Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 304: Line 304:
:::I had assumed it was a global table. I guess I should look more closely.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
:::I had assumed it was a global table. I guess I should look more closely.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
::::[[User:Johnpacklambert]] We have a graph here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak#Deaths] Which shows the same thing but takes up less space. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
::::[[User:Johnpacklambert]] We have a graph here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak#Deaths] Which shows the same thing but takes up less space. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
:::I think replacing with a global chart with the ability to overlay country subset data could be helpful.


== 2 NEW CASES IN ROMANIA ==
== 2 NEW CASES IN ROMANIA ==

Revision as of 17:43, 28 February 2020

Template:Copied multi

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

At 27 February 2020, the mortality rate was 3,4%. BenLux1982 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for this? Mkwia (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 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. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, I believe he means the case fatality rate (mortality has a different epidemiological definition). We could put that statement in the lead, under Epidemiology, or Deaths. I suspect the source is amorphous, like Worldometer (divide deaths by confirmed cases). However, I don't think we can do this willy-nilly. It's a matter of 'who says?'. We can't say it, an authoritative source must say it and Worldometer isn't it. I've added a figure from the largest study to date (72,000 cases) to the Deaths section. Sbalfour (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths section being trimmed

I saw the "Deaths" section got trimmed recently. I agree with this decision, but can we provide a {{See also}} or {{Main}} to another article that gives more detailed accounts? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple zoonotic events??

The text says: Epidemiological analysis of the outbreak has shown a probable pattern of a "mixed outbreak" – there was likely a continuous common source outbreak at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in December 2019, potentially from several zoonotic events.[7][8][36]. None of the three papers cited directly supports the point. Phylogenetic analysis is pretty conclusive that there was a single zoonotic event on or before Dec. 1, 2019, followed by continuous human-human transmission.[1][2]. The statement is confounding at best; there's no evidence of such mixed outbreak, as originally proposed by China to support the multiplicity of cases, in conjunction with their suppression of knowledge of ongoing human-human transmission. If there's concurrence, I'm going to redraft that paragraph and possibly the following one. Sbalfour (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for picking this up User:Sbalfour. This is a perfect example of how no editors edits should be considered up to date or indeed a reliable summarisation of the sources quoted. I admit WP:SYNTH and/or not following WP:MEDRS here by using the unpublished document. Please as always, all editors, if you see something needs correcting, WP:JUSTDOIT. --Almaty (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we consider unifying the approach we use for charts?

Now that we have many articles for each country/region, we've got inconsistent chart placement. (See also the discussion below)

For example, some charts are separated into templates:

Some are combined with the cases table:

Some are included in the article:

Some don't have chart at all. Notably:

Should we consider unifying the approach we use for charts? --Efly (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a need to have some sort of consistency. I am partial to the image chart approach as in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran, as huge templates like Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart are already getting too tall to be useful at a glance. Mkwia (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the too tall problem I guess we can just collapse it by default in the future? I think it still has its value comparing to the case table (e.g., Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Japan medical cases) in that it is easier to understand at a glance (than the case table) while still having exact numbers (unlike the image).
Another problem I have with the image approach is that it's not very accessible and it's very hard to update for anyone else besides the uploader. I think this kind of graphs using Template:Graph:Chart would be better than using images on Commons. Nevermind, 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran also uses Template:Graph:Chart. --Efly (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the China one is very useful because it gives a sense of scale, and shows us the fact that it is now leveling off. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virus passes how?

We stated in the lead that the virus primarily passes by droplets (sneeze, cough), but there's now evidence of passage by contact, oral-fecal, urine and aerosols, i.e. substantially more virulent than initially supposed. Studies are running behind, but anecdotal evidence is piling up. Time to add this content? Sbalfour (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sbalfour which source are you thinking? IMO we should list the primary method of transmission in the lead with other methods in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Ok. Here's the one for aerosols (Xinhua):[3]. Sbalfour (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC says "Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)"[4]
User:Sbalfour is that what you want to get across? What wording do you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're referring to droplets, i.e. because a sneeze disperses droplets up to 2m. I'm thinking more like the Amoy Gardens SARS outbreak, in which vented sewer gases spread virus-laden aerosols up to 300m and infected downwind complexes. ...the SARS virus in this case was spread primarily through the air. from [5].Sbalfour (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick with major health organizations rather than popular press for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Here's the one for fecal-oral: [6].
References used in that part of the lead (CDC and WHO) still say "risk of catching COVID-19 from the feces of an infected person appears to be low". We should wait until this position is reassessed per WP:V. Mkwia (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the risk appears low from feces should go in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." So even mentioning breathing as a big risk is likely not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the citation and it says: The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. It says that essentially twice, again in 5he next paragraph. Has the source been updated? Sbalfour (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the disease can spread by a number of methods. The primary one is "respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing"
That is two sections lower User:Sbalfour Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes strongly support removing "exhale" or "breathe" from the lead for reasons noted. Can have qualifiers and also can have further detailed rapidly updated information in the body per WP:MEDRS User:Sbalfour User: Doc James --Almaty (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Almaty you want to make the edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like someone to explicitly agree with me first. Another option is "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, usually during coughing and sneezing" --Almaty (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the current wording I am currently "happy" with (lol happy is not the adjective) is The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, often during coughing or sneezing. I recognise all points of view. --Almaty (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Almaty I think we can shorten to "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced during coughing and sneezing"
But happy with "The virus primarily passes from one person to others via respiratory droplets produced from the airways, often during coughing or sneezing" aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visualizing cases for each country/region

Currently, we have insistent ways of visualizing cases in articles for different country region. (See also the discussion above)

For example, we have vertical cases charts:

We also have timeline charts:

We also have cases table:

Do we want to keep/add all three in every article, and do we want to make it consistent across different articles? --Efly (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this (not sensationalist) visualisation from youtube of the comparison between corona virus/sars/swine flu/ebola/spanish flu something suitable for the article ? EdwardLane (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

remove Northern Ireland from the list - part of the UK 144.82.9.237 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a region. So I think it is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in this case Wales should be added, which partly undermines the listing of "United Kingdom" seeing as it compromises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The UK involves all four parts, whereas if you wished to list Northern Ireland seperately you would put Great Britain & Northern Ireland. --144.82.9.237 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patient's pet Pomeranian comes down with the disease in Hong Kong

  • Daily Mail is generally considered to not be a reliable source, so I'd advise against including it in the article, if the consensus is indeed that this should warrant inclusion. While I was able to find a better source, I think it might be a little too soon to warrant inclusion, though. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the scientific community about whether animals can be infected with the coronavirus or not. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as reliable source.
~Nick~{talk} 01:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen other coronaviruses infect both humans and dogs: Canine_coronavirus#Canine_respiratory_coronavirus. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles (7news and bloomberg) say "weak positive" and also with the use of quotes. So it's a little premature to be opening the door to implying interspecies transmission from humans Gegu0284 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read from the local news that says the pet can be contaminated with the virus, which differs with infection. The distinction is that the furs of the dog can be contaminated with the virus, but this does not imply infection. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Change the BNO News reference link from https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ to https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ . The link automatically redirects anyways. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:1915:8AFE:158B:36F8 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Iran section or paragraph is needed

The Iran outbreak deserves more prominence in this main article, probably even in the lead: it's second only to China. The number of positive cases is much too small for the formally declared number of deaths, suggesting that the real numbers are much bigger, and there are no sources suggesting that the epidemic there is anywhere near being under control.

See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran#Estimates: Uni Toronto researchers estimate statistically, based on travel patterns and the known spread from Iran to UAE, Lebanon and Canada, that the Iranian number of SARS-CoV-2 cases must be about 18,000 - second only to China. The 95% confidence limit is 4,000 to 53,000: still much higher than Italy or South Korea.

The Iran case now is like mainland China in early February. With the big difference that the non-Hubei China daily cases peaked around 27 January or so, and the Hubei daily cases peaked around 2 Feb or so. And that happened after China had been taking drastic quarantining and other measures against the epidemic for several weeks. Ahmad Amirabadi Farahani's claim of 50 deaths for Qom alone, multiplied by a factor of a few for other cities in Iran, also corresponds roughly to 27 January or so on the China total deaths curve. The Iran cases and deaths counts are almost certainly going to overtake the China ones, once they are probably counted by the authorities.

One percent of all Iranians would be about 700,000 deaths.

Once the Fobtown/Sleath56 edit war is over (or someone WP:3RR's them), I suggest that something on this (the sourced part, not my stating-the-obvious OR part) goes back on this main article. Boud (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reminder, I've desisted in that regard.
Are you suggesting something like a #Domestic response in Iran section? Everything's been spun off to the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran page along with other countries such that an expansion there would also need equivalent coverage for other hotspots like South Korea and Italy. While there's certainly credible speculation that Iran's numbers are not what they appear, because of the lack of information coming out, until there is definitive numbers for Iran cited by WP:MEDRS, at the moment it's enough to say with a mention that many experts in RS have objected to them on grounds of accuracy. Sleath56 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st confirmed case of COVID-19 in Lithuania

Lithuanian Ministry of Health has confirmed that a woman in her late 30s has coronavirus. It says she was traveling from North Italy to Kaunas. https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/1146512/lietuvoje-patvirtintas-pirmas-koronaviruso-atvejis-teigiamas-39-metu-moters-meginys — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkingLape (talk • contribs) 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of timezones in "as of" statements

I've seen there's a few "As of" statements being made. Sure, realtime info is helpful, but due to different sources using different timezones, usually time of the publication and/or information update (usually based on the reporting media's local time or that of where the event occurred), said timezone should be noted when making the accompanying "As of" statement. I feel it needs to be made clear, because it can cause confusion on whether it's present or past tense for the reader, and otherwise just to help get uniformity throughout the article itself. Thoughts? Tytrox (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, I think that all of the "as of" statements should be put into UTC time, as is the standard use in Wikipedia. This gives a more up-to date picture and makes people less confused. Albertkaloo (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st confirmed case of COVID-19 in New Zealand

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus

The first case of COVID-19 is now confirmed in New Zealand. Travelling from from tehran via bali . Arrived on the on 26th feb, person in their 60's. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12312691 (news article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.202.15 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worldometers Cases and deaths frozened for around 12 hours today

The Coronavirus cases frozened at 83,379 cases and 2,858 until 28 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC at least.

Added least 621 cases updated firstly and updates of Iran, Italy, Japan and South Korea at least will be over 84,000 cases.

Added over 700 cases added between 28 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC and 28 February 2020 at 16:00 UTC.

This is not a problem for us. Wikipedia is not a news ticker HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I changed the statistics to be broadened to the nearest 100 or 1000 and added a + sign for each to suggest "greater than". The data is too frequently updated. It can be updated whenever (if) confirmed cases reach the next 100/1000 or so. Tytrox (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infection number seems frozen for China

The infection number for China in the table has stayed the exact same for at least the last three days. Seems like it should've increased some. Is there an issue with the sources? 173.29.110.183 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least 13:00 UTC today?

My mistake. This section can be deleted. Didn't realize that the numbers in the table are the same even when you search historical versions of this page. 173.29.110.183 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sources in Visual Editor

The visual editor is receiving a "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode" notice box when visual editor should normally be opening up the source for editing or copying. Anyone else getting this right now? Or is it just a client-side issue? Sleath56 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Greek cases are now confirmed to be 4.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.gr/news/ellada/story/209285/koronaios-stin-ellada-kai-tetarto-kroysma-toy-ioy-to-deytero-stin-athina https://www.in.gr/2020/02/28/greece/koronaios-deytero-krousma-stin-athina-tetarto-stin-ellada/ https://www.tanea.gr/2020/02/28/greece/koronoios-deytero-krousma-stin-athina-tetarto-stin-ellada/ Akoursoumis (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masks

"The use of masks by healthy members of the public is not recommended outside China. [...] By limiting the volume and travel distance of expiratory droplets dispersed when talking, sneezing, and coughing, masks can serve a public health benefit in reducing transmission by those unknowingly infected."

Great recommendation. How do I know if I am healthy or "unknowingly infected"? --87.150.0.161 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Reinfection

Can we add a column for reinfected cases? There obvious evidence of reinfections roaming around the news world. Regice2020 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global outlook required

For numerous reasons including wiki policies, I must reiterate the need for summarisation and a global outlook for the page. As I just attempted to do for the WP:LEAD. Many English speakers from many countries (for instance Nigeria as already proven with spread) many sub-Saharan countries may be relying on this as a very important resource. --Almaty (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 /// Wuhan 2019-20 coronavirus approximation based on W.H.O. data. :::: http://idea5.narod.ru/COVID-19

COVID-19 /// Wuhan 2019-20 coronavirus approximation based on W.H.O. data. http://idea5.narod.ru/COVID-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.175.209 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to qualify as a reliable source: see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Change Netherlands number of cases to 2. [1] RWalen (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citation errors would be fixed

Perhaps caused by article splitting, but I have not well investigated, though.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "20200122mobs-lab" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Imai21Jan2020" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-29" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "WashPost_some_wonder" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "20200121theguardian" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "wsj1157991563" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-30" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-31" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-32" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "guardian-rus-disinfo" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-248" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-249" is not used in the content (see the help page). 
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoDW-250" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Can we add case fatality rates by age group?

The Chinese cdc has published a study , widely circulated in the news in India, that shows case fatality rates for the first 44k+ cases by age group. Can we please include this in the DEATHS section. Worldometers has also published. Link: http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 . Citation: The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team. The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) — China, 2020[J]. China CDC Weekly, 2020, 2(8): 113-122. Gegu0284 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also , the same study shows CFR by co-morbidities Gegu0284 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any CFR info needs to be reported with a high degree of caution. The sources always stress that the info is preliminary and a lot isn't known. If we report CFR in the article, we should do the same. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the China CDC Weekly publication is a big step up in terms of the reliability of sources. This is a good study and we can use it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is nice diagram here. Note the higher fatality rate of 3.4% in the 2nd table by the Business Insider per more reliable sources. What does look suspicious in Chinese statistics is the significantly lower mortality rate outside Hubei. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix spelling

Please harmonize/harmonise the spelling in this article. I found words like "criticizing" and "antagonizing" in some places, and "specialises" and "practising" and "colours" in others. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go nuts with either, fine by me! just working in multiple spellings. Someone picked US English for this article, I don't think you'll find anyone minding if you standardis(z)e to that --Almaty (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we remove the daily case count table

2020 coronavirus patients in China

I thought that table was a good summary. Why did we remove it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it but I think it was because Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart is for Chinese cases only, and it could be seen as Wikipedia:UNDUE as the outbreak spreads globally. Mkwia (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed it was a global table. I guess I should look more closely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert We have a graph here [7] Which shows the same thing but takes up less space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think replacing with a global chart with the ability to overlay country subset data could be helpful.

2 NEW CASES IN ROMANIA

There are 2 new COVID-19 cases in romania, link: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/doua-noi-posibile-cazuri-de-coronavirus-in-romania-1267704 please change the number. Thanks! Lucastefan123 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it is at 3 now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a Stock Market article

With the problems with the stock market now, I think a separate article should be over the stock market impact from the Coronavirus. Anyone agree or disagree?Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip:I most certainly would agree with you because the markets around the world have gone down >10% this week. This really needs to be created and added to ITN/ITN ongoing. NoahTalk 17:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://nltimes.nl/2020/02/28/new-positive-coronavirus-test-hits-amsterdam-region-2nd-case-netherlands
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=943074683"