations despite its own secession movements having been far more topical in recent years, as its nonetheless a political component of Spain. Sleath56 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's start by saying that very technically, "Tibet Autonomous Region" is not synonymous with Tibet, or with what China considers to be Chinese Tibet. The size differences are significant ... which is specifically relevant for its use in the lede and something we will want to pay attention to in the references as new epidemic updates become available.

When considering exact wording of a Tibetan location, international opinion of Tibet's status becomes relevant. Since we are English-language WP, we might want to keep in mind that there are more English-language speakers in India than in the US and UK combined. Given the active Tibet-related border issues between China and India, this is one place where we do want to be careful with NPOV.

Catalonia is not the question here, because it is not directly connected (via three rail transfers not requiring international visas) to ground zero of a new epidemic. Comparing Catalonia with Tibet, technical "autonomy" notwithstanding, is rather like comparing apples and oranges.

(Slight historical digression) For one thing, according to the International Commission of Jurists, Tibet was independent between 1912 and 1951, before China invaded with troops in 1950 and followed up with actions which fit all the textbook definitions of genocide and continue to raise questions of human rights. (No Crimea-style referendum here.) For another, the UK-India/China border disputes involving Tibet still have not been resolved. (India and China ended up in open war over this in 1962.) For a third, there is no Tibetan document acknowledging Chinese authority more recent than after the Chinese invasion of 1950-51. (The broader mess goes back to the 13th century.) For a fourth, a previous Chinese government signed documents agreeing that Tibet would never become a province of China. (Granted, before WW1 (1912), but the same document continues to be at the core of the India-China border dispute to this day.) In fact, India has currently completely backtracked on its earlier (1952-2003) agreement that Tibet was Chinese, and will no longer say that Tibet is part of China. In contrast, both the US and the UK officially agree with China on this matter, although actual US actions have often been mixed. Nearly all of this has occurred within a single lifetime of where we stand today; two lifetimes if we include the original UK negotiations. (end digression)

While Catalonia's issues deserve their own mention in their own way, again, they are not relevant *here*. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A moot point, as Tibet has now been reported to have a confirmed case. "Authorities in China also reported the first case of the Wuhan virus in Tibet, previously the only region to have avoided the virus. "1 Sleath56 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to the current version of the lede. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep politics out of this, please. This is a disease outbreak. Not politics. If the Chinese and world health organizations are reporting Tibet as part of China, then this article should follow them.--Eostrix (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You might want to think about that statement a bit more. When citing reliable sources, it is important to consider exactly what those sources are reliable for. This is not one-size-fits-all, nor is it an either-or. It is entirely possible for a source to be considered absolutely reliable in one field but not another. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reddit post with references that cases outside of China have been mild

https://www.reddit.com/r/China_Flu/comments/euvexx/current_status_of_outsidechina_patients/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This may be true, but these kinds of posts are not reliable sources. See if you can find a regular academic or news report on the subject. There are possible reasons for this, eg only testing severe cases or the deceased in China, severely affected patients not travelling, death rate not as high as you might believe... (OR) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick scan of the first half dozen references used, show that they are all news source based. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reddit might not be the most reliable source on this topic. But given that travelers are typical younger and healthier, and that most people who died in China are the elderly, this would make sense. --I-Love-New-York-1982 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about reddit. This is about the references used in the reddit post which are reliable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Then link those references directly. --Charsum (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What would be the point of relisting 15+ references? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Article states that the virus is contagious during the incubation period, yet the citation given for this clearly states that more data are required in order to make a determination on that subject. 2001:56A:F975:3D00:DC0:D3FF:377:AE53 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done added the following: it remains to be determined if it is contagious during this time robertsky (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Transmission during incubation phase

Currently, the wiki pages says: "The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time.[5]" Bold is not true. Please correct. The cited reference says "Detailed epidemiological information from more people infected is needed to determine the infectious period of 2019-nCoV, in particular whether transmission can occur from asymptomatic individuals or during the incubation period." SailBelow (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done added the following: it remains to be determined if it is contagious during this time robertsky (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Change - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it remains contagious during this time. To - The incubation period (time from exposure to developing symptoms) of the virus is between 2 and 10 days and it might be contagious during this time 2600:1702:37F1:3F80:E416:604D:356D:8E7B (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done added the following: it remains to be determined if it is contagious during this time robertsky (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlap with Virus Article

I'm merging content from the virus article. See talk page. Moksha88 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Moksha88:, I tried my best yesterday to revamp the article. Sections were a mess, with duplicated informations, 3 sections were overlapping each other in this main article alone. It's better now, but we must keep things tidy. Yes, there is duplication as well between 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). Notably the "Background > Genetics, reservoir, ..." and the "Charateristics" sections. These section must be in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, but stay SHORT. Hidden comments should direct editors to rather edit Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (virus). This kind of thing. New editors need some clear hint so the needed clean up / tidy up is intuitive. I revamped the current sections, added {main|Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)}, but better hints can be added done. Yug (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yug Excellent, thank you. It does look better. Moksha88 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok sure. Could I have a look at the poor references, so I know your expectations? Wuhan2019 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to the bar graph of confirmed cases

This was a barplot [replaced with line plot below] of data downloaded from the JHU page that might be preferred in place of the orange-colored horizontal barplot. It excludes Taiwan and Hong Kong (I could include them, whatever. I think there's some opposition to including Taiwan with mainland China). The orange chart includes Taiwan, hard to tell, there's no description and it hasn't been uploaded to wikimedia in the usual way. I think repeating exact numbers in tables isn't necessary. A line graph might be better, like on the right side of the JHU page. I could do that also. JuanTamad (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Confirmed cases have already topped 6,000, making the chart obsolete. Not to mention if we're including total infections it's worth it to include every country. Aqua817 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Two thoughts, one on chart type, one one data. On chart type, I think that the current vertically oriented graph is counter-intuitive and very non-standard. Your column chart is an improvement. A line chart would probably be best, as this is a time series. On the data, I think following the JHU approach of "Mainland China" and "Other Locations" is good. Charting the total of all cases might even be better. Chris vLS (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We would also need to endeavor to keep it up to date daily... perhaps we could load a common file for generating the chart every day as data are available. Chris vLS (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The JHU do keep it up to date. The current bar chart also includes a problematic projection as well as claims on Taiwan, the NHC data includes Taiwan , eg todays version > http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202001/1c259a68d81d40abb939a0781c1fe237.shtml (use Google Translate) Wikimucker

Wuhan 2019-nCoV confirmed cases mainland China and Taiwan (red line) and rest of world (blue line).

I can update this line plot at noon China time everyday since I’m in Thailand. By the next morning in Europe and the Americas it will be showing that day’s date. This is mainland China and Taiwan from the same source as the JHU, a Chinese news site. The numbers for the rest of the world are still so low it almost work on the same plot. A more complex plot is going to difficult to maintain daily. It going to become obsolete at some point anyway.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The horizontal chart had some projections on it that must have been original research (WP:NOV), but looks like they’re gone.JuanTamad (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks great! I think that having a graph of the total for all countries is ideal because 1) no politics, 2) is important. Doesn't hurt anything right now, because the numbers are so close, but that may change. A minor style point... I think your graph would look even better if it didn't have the minor gridlines. They don't help much and when the graph is small, they detract from its looks. Let me know if you ever need to skip some days an need someone to cover for you updating it! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you include other countries in the same line, you can't see them (if that's what you meant), the number is such a small fraction of those in China. This is like the JHU graph, showing other countries in a separate line. The minor gridlines are removed. I do this in R. If you know how to regenerate a graph in R after adding the additional data, you could also update. The information from the Chinese government is available here, so can use this data rather than the news websites. JuanTamad (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SO now will have to propose replacing the horizontal thing.JuanTamad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Update map

Can somebody remove Sweden from the map? Znuddel (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Need for a panel

 Done Yug (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2009 has {{2009 swine flu}}. Let's go for {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus}} {{2019-nCoV}}. We indeed start to have enough sub-article to start such panel as well. And it's pretty sure we will need more sub-article in coming months.

Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus Yug (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We can start populating the template with individual country sections from the other sub articles on the various countries' cases and responses. robertsky (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes ! We need to redirect the lively flow of editors to the right sub-articles. This will help ! Yug (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Erm... Just realised... There is already one... Template:2019-nCoV robertsky (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Greate ! Merge coming ! Yug (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done! Let's spread and improve {{2019-nCoV}}. :D Yug (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Case Fatality Rate

The lead paragraph says the case fatality rate of this is 2.2% whereas the link to the John Hopkins website says (at the time of writing) that 132 have died and 110 have recovered. This looks like a case fatality rate of 55%. What’s going on here? Mike Young (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC) CFR is deaths/confirmed. 146.88.44.13 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CFR is deaths/confirmed cases.JuanTamad (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page [Case Fatality Rate] says “for example: Assume 9 deaths among 100 people in a community all diagnosed with the same disease. This means that among the 100 people formally diagnosed with the disease, 9 died and 91 recovered. The CFR, therefore, would be 9%. If some of the cases have not yet resolved (either died or recovered) at the time of analysis, this could lead to bias in estimating the CFR.”

Is this wrong? What term do I use for the probability of surviving if you get the disease?

If your definition is correct, then I think it needs explaining. It makes people think they have a 2.2% chance of death if they get the disease when they have a 55% chance. This is a big deal. Mike Young (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

not a simple calculation early in an epidemic. On Wikipedia, report estimates from reliable sources I’d say. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707560/ JuanTamad (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mike, you're on the right track, but the piece that is missing is that the 100/9/91 example means that the outbreak is over -- all 100 have been sorted into the "recovered" or "died" bin. Right now we have, roughly, 110 recovered, 132 died, and like 6,000 "don't know yet". Lots of the older cases are still sick, hence not "recovered" but are not in serious condition, so I believe they are included in the denominator for the fatality rate, so the rate does accurately answer the question "What are the average chances for someone with a new case?" Hope that helps... cheers Chris vLS (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Recoveries

Should we put back the recoveries column? Wuhan2019 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That would really help Mike Young (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mike Young! Thank you for the feedback Wuhan2019 :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Before this was removed I looked at the references used and they were few and of poor quality. This meant adding them up was too much Original Research for a WP article. I suggest this is not added back until this comes from a more reliable source covering all the countries, such as the WHO if and when they get more involved. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

There are now 4 confirmed cases in UAE. Please update the table of confirmed cases. (Source) Sesved (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Goldsztajn (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Translation from English<>Portuguese / Public draft about news/articles on portuguese[Portugal] websites

 Done Yug (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, everyone!

I just wanted to tell you that I'm available to translate information from English>Portuguese and Portuguese>English [more slowly than EN>PT].

Also, I have been putting information and links about the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak on my portuguese user page, you may check it here and use it freely of course: Usuário(a):FranciscoMMartins/Rascunhos.

Because I have just registered my account yesterday I cannot edit this article, either in the English or Portuguese version. But I am indeed interested in collaborating with both Wikipedia communities :)

Keep up the good work and have a nice day! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @FranciscoMMartins: the section #Geographic diffusion could be an easy start to translate. Do you want to give it a try ? Only the text as of now, it's good enough for a newbie ;).

First, check if the portuguese wikipedia article needs this section. If it does, then translate it there pt:User:FranciscoMMartins/2019-20 Wuhan virus ;) Yug (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! @Yug: You are awesome! I have only been editing on Wikipedia for two days but the feedback has been only good and from super nice users :) I shall do it as you say, I'll check with the community on the portuguese wikipedia if the the above stated section is relevant to it or not. While it is discussed I'll be translating the text on the page you created for me. Thank you very much Yug, have a good day! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

3M is ramping up production worldwide to meet the demand of face masks

Hi!

I found this information about 3M ramping up production worldwide to meet the demand due to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Accessible here:"3M sees coronavirus boosting demand for face masks, as China projected to return to growth"

What do you think about placing this information on the article?

FranciscoMMartins (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Finland

A coronavirus case was detected in Rovaniemi, Finland: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11181717 MaxPlays (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source in English: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finlands_first_coronavirus_case_confirmed_in_lapland/11182855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHTT1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been added --Colin dm (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template missing, but if you try to edit it it's there, so i guess there's some bug causing it, hope can solve it Nickayane99 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Characteristics (Concerns of Underreporting)

In the subsection Concerns of Underreporting[3], the reference for the second line currently has a tag for ′failed verification′. The line in question is: "Many of those experiencing symptoms may decide to self-quarantine at home instead of going to a hospital due to long wait-times and cramped conditions." I think the an additional, stronger source could be: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html This NYT article mentions underreporting, then goes into the more detail: "Relatives of patients say that some hospitals, strapped for resources as they deal with an influx of patients, are turning sick people away or refusing to test them for the coronavirus." It doesn't fully speak to the claim, but it might get us closer. The only issue with this source is that the article is no longer available (unless a subscriber). I checked for an archived copy using the Wayback Machine, but there doesn't appear to be any captures that reflect the current version of the article (but there are a number of captures). SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

bunny suit??

surely the doctor is wearing a Hazmat suit to deal with a medical hazard and NOT a bunny suit made for keeping dust out of electronics? Can someone verify and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous. kencf0618 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This map

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 Nickayane99 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source

Thinking about how to incorporate this into the article. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally The history section is already presuming the market and animals was the source, while this article says otherwise. Quote:

... the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts.

What do you think? Take a knife to current assertions that it was animal and market started? Or at least tone down significantly?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not contradicting, it's just stating there was transmission before we grabbed the current early node at the sea market. Yug (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I suggest to add a sentence about the statement from Daniel R. Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Georgetown University. About a significant finding. About the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 and maybe earlier. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

As noted above the article calls into the question of animal spread. I removed references to animal spread. I'm not sure the article should add speculative sources that are called into the question be a notable article. Some question the deletion saying the article above is ambiguous. I don't know what is ambiguous about it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting something wrong with template.

Hi just reporting that Template of the 2019 coronavirus, in Geographic distribution section of the article is missing Confirmed cases and Death header at the top of the template.BigRed606 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

BigRed606, can you tell us more ? are you on mobile ? Can you put a screenshot somewhere online and share the link ? Yug (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• https://share.icloud.com/photos/06Bu7NCDBlfwAdKpicGbFudbQ BigRed606 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• https://share.icloud.com/photos/0neZ-Zh73mLX-9LwQlwvhv3vgBigRed606 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Compared to Template:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World https://share.icloud.com/photos/0pAr8gzpbZFrQ3-TPw2ytFyxwBigRed606 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh snap ! Can someone debug that {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}} wikitable ?? It's 1 am here I go to bed. Thank you BigRed606 ! Yug (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a class which doesn't display in mobile because navboxes are omitted there.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Found a great website that keep tracking about coronavirus death and infected cases

 Done Yug (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

bnonews.com > Tracking coronavirus: Map, data and timeline Nickayane99 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh god, this is a nice catch. I report it to the team working to keep this data up to date on {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World}}. Thank you Nickayane99 ! Yug (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

I need to update the number of cases Nannynann (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

76.78.225.140 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Data from total infected chart is not possible. Thailand has 1,000+ China has 7,000+ but the total written is only 7,792

Please supply a reliable source for the Thailand number you suggest. The table says 14. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect vandalism by 75.140.174.50. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thailand?

Uhh can someone confirm the 1800+ cases in Thailand that someone put, or if that's just a troll. Thanks. SushiGod (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Transmission of pathogens from human to human

I would add the sub-subject above, and possible cause of infection from bat to human with references. I could understand why some Chinese people eating bats and live mouse as per the goals of medicinal and aphrodisiac benefits. However, I believe that now it's time to ask them to consider to stop eating the natural reservoirs of many types of pathogens - especially live mouse or bat which is currently confirmed pathogens of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Intro animated gif wasn't updating for me

Was it updating for you? Tried on two different browsers. Replaced with another image that was updated. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, or discuss further.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just uploaded this from the CDC if it's useful

Symptoms

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add it to the main article as it is useful info Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Differences between fatality rate in epicentre City of Wuhan and overall fatality rate in China

According to the official figures released by the Health Commission of Hubei, as of 23:59, 29 Jan, the fatality rate of City Wuhan stood at 129/2261 ≈ 5.7% while the overall fatality rate of China is about 2.2%. This discrepancy, Jiang Rongmeng, an expert from National Health Commission, alluded during a live interview on CCTV-13 (see the footage at local time 10:30:50, CCTV-13 is the state run live news channel) on 30 Jan, might be due to mishandling of the outbreak initially by the local hospitals. He said "there was room for improvement" which implies Wuhan medical staff should have used better methods to contain the virus at early stages. Swoopin swallow (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

In order to preparation to GA nominee, semi-protected pages need to time expand

Hello folks, it is so interested to read to outbreak. IMO, this article is eligible to nominate as GA nominee. Yet in order to preparation of this article to GA nominee, semi-protected pages needs to indefinitely until the cases is ended. It is urgent because when semi-protected was expired on 3rd February, many IP users edited it again to featuring rumours, hoaxes, etc, like India CAA protest about the outbreak and this is also the medical article that needs a indefinite semi-protected. Chinese and French wikis have indefinite semi-protected to they version of the article, at least until the outbreak ended. Why English is not get a indefinite semi-protected for this article like articles of 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)