Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

RfC about epidemiology

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize: Graph 1 (original graph) that shows cases deaths and recoveries, Graph 2 (CFR); Both graphs; No graphs, or use a Epidemic curve as per reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Complex discussion. Think needs a bit more than third opinion.
We have a graph on the COVID-19 outbreak page that has consensus, and whilst its great and speedily updated I believe it is slightly misleading. I have concerns about the data point "recoveries" - and any inferences the reader may make from this. Recoveries has a few problems, namely that clinicians are less likely to report recoveries, loss to followup etc. They generally always report cases and deaths in a rapidly developing outbreak such as this
I'm suggesting balancing the current graph with this graph:
Graph 2 (CFR) --Almaty (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

'Proposed Graph 2 (CFR)'Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020

The cumulative case fatality rate in China compares the total number of deaths with the total number of confirmed cases, on a daily basis. It is based on reported figures. The current figure is not an estimate of the severity of the disease, nor an estimate of likelihood of death from coronavirus disease 2019.

In outbreak communication a standard way of reporting is the case fatality rate. However, at the earliest stage of the an outbreak, the CFR is inherently biased. We're now past the very initial stages, almost 2 months into the outbreak. I created this graph to attempt to convey the uncertainty. It involves a simple division and therefore I don't think its original research, and I think it could go on this page, or the disease page.
I think when people go to wikipedia they want to see a "death rate", the new graph conveys the uncertainty of the "death rate" with using the CFR standard and a sourced disclaimer. So I don't think we should include WP:PRIMARY sources that state a CFR it without the graph because its changing. Opinions so far have included: 1. WP:CALC - I believe that using the WHO situation reports as the main source, there is one simple division and therefore "obvious and correct"
2. That WP:MEDRS sources are not showing the CFR graph at this stage, just the figures. Primary published sources show point in time CFRs which are unreliable and changing. However, they certainly don't show our current graph.
3. A statistic known as (D/D+R) has been suggested to be used, which I don't think is a standard statistic in outbreak communication. It runs the risk of vastly underover-reporting the "death rate", due to recoveries not being reported or lost to followup, IMO and I haven't yet been pointed to a source. --Almaty (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment So sorry to WP:Boldly remove the current graph, as discussed with another editor. I recommend putting it back in once recoveries is removed for now, the achieve consensus about the recovery deferring to experts where possible. I think this letter is explaining a significant amount of the epidemiological uncertainty well. Also, Sorry I will not be available for replies for about 10-12 hours. --Almaty (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty Can we make the graph of % mortality narrower? You are proposing putting it in the section on deaths? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James done (on the train no less) --Almaty (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James and yes just on the section on deaths. (unable to log in at present, this is Almaty) --156.22.244.15 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 6,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the death rate after diagnosis. NOT the death rate. In a typical coronavirus outbreak, there might be about 1 infected over 1000 that is even diagnosed. Typically, people with flu symptoms never get tested; They stay at home. We have no tool at all to calculate the actual death rate of this virus. It's most likely 1000 time lower then what is shown on this graph. Please avoid original researches. Iluvalar (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is a death rate, I put it in inverted commas. I just wish to include more standard stats and graphs than current. Such as the case fatality rate. --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to write an elaborate comment but I'll leave some thoughts in defence of the chart:

1) While reporting recovery rates is unusual it's not unheard of (see eg. [1]) and though it is approximate, so are deaths and case rates. Considering how closely monitored this disease is I'd say recovery figures would be more reliable here than in previous epidemics.

2) There have been a lot of arguments on this talk page (and in academia) over incubation times and death rates, both still hard to determine at this stage. Instead of displaying judgement on these issues in Wikipedia's voice we can show the readers the raw figures and let them make up their own mind (though of course we should also give prominence to the views of professionals).

3) I'm no opponent of boldness but consensus around the chart seems to have been pretty decisive in that while some parts of it may have been flawed it is, as a whole, a useful resource. When I asked for opinions before adding recoveries to the chart I got a positive (albeit small) response. Considering that the chart has a prominent role in this article I'd say consensus should be shown to be in favor of removing it, rather than consensus needing to be found to keep it (either way, it shouldn't take too long to determine consensus given how active this talkpage is).

Edit: I'm referring to the "COVID-19 cases in mainland China" chart. CheeseBuffet (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here has become confusing: there are two charts in question and it's not always clear which people are referring to!

We have reasonably good text discussing what the mortality rate might be. We should focus on good text that reflects reliable sources. That text should explain the difficulties in estimating these numbers. This is a better approach that anything that might fall foul of WP:OR and violating WP:CALC.

If we are to have graphs and charts, they should be inspired by what reliable sources do. If reliable sources present a certain sort of chart, but we can't simply replicate that chart because of copyright issues, then let's do our own chart along similar lines. Show me reliable sources do a chart of a particular type, and I will support having a chart of that type. Bondegezou (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you started a new section, I'll briefly defend my suggestion. Including the D/(D+R) statistic in the new chart is good because:

1- It is an "obvious and correct" calculation (it's perfect in theory (probability 101) and is the best simple estimator in practice) that should comply with WP:CALC. Take this example, if you don't mention anything about an outbreak and ask a kid in a maths test which estimator of the probability of Y is better in a situation with 2 possible end states (Y and Z) and 1 intermediary state (I), the kid should obviously choose the estimator of the form Y/(Y+Z) and not Y/(I+Y+Z) (which is theoretically equivalent to the CFR).

2- Screw WP:MEDRS, it's not our fault if big entities are doing a sloppy job (or hiding the truth) of turning their numbers into visualizations.

Just to show how decent D/(D+R) can be, it is only 2% off from a professional mortality estimate of 18% in Hubei on 10 Feb. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

3- I would agree that doctors might not strictly report the recovery of all patients of a common disease. However, this is COVID-19 and it is very possible that doctors and government want to be sure they count everyone to keep recovery rate high to calm the public. If this is true, then D/(D+R) only slightly over-estimates mortality because of the reasons discussed by me and Vladimir.Smutny in the beginning of the Graph question section. Thus, it should captioned that D/(D+R) is only an approximation of the mortality.

4- It would be nice to see/feel the slow convergence between the CFR and D/(D+R) as the outbreak progresses.

5- It would be pertinent to hint readers about the mortality of the virus. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are some great epi curves. They give heaps of detailed information, inferable to the general reader, probably my preferred option after this publication. No DOI yet --Almaty (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoever made the first graph, you can make it into an epidemic curve from the latest data very easily. Compromise ? --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

For clarity please respond with Graph 1 (original); Graph 2 (CFR);No Graph;Both graphs; or Epidemic curve which I will source from here

and the like --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I remain confused what is being proposed or what "graph 1" and "graph 2" mean. Can you make this RfC much clearer? Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: is it OK now? --Almaty (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the way to run an RfC, with the question changing partway through the discussion. You're not going to get any sensible answer out of this. Personally, I oppose Graph 2 (CFR). I support the epidemic curve along the lines in the paper cited. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reason being trying to compromise with the original graph when it was reinserted. They can regig it to a standard epidemic curve with minimal effort --Almaty (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin please close this RfC as withdrawn due to clarity and being now out of date, as we have better sources. I'll make another one on the template page. Sorry if incorrect procedure I am very time poor. I tried to give this a shot but I won't be able to do it. Happy to remove consideration of the above Graph 2 --Almaty (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the template here and reopened with the new question here @Bondegezou: thx --Almaty (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Unclear sentence

The grammar of the following sentence is so poor that I can not determine its meaning.

The early response by city authorities was accused of prioritising a control of information on the outbreak. 69.137.146.91 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think someone had a stroke when writing that. Actually, nevermind, this grammar is giving me a stroke.Dannelsluc (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed move to SARS 2 outbreak

The virus has been named SARS-CoV 2, the article should be called SARS 2 outbreak, following usual disease-agent nomenclature. Erkin Alp Güney 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have personally called this SARS 2.0, so I agree. I was also in China during SARS 1.0 OSSYULYYZ (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this an established phrase though? Attest with at least two sources, at least one of them being reliable. Erkin Alp Güney 16:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

One source from me using SARS 2.0. Few more are needed. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7995229/SARS-2-0-Scientists-coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2.html Erkin Alp Güney 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME I recommend a proposed change to SARS 2 coronavirus outbreak or something similar to make sure nobody gets confused. --burntbuttons (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2020

Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME, no-one much is calling the outbreak the SARS 2 outbreak. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral at this time, but I think we should look out for this possibly becoming a common term, but I can see arguments for this. Part of the issue is that the "official name" of the virus is indeed SARS-CoV 2, but WHO has (for reasons likely more political and diplomatic than scientific or medical) designated the disease caused by SARS-CoV 2 as COVID-19. The question is this: Is the outbreak of viral infections or of the disease? Considering we're talking about asymptomatic individuals at length—that is, people who do not have signs or symptoms of the disease—there's an argument to be made that we're talking about the spread of the virus rather than the disease. To an extent, COMMONNAME doesn't work so well in that situation, since "outbreak" becomes a qualifier rather than part of the name. But of course, the definition Wikipedia uses for outbreak is centered on the disease rather than the infectious agent. And so we wind up back here. I don't know. Another problem is that the popular press are using terms for the virus and disease interchangeably (I've seen news sources talking about a "virus" called "COVID-19", for example). So really getting at what the COMMONNAME is becomes very problematic—what do we do about misuses? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The outbreak is of the disease not the virus! And the disease page is currently Coronavirus disease 2019. It is that title that this article's title needs to become consistent with, not the virus name. EMS | Talk 00:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not what the CDC, WHO, etc use. That the DailyMail uses this is a great reason for us NOT to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The Daily Mail is unreliable and should not, ever, be used as a source, except in rare circumstances. please see WP:RSP. Do not trust whatever the Daily Mail says. Pancho507 (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but most articles I've seen are named after diseases, not viruses. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "SARS 2 outbreak" is not commonly used, while "coronavirus outbreak" is far more common and more recognisable [2], therefore it should not be changed. Changing it would also likely cause confusion with the SARS outbreak of 2003. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per all opinions given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• oppose we normally talk about an outbreak of a disease, such as flu or common cold. So the article should echo the name of the disease, not the virus--robertpedley (talk)09:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please reinstate recovery column indicating maximum estimate of 12.5% mortality, minimum estimate 3%.

Please reinstate the recovery column. It is extremely useful for estimating upper and lower bounds for the death rate.

Recoveries outnumber deaths by 7 to 1, so the mortality is at most 12.5% using this morning's figures (Feb 19). (This assumes that dying on average takes just as long as recovering, which may not be the case. It is a maximal estimate because mostly only symptomatic cases are documented within mainland China).

Similarly the minimal death rate can be estimated from the non-Chinese cases: about 190 recoveries of which 6 have recovered, so a minimal mortality of 3%. (It is a minimal estimate because both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases are detected outside China via PCR analysis.)

In the coming weeks the minimal and maximal estimates will converge on the true value, in line with other Corona virus mortalities (SARS 2002 had 9% mortality, MERS 2012 had 30% mortality).

So please reinstate the invaluable recoveries column. Thank you. 86.161.82.254 (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We have an extensive discussion about this with the graphs. Surveillance systems are not standardised worldwide, and comparing deaths to recoveries is near impossible at this stage. Hong Kong had many cases and only 2 recoveries from memory. That can't be compared in a graph to other countries - it is very misleading. If you follow my contribs you can see a fair bit of the argument --Almaty (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It is inadvisable to compare the tiny sample of HongKong with anything, as you correctly say. But it is nonetheless highly informative for example that 8 out of 9 UK patients and 13 out of 16 German patients have been released after x number of days fully recovered, whereas the remainder are still in hospital after y days - that tells about the duration of recovery, which then allows us to calculate the mortality rate. There are so many useful things you can do with the data. We are all aware of the caveats and shortcomings. Please let us be the judge whether we can handle raw data, not you.86.161.82.254 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We've got good data in the recent CCDC paper. We should be referring to that rather than trying to calculate things ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Please implement the good data from the CCDC source into the Wikipedia table in a resurrected column "recoveries". 86.161.82.254 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We have text about the CCDC paper describing the mortality rate. We don't need raw numbers if someone else, a reliable source, has done the work for us. Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You are getting confucius. This thread is about the recovery column in the table, which was deleted this morning without much warning or support. (Perhaps someone felt the recoveries column made the Chinese government look bad, and should be suppressed? No, surely not.) 86.161.82.254 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I support reinstating the recoveries column for the reason stated above, namely estimation of bounds on the death rate. In addition, people who have been following the page may now wonder if these recoveries are now in question - as those previously "recovered" now appear to be "sick". If we are worried that readers will mistakenly compare between the percentages for China and other countries, we can add a disclaimer explaining why direct comparison of the data from different countries may not be strictly correct.77.125.11.104 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support reporting recoveries. Once the number of new recoveries and deaths starts to exceed the number of new cases being reported, that will indicate that the total number of infections is starting downwards. That will be a very good sign. EMS | Talk 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It is extremely misleading to do so, if this virus is anything like other coronaviruses the amount of infected people is 100 to 1000 time more then the confirmed case. There is no evidence that it's not the case here. There is up to 99.9% of the people who do not seek medical attention. By the look of things, this virus gonna stick around a decade or two. Iluvalar (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of preprints on this wiki

https://github.com/midas-network/COVID-19/wiki/Documents --Almaty (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

no more data?

what happened to the data on recoveries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.253.160 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Have restored for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

They died in hospital after getting infected on the ship. So it's inaccurate. Robertpedley (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

They died in hospital after leaving the ship (where they were infected). So it's inaccurate. Robertpedley (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to tabulate the daily history of cumulative deaths and the rate of change

I don't see that the article shows the daily values of the cumulative deaths; it only shows the total deaths as of today. The columns of data next to the daily bar chart show the daily values of cumulative numbers of cases and the relative change from the previous day. What if someone adds a column listing the daily cumulative numbers of deaths and the relative change? I would think that a lot of people would be interested in the history of deaths, not just the history of cases. For one thing, I think it might indicate the lag between diagnosis and death, for those who died.CountMacula (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. 86.161.83.159 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It does not. The data is there. The daily deaths increase by ca 6%. I expect that number to drop. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm changing the title of the section from "Does the daily rate of change of cumulative deaths match the daily rate of change of cases?"CountMacula (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

2 deaths on international conveyance??

The table says "Deaths on international conveyance: 2", but there is nothing else about it in the article or elsewhere. What's the scoop?24.108.56.72 (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

should be referring to this: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/24c3b1bf4030-breaking-news-2-elderly-passengers-of-virus-hit-ship-died-japan-govt-source.html robertsky (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I found a source just before I came here, but the source should be in the article.24.108.56.72 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

They died in hospital so it's inaccurate. Got infected on the ship.robertpedley (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian case: false diagnosis?

A couple of days ago the media reported that the Egyptian "coronavirus" patient turned out to be negative after RNA/DNA testing. The diagnosis was in error. This would mean Egypt needs to be dropped from the league table and from the map. Can someone follow this up please? 86.161.83.159 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• He is on his way to recovery and now tests negative for SARS-CoV-2. That means that his immune system got rid of the virus, or has almost got rid of it, to below detectable levels. That's not an error in diagnosis, and it's not a reason to drop the case from the tables. This table includes the Egyptian person as recovered. Boud (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So we leave the table as is. (By the way, your source does agree with my source in saying "State TV earlier said a foreigner thought to be carrying the coronavirus had tested negative, raising questions about his initial infection." My hunch is thst someone in the lab got the RT-PCR wrong thus creating a false positive, and now they are pretending the patient's immune system has claared the alleged "virus" in just a couple of days and therefore the follow-up test is negative. This saves the reputation of the lab. I hope someone had the wit to store an aliquot of the original sample, for future investigation.) 86.161.54.108 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Typo under epidemiology

"propogated" should be "propagated' Bhimasena (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak&diff=941739020&oldid=941737798 Fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text in the image box for the animation of the spreading (top right of the article) is outdated

Animation file says through feb 19, text says through feb 18 Airtwit (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

thank you for pointing that out, this is a fast moving event(and therefore article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

Can you clarify outbreak vs epidemic? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:3A (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Should be declined, since this isn't a request for a specific change from "A" to "B", but it's always worth discussing the use of technical terminology. If there are specific concerns we can always include explanatory footnotes (see {{efn}} and {{notelist}} if unfamiliar). I see that the article as-is doesn't have any explanatory footnotes, and in something that bridges highly technical (virology and infectious diseases) and highly popular (public health, international relations, politics), it's usually not a bad idea to use explanatory footnotes to make the article accessible without breaking up its readability. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I would be in support of changing all occurrences of epidemic to outbreak since the WHO [3] still has this illness described as an outbreak. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a quick reminder: We aren't the WHO's press desk. What matters is what reliable sources state. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • What sources are you referring to? The WHO[4], CDC [5], and ECDC [6] have this as an outbreak. I'm not in expert in this field but those seem to be pretty reliable sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Actual scientific papers are what would be considered reliable sources here. Un-signed FAQ-type pages aimed at the lay public, even if they’re put out by government organizations or similar, aren’t particularly useful for resolving disputes like this. Those are overwhelmingly written by PR professionals rather than actual researchers. And this doesn’t even account for the fact that any or all of these organizations have political and diplomatic goals underlying their public health duties. WHO has been claimed to be in bed with the PRC CDC (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/asia/coronavirus-who-china-intl-hnk/index.html), the US CDC’s reactions have been called extreme (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-exclusive/exclusive-senior-china-diplomat-concedes-challenge-of-coronavirus-slams-overreaction-idUSKBN2082EZ), etc. Put briefly, I am indeed calling those pages you’re linking unreliable for WP:MEDRS purposes. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor is incorrect. MEDRS approves of "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies", which includes WHO and the CDC. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Those links are neither guidelines nor position statements. Guidelines means evidence-based medicine guidelines, that is, secondary or tertiary sources that provide recommendations citing sources. For instance, the Guidelines for drinking-water quality, https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/. Position statements refers to a shorter form guideline on a very specific topic, such as a specific treatment or similar, that is also a form of evidence based medicine document. For instance, the Rabies vaccines position paper, https://www.who.int/immunization/policy/position_papers/rabies/en/. Public affairs documents, such as news releases and unsigned FAQs are neither guidelines nor position statements. Furthermore, the purposes for which MEDRS allows such documents is not for settling whether something is an outbreak or epidemic, but whether a treatment is efficacious and supported by the medical literature. It’s a bit like claiming that something written in the style of WebMD is a MEDRS-compliant source. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 is rather new, as you may have noticed. We're not going to get quite the same materials on it as we do with guidelines for drinking-water quality. But these WHO, CDC etc. documents are based on the best evidence available, and clearly satisfy MEDRS. They are not "public affairs documents": they are public health documents. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even look at those links? Or have you ever read a medical research or policy document? These public-targeted information resources, like the pamphlets you find in a doctor’s office, and trying to shoehorn them into the same category as actual research and position papers is frankly offensive to everyone who actually works in healthcare. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I conduct medical research and input on policy. Indeed, I am conducting coronavirus research with the UK Department of Health and in consultation with No. 10, but WP:EXPERT. These resources are like the pamphlets you find in a doctor's office. But they are based on the best evidence available from reputable sources. They satisfy WP:MEDRS. I am baffled by your quixotic objections here, but take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) if you think there's big problem here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

These resources are like the pamphlets you find in a doctor's office. But they are based on the best evidence available from reputable sources. And they are neither guidelines nor position statements. I am baffled by your quixotic objections [...] I could say the same. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Officials from WHO and other medical services have used the term "epidemic" in relation to this, as have many other news sources. The WHO has only come out saying that it isn't a pandemic. Tsukide (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

9 day survival time for coronaviruses: literature review value

I had to restore this text in the prevention section on information from a review of medical research literature on the survival time of coronaviruses. Someone had left in a reference which has a brief quote by a scientist who says "a few hours" and removed the literature review estimate. The original reference is set earlier; for convenience, here it is: <ref name="GunterTPS_9days_persistence">{{cite journal | last1 = Kampf | first1 = Günter | last2 = Todt | first2 = Daniel |last3=Pfaender |first3=Stephanie |last4=Steinmann |first4=Eike | title = Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents | journal = [[Journal of Hospital Infection]] | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Elsevier | date = 6 February 2020 | url = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463/ | url-access = <!-- (subscription/registration/limited) default=free --> | issn = | doi = 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022 | pmid = 32035997 | id = | biorxiv= | accessdate = 15 February 2020 | archiveurl= https://archive.ph/Ftr5w | archivedate= 15 February 2020 |url-status=live <!-- live|dead|unfit|usurped -->}}</ref>. [I said "review" here, because I'm not sure of the difference between a "review" and a "meta-review".] The source of this reference was from discussion on this page (search in the archives). Boud (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic to provide medical advice that the virus only persists a few hours on surfaces, when reliable scientific and medical sources say it might persist over a week. The questionable low estimate could lead to someone assuming it is safe to move into a room or ride in a bus used by an infected person the very next day or 12 hours later without disinfecting it, resulting in new infections.. Edison (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

New article?

Since we have several articles named "(name) related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" such as Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Should we create this new one: Travel ban related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak? There are many sources for this, such as https://fortune.com/2020/02/06/countries-china-travel-restrictions-coronavirus/, https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-01-31-20-intl-hnk/h_d3eea9b0845b9bad6103629d601b71c9. 152.133.14.9 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Travel restrictions are in 2020 Hubei lockdowns#Reactions and measures outside Mainland China. You can go to the talk page there and propose splitting off Travel bans related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Boud (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally concur that elsewhere is the right place for discussion, but bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with posting notices on related talk pages of an ongoing discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Boud (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Quadratic growth and comparison to previous research

A recent preprint paper models the infected and death statistics as highly regular quadratic growth. I added a paragraph about this and included the following sentence:

The regular quadratic growth is compared to previous research describing how Chinese organ donation statistics was falsified using a simple quadratic equation.

This sentence was removed by User:CaradhrasAiguo. I believe this information is an accurate description of the paper's conclusions, and highly relevant to the article. Feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipe42 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is not an accurate description of the paper. Reference 7 of the paper - Robertson, Hinde & Lavee 2019 - is only mentioned in passing in the Conclusions section of the paper; the abstract and main thrust of the paper are that the author argues that a quadratic model is epidemiologically justified, giving a theoretical justification of why it would make sense in the present context, and an empirical graphical argument that the model fits the data well, without any statistical analysis. He seems to refer to falsification, as per RHL2019's suggestion, as one possible explanation, but that his model provides a straightforward explanation.

The evidence for organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China at the level of 10,000 or so live donors "sacrificed" per year is overwhelming and obviously a crime against humanity, with the Kilgour-Matas report being one of the best-known summaries of evidence. But a passing comment in a preprint suggesting time curve similarities is not justification for the proposed sentence. Boud (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The shifting of medical staff to handle the COVID-19 outbreak might right now be delaying organ transplants, so many of the prisoners may effectively be given a few extra weeks or a month or so longer to live before their organs are transplanted to transplantees. But getting evidence of this would require a whistleblower from medical staff normally responsible for removing the organs from the prisoners; the prisoners themselves and their families are presumably not informed in advance of their planned days of sacrifice, or of delays in the sacrifice dates. A whisteblower report published by a reliable source, e.g. sent to the NYT on their https :// www dot nytimes3xbfgragh dot onion/ service over Tor (anonymity network), and published by the NYT after their journalists judge the information credible, would most likely be notable enough for this article. Boud (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the preprint itself: there is no explanation of which sources the Table 1 values come from and in what precise way they are extracted, except for a hint that they come from "daily news reports" and that WHO, Devex and Worldometer provide data. There's no explanation of the difference between lab-confirmed cases, clinically diagnosed cases, possible limits in lab-testing, and how he models all of these to interpret the data in an epidemiologically justified way. Also, the author fails to comment on the last 4-5 days of the cumulative count. Figure 2 shows that the e-folding time of the cumulative confirmed cases is huge - above the scale of the plot - during around 14-19 February; in other words, the cumulative number of confirmed cases is no longer following his quadratic fit since 4-5 days ago, so "does not show any sign of a decline" in the conclusions means that the author didn't notice what was in Figure 2 and what is obvious in File:NCoV20200209 Hubei China ROW cases.png. Boud (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename proposal to include disease name

As I have stated before, an outbreak is of a disease, not a virus. In Wikipedia, the disease is now called Coronavirus disease 2019 after a recent move. Under the guidance of WP:Article Titles and the principle of consistency, we should be using that name in the title of this article. As that results in a cumbersome name, I will make 3 suggestions:

• 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak is the obvious title. It is consistent with the disease page, but cumbersome.
• 2019-20 Coronavirus disease outbreak is a more minimal change. It is more readable but less precise.
• 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak is my favorite. It is less verbose, easier to find, and concise. It suffers only from the consistency issue, as it uses the acronym for the disease instead of the fully spelled out name. As the acronym is as official as the disease name, and it's mentioned prominently in the disease page, I do not see a major issue here.

This page has never been named properly. Part of the reason is that the cause was known before the disease was named. Another issue is a lack of guidance on how to name an article on an outbreak in this case.

The reasons for this article having it's current name have become moot. I know that this will be a quick second move, but I really think that pieces for doing this move are now in place. EMS | Talk 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• This page has never been named properly. I don’t know about that. On some level there’s no such thing as a “proper” name. It’s whatever the COMMONNAME is, determined to the best of our ability and within the consensus-finding process. I don’t think there is any problem with this title, given it’s at least properly descriptive when we don’t have an agreement on what a COMMONNAME might be: “2019–20 coronavirus outbreak” it’s an outbreak caused by a coronavirus (yes even if the disease is the outbreak, the virus itself is the cause of the disease) that occurred in 2019 and 2020. That’s fine. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to cordially suggest to ALL parties interested in once again re-naming this highly-visible and increasingly popular article to please hit the pause button, take a deep breath, and wait at least one full week (uninterrupted from new re-naming attempts) and then go ahead and re-visit the issue. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree, except I'd say a month's moratorium or more is warranted. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:RECENTISM is a real problem with articles like these. What we have is fine. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• For now, the current title seems to satisfy COMMONNAME. The situation is changing and can be reviewed in the future. 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak may be appropriate at some point. I would oppose any change for now, in part because of the move fatigue mentioned. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional Justification WP:NCMED says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." The current name for this article is a lay term as much concocted by the politics of Wikipedia itself as anything else, and the quoted guideline above makes the use of WP:COMMONNAME dubious. For this disease, the full scientific name put forward by WHO and Wikipedia article name is Coronavirus disease 2019 with an acronym of COVID-19. Furthermore, COVID-19 is now being regularly used in scientific sources like Nature magazine (see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w ) and lay sources like the Washington Post (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-china-live-updates/2020/02/21/81d2aa50-543e-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html ). Waiting a week before doing another formal RM I approve of. But part of my reason for wanting to do a discussion now is in part to set the stage for doing (or possibly no doing) said RM. EMS | Talk 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NCMED says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." The current name for this article is a lay term as much concocted by the politics of Wikipedia itself as anything else, and the quoted guideline above makes the use of WP:COMMONNAME dubious. NCMED is a guideline, COMMONNAME is policy. Where they disagree COMMONNAME takes precedence. You’ve effectively torpedoed your own argument. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the problem is how clumsy "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" looks, but maybe 2019-20 COVID epidmemic is possible? Tsukide (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Please use the en dash ("–"). --hueman1 (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Latest update by the Ministry of Health (Vietnam): 15/16 cases recovered Source: ncov.moh.gov.vn Thank you! Casper1220kkz (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Mexico is clear

In Mexico, there are no longer suspected and confirmed cases of the Wuhan coronavirus. All were negative. Any questions? --МОДОКАУ 06:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Im guessing you may mean this[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese virus from Wuhan in Korea

Over two hundred cases in Korea all of the sudden and no narrative at all in the article? Needs expansion. XavierItzm (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

yes, South Korea has seen an increase in cases[8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in South Korea. Boud (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that suspected cases might be worth tracking as well as people who have been quarantained or have outstanding test results. GuntramGraef (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

Assessment

The article has inline "citation needed" tags. The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

Needing expansion is one thing but one sentence sections ("Environmental impacts") or those that call into question if the article "reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies", such as the incomplete "List of interprovincial medical aid teams that went into Hubei", is a concern per #2. The shut down casinos (Macau section) have been opened meaning the information is outdated. Otr500 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

should you feel the article needs to be re-assessed then it can be done via several editors, not just one, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments but there may be a contradiction. I also don't see the relevance that there are article issues and what seems to be a dismissal of concerns directly related to article assessment.

According to Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles (Who can assess articles?) "In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating." Some projects stipulate that "Any member is free to add or update the rating of an article", (below A-class that requires two editors) which might only involve joining the project, and some individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article. Sometimes improvements can be achieved through the article talk page, without going to the projects or the more broad community.

My "goal" was not that my comments be summarily dismissed, seemingly that I have to go find a second editor that agrees, but to call attention to issues I observed and note them here in hopes someone will resolve them.

Of the five WikiProjects involved with this article all seems to follow the general assessment criteria. Sometimes an article can be promoted by mistake, by the addition of content that may degrade the article or addition of a maintenance tag, by a blanket promotion (one editor assessing several projects to match), or maybe by a bot.

There are citation needed tags on the article, that is a red flag to article assessment, so brought it up here on the talk page. It is as simple as that, and at a point a concerned editor (or maybe more than one) should probably take a look at it so article reassessment is not warranted. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

5 deaths and suspected 750 cases in iran

news in italian--Dwalin (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

this media outlet suggests different numbers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran. There are refs for four COVID-19 deaths. WP:OR says that for the upper limit case-fatality ratio of about 2%, four deaths implies about 200 (give or take 100 or so) SARS-CoV-2 infections; a lower ratio (generally thought to be likely) implies a higher number of infections. So "750 casi sospetti" - 750 suspected cases - sounds quite realistic. This is a rather important quote from the NYT source: Already, cases of travelers from Iran testing positive for the virus have turned up in Canada and Lebanon. Boud (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a huge need for more sources on "silent countries" and also more coverage on xenophobia

After epidemy outbreak in Iran, it is clear that the countries with less medical advanced medical equipment have the epidemy going on uncovered which is very disturbing. I believe the public needs to know more about it as it looks like we lost the window of opprtunity to curb the epidemy and it is going viral. I'm asking all the editors who know other languages to watch and follow reliable sources in their countires (Africa, Asia,Middle East) and share it here on the Talk page, so the other editors can double check their authencity.

Also, there is number of reports on rising sinophobia and general phobia of people who are afraid of those infected with coronovirus. I think it should be also covered in neutral tone. Here is the first alarming signal from Ukriane:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/20/ukraine-protesters-clash-with-police-over-coronavirus-evacuees

MichaelGrossmanjr (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a whole article dedicated to that topic Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. I’m sure they will welcome any addition you can make. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Israel Coronavirus Case

Link to article Dannelsluc (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

todays WHO sitrep does not include it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Please change descriptions from:

• An ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 started in December 2019. It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province, China. It was originally a zoonosis, crossing over to humans from an animal, but subsequently started spreading between people.

to

• Since December 2019, There were an ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei, China. It was originally a zoonosis, crossing over to humans from an animal, but subsequently started spreading between people.

Because when linked SARS-CoV-2, the link redirects to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the link need to replace to long-form name instead and word "province" after Hubei needs to removed because it already known that Hubei is a province in China. 180.245.214.207 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed "province" as you suggested. I think it is reasonable to use the short form of the name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Active cases

Please add a column for active cases (those who are not dead or recovered) to the charts. That gives a clearer picture of the current strain on the health systems and size of the known carrier populations. GuntramGraef (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a reference for that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

English difficulty in the article lead

I made a section on this talk page about this topic before where consensus was agreed against using simple English on this article.

Trying to read in simple English is cumbersome and doesn't flow easily. It conveys too little information across more words and is generally more vague. We are presuming that any reader of normal Wikipedia would have reasonable literacy skills and have come across healthcare information before, so there's no reason to remove "normal" words from the article. These complex words and phrases are similar to legal doublets in that they convey a complex meaning that would otherwise take many words to explain. I agree that there are words which can be too complex (PCR test was the example I used last time), but even these terms can be used if written within context.

I think that anyone who is unable to read the lead in simple English should be guided to the Simple English Wikipedia article since much of the information here is written in normal prose. The relevant articles on that encyclopedia need to be expanded by the users who constantly write simple English on this article. A URL could be placed at the top of the article to the Simple English Wikipedia article. Tsukide (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions What your misunderstanding about this articl writting in Simple English. For me, written formal English, not colliqual can used to wrote this article. I have two questions for you. Are you doesn't fluent in English because i suspected that you only fluent in Japanese and Korean? Are you also editor in Simple English Wikipedia? If you are editor of that Wikipedia, i can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.187.159 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Mayor

State TV in Iran initially reported that the mayor of Tehran’s district 13 tested positive for the virus. However, an official later denied the report. [9] Either way it’s a pretty big deal given the individual’s high profile. 63.231.141.132 (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)