Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Semi-protected anti-vandalism request on 3 March 2020

• NOTE from author of plots: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are a nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease. In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita what is the ask here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. The semi-log graphs have been edited out on two occasions and I have had to manually restore them. I'm not a proficient Wikipedia editor so restoring what I see as vandalism is is painstaking. Undo doesn't work because other changes have been made in the mean time. The semi-log plots are time consuming to prepare, well at least the data collection is, taking a bit over an hour a day. This is because the Rest-of-the-World data comes in piecemeal and has to be carefully checked and rechecked by country to identify discrepancies. So I'm asking that it not be so easy to edit out the work I have contributed. Is there some setting that forces a discussion before a single editor arbitrarily removes something.Galerita (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita there is no simple way. Will keep an eye on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James Thanks Galerita (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Galerita once again thanks for the graphs. The beauty of wikipedia is that anyone, anywhere can question any content, ever. Editors often, and should be encouraged to follow WP:BRD. When they do that, it doesn't mean they're vandalising, at all. There are vandals, but many removing your graphs including myself previously, aren't, they just want the content to be questioned again. Rest assured many editors such as Doc James and myself will continue to ensure that appropriate graphs that follow the policies particularly around consensus are included - at the moment, the consensus is your graphs, which is great. --Almaty (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Self-isolation and quarantine

Under self-isolation, I've previously linked to the CDC's instructions for sick individuals, which are the clearest I've found to date. It seems harmless to include but the link has been twice removed so I don't want to add it back without consensus. I think the public health benefit of providing this link outweighs any MOS guideline but I may well be wrong.

On a related note, there's some confusion about self-isolation vs. self-quarantine. Not sure that the distinction is too important but we should try to get it right. The 14 day recommendation applies to those in quarantine. There's still no standard guidance on when to end self-isolation.

- Wikmoz (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the link for the moment pending further discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• We don't do this; external links are references or they are external links. If this isn't either, it doesn't belong. See Wikipedia:External links. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood and in any other context, I'd agree. In this case though, given the value of this information and reach of this article (500,000 PVs/day), could the public health benefit of providing easy access to credible instructions take precedence? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The same link is right there in the reference at the end of the sentence. Readers will look to a reference for further info and not for a link in text which they will assume is an internal link. I really don't see the benefit in doing this. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The benefit is that many readers do not know to look to the reference for a link to more detailed material. Assuming the user is interested enough to click the link but not notice the outbound link icon, would they be that disappointed to end up on a well formatted CDC guide rather than another Wikipedia entry? - Wikmoz (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's hypothetical and there is no evidence backing up your suppositions. Per WP:EL we don't do this. --The Huhsz (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Vastly more readers will find the link to the supporting material if the link is placed inline. There's no question or supposition here. Several UX principles come into play. "Readers will look to a reference for further info and not for a link in text which they will assume is an internal link." Again, I don't doubt this is true among Wikipedia editors and regular readers. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Huhsz, I see you removed the link with the edit note, "per talk this adds nothing; link is already in the reference." No objection to the removal pending consensus but I'd still like to hear from additional editors as WP:IAR may support an exception in this case. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I can pedantically legalistic with the best of them and there are any number of rules, protocols, and style guidelines to pick from to say this should not be done, but I'm with Wikmoz. In this global pandemic unprecedented numbers of people are coming here for information, what is Wikipedia for if not to provide it? At the risk sounding grandiose I say we owe it to humanity to ignore all rules and make the information as easily accessible as possible. Put it inline, hiding it in a reference doesn't cut it. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more swayed by your noble wishes if there was any evidence at all that this will help anybody. There isn't though, is there? --The Huhsz (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well sometimes we don't need evidence, in this case we wouldn't get that until the research on survival rates of people who read the article before and after the link is inserted is done. But I am inclined to think that "The CDC issued instructions^[123] as did HMG^[124]." would be enough.

I would perhaps not remove a link, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

@Doc James and Dekimasu: Very interested to get your take on this WP:EL vs WP:IAR problem. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would put that link inside a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz, I would not add the external link in inline text, either here or on the disease article. Rather than IAR, I think this is more an issue of creep. It becomes harder to explain why we are removing other external links if this one is retained. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be following WP:IAR as a particularly important pillar in this outbreak/pandemic/global outbreak --Almaty (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you all for the feedback! It's greatly appreciated. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• The link is already there, inside a reference. I don't see the merit of duplicating it. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename article from "outbreak" to "pandemic"

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.Result- World health Organization declared Pandemic March 11. No further edits should be made to this discussion. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the WHO no longer declares pandemics, this clearly meets the definition of pandemic as having widespread community transmission on multiple continents. We should change the title to "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". 38.124.35.11 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• leaning support "World must prepare for pandemic, says WHO". BBC News. 25 February 2020. Retrieved 8 March 2020.

"We Predicted a Coronavirus Pandemic. Here's What Policymakers Could Have Seen Coming". POLITICO. Retrieved 8 March 2020....irrespective of 'media source' its becoming obvious--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's definition is that? Where did you find it? What's the metric used to determine if transmission is widespread? Both sources you linked, neither authoritative, use the word pandemic only in a hypothetical sense. The use of the word is clearly quite contentious at the moment, and whether or not you personally feel that the current situation clearly meets the (unsourced) definition, I don't see any reason to move away from the completely accurate and uncontested term "outbreak" (which includes pandemics anyway) until there's a consensus among medical organizations that "pandemic" is more accurate. 2601:180:8380:25F0:850F:7910:73AC:AA6E (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

your not being accurate, as the first link(BBC) quotes the WHO....The WHO said it was too early to call the outbreak a pandemic but countries should be "in a phase of preparedness".....A pandemic is when an infectious disease spreads easily from person to person in many parts of the world....it should be noted this article was published on Feb. 25, today's March 8 and many, many cases have occurred since then(in more than 100 territories)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Follow reliable sources, not speculation or WP:CRYSTAL. Until the WHO call it a pandemic it most likely isn't. Sun Creator^(talk) 20:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed - we're not at that stage (yet?) - six months from now if 12% of most countries have caught it, that will definitely be a pandemic - a few dozen cases here and there isn't (outside China)50.111.9.62 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• “pretty clear we’re in a pandemic and I don’t know why WHO is resisting that,” ...director of the Center for Infectious Disease... University of Minnesota....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• strongly oppose at the moment WHO makes the call, and even then we are meant to explain what they mean and their definition on the page, as per previous discussion. --Almaty (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment "Pandemic" has no formal meaning: WHO used to go through a process to formally declare pandemics, but stopped doing that a few years ago. Whether we call something a "pandemic" or not should therefore be decided based on what reliable sources generally say. (Reliable sources here probably meaning WP:MEDRS compliant.) The WHO is a source, but they don't get a veto. If everyone else is calling it a pandemic, then so should we. Right now, some places are saying "pandemic", others aren't. I'd probably wait a bit, but I suspect it's only a matter of days before the weight of sources are saying "pandemic". Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

yes I agree w/ you...'sooner or later'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the bulk of us are surprised the WHO hasn't "declared" it, but as we discussed prior their word hasn't even inform their responses for a while. "who" gets to decide then? --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think wiki can/should. So I can't think of who we should defer to for the word. I don't think the words super important anyway. Just follow policy. --Almaty (talk)

CNN is pandemic. Australia has enacted pandemic response plans in mid feb, which has been in the article since roughly then, saying "operating on the basis the virus is a pandemic". Thats still very (technically) different to "the coronavirus has caused a pandemic". CDC don't call it pandemic yet neither do ECDC. So I don't think Wikipedia should be solely following the lead of CNN's journalistic and Australia's valid politically oriented terminology. But within a few weeks, will be a mute point and Pyrrhic victory for both sides of the virtually academic argument really.--Almaty (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: The scale of the outbreak is less than previous outbreaks that were called "pandemics." Few if any sources besides news outlets are referring to the outbreak as a "pandemic." Currently the pandemic Wiki page has SARS-CoV-2 under possible future pandemics which I think is where it belongs for now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Mild support. This has been a pandemic for many days already even though WHO doesn't recognize it. Tuohirulla puhu 14:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Of particular note the WHO appears to have updated its definition of the word "pandemic". The WHO defines a pandemic as a situation in which “the whole world’s population would likely be exposed to this infection and potentially a proportion of them fall sick,” Michael Ryan, who heads the WHO’s emergencies programme, has said. Although I easily concede that the WHO does not own the word on Wikipedia, or indeed in the language of English, we have to again look at our policies. The use of the word, without this current expanded definition, especially in any article titles, is very unlikely to be WP:PRECISE and cause confusion in the general reader. --02:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

"we are not at the mercy of the #coronavirus. Over the weekend we crossed 100K reported cases in 100 countries. Now that it has a foothold in so many countries, the threat of a pandemic has become very real. But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled." World Health Organization Dr Tedros Adhanom Director-General--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If we had an article on the pandemic, then we might want a separate one on the outbreak. So something like 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and 2020 coronavirus pandemic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I think that would be confusing. Move to informally close the title discussions because its so clear that the experts disagree vehemently, as no consensus. To be revisited if and when the WHO does "declare". But to reemphasise, the word is not important --Almaty (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been declared a pandemic by WHO as of March 11 2020 12:26pm ET. Transparentar (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Transparentar thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO has officially declared this a pandemic and the title should be rename from outbreak to Pandemic to reflect the update status Efuture2 (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/who-declares-the-coronavirus-outbreak-a-global-pandemic.html Efuture2 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:CALC - additions, subtractions and divisions

To quote our very important, pre existing policy Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
From this, I propose very strongly the following:
1. There is not obvious, correct or meaningful current ability of myself or other Wikipedians to add, subtract, or divide statistics quoted in the WHO situation reports.
2. The reason for proposing is because particularly the WHO does not do many of the calculations we have been doing. Therefore additions, subtractions or divisions of numbers in the sit reps are not a meaningful reflection of the source. --Almaty (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: and @Doc James: as that is quite a proposal, but I think very mandatory if we're to consider ourselves an encyclopaedia, rather than a repository for original research, as simple and obvious as that research may seem. In this outbreak, it isn't. --Almaty (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree we have to be careful about WP:OR, but I think it would be more useful to discuss specific issues. What particular possible calculations were you concerned about? Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned the "death rate", and also my concerns about the graphs, although they're made by a biostatistician. But what I'm more concerned about is as the outbreak progresses, that the statistics will not follow WP:MEDRS, at all, so I'm attempting to, as I have before with the word "pandemic" pre-empt the issue --Almaty (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So I strongly propose that all graphs and statistics aren't made by wikipedians, even if its a simple addition or subtraction, and divisions are obviously my main concern. --Almaty (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So who else is supposed to make graphs and statistics for the Wikipedia? Of course the Wikipedians have to! --Maxl (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty I oppose the suggestion to not allow Wikipedian to make graphs. We allow basic calculations and common sense when making graphs and images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians should be allowed to make graphs too. However, as we have seen repeatedly here, editors can be overly enthusiastic and start doing things that are epidemiologically ignorant and tip over into WP:OR. For example, Wikipedians should not be trying to calculate the disease's case fatality rate: we should just draw on MEDRS-compliant sources there. We also need more text around numbers and graphs. These aren't "cases": there are "reported cases". We need text explaining why the numbers are frequently to be considered suspect. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying for ever, I'm saying for now when the reliable sources aren't, because they're not divisible at the moment. --Almaty (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm saying go right ahead and make graphs, just point to how a reliable source has used the exact format and the calculations, ideally with the reliable sources interpretation of the calculations Almaty (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we would agree that naive calculations of the death rate per 1000 for example, is not a good idea. But totalling columns is a reasonable activity, provided we are careful labelling our data as Bondegezou says above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I hope I sound calm and reasonable despite questioning the graphs. Thats the purpose of our encyclopaedia, to question, and question again. --Almaty (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Garbled edits

@Almaty It's nice that you tried to trim the article, but please don't garble the article in the process and give outright false information. For example you changed the first person known to have been fallen ill on 1 December 2019 to the "first case was reported in Wuhan on 1 December 2019" when they weren't even aware that there is a new viral disease. How can they report on that date about something they weren't even aware of? They traced the first one known in a study published on 24 January 2020. You also changed "Museums throughout China are temporarily closed" to "Several museums throughout China were temporarily closed", how does "several" make sense when they quarantined many cities? I can't check all the edits you made, but please check your own edits to make sure that they make sense. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, thankyou! I have been suggesting WP:SUMMARY for a very long time and I don't have much time to do it personally, would prefer if others did. --Almaty (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The best way to trim it is to remove information and then give a summary of the parts removed, rather than change the wording of pre-existing sentences you want to keep. That way if you won't accidentally change the meaning of pre-existing text if you don't want to read the sources to check. Hzh (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Great advice thankyou. I'll try to summarise Iran tomorrow, but will leave it to others to (please) do rather than me :) --Almaty (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits in thes article are garbled indeed. Constant changes are, for example, made to the list of countries and territories, and I'm not talking about the figures, without first discussing them here. No one ever discussed replacing the zeroes with "no data" espeically since a zero doesn't necessarily mean that there are no data. If you want to make suggestions such as introducing a "no data" figure please first discuss it here. This is also valid for "international conveyance" and the various ships which are alternately put in one figure and then distributed apart again. It' annoying! So discuss matters here and suggest the edit before doing it or also before undoing an edit of an other user!!! It's not too much to be expected to talk about things! --Maxl (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think people are able to follow WP:BRD. I'm happy for anyone to re-add anything I removed, I removed about 60kb of content in Chinese and Korean responses last night, but only for readability and to ensure it was neutral. I didn't touch the figures. --Almaty (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that an entire section on censorship has been removed without a proper summary and without explanation (asking for rewrite is not an explanation for removing them, it smacks of censorship itself). If you are the one who did it, please don't do it again. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Basically the edit was aiming to encourage others to summarise, clearly not how its meant to work, apologies --Almaty (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/numbers

UK death number

According to the UK gov website, only two patients have died from the virus. Not included in their data is the death of one British citizen on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Could the number be corrected accordingly? Chasidish Gen (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No your wrong 4 people have died in Britain but I will check that if anyone from Britain died on the Diamond Princess. Hi poland (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of Canadian cases seems to be incorrect.

There seems to be an error with the source. It says 133 total cases but that's not supported by any other reporting. When you add up the cases by province you only get 66 total cases. 199.119.233.134 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A bug report has been opened regarding this problem on the John Hopkins CCSE github project page: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/issues/336 - The total number of cases appear to be totalled twice due to a recent formatting change.

Inconsistency in number of USA cases

Two Wikipedia pages consistently disagree with respect to USA Case Count.
This occurs even though the Summary page references USA case count page.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Morebits Morebits (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency in number of Germany cases shown here and RKI

Numbers are completely off from official RKI stats? Is there a reason why the numbers of worldometer (which do not even provide a source) are more credible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.206.21 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

North Korean deaths - apparently "almost 200 soldiers have died"

Business Insider is reporting from Daily NK that almost 200 North Korean soldiers have died. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's already been added. Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This report is questionable at best and as such should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Not only is its utilization of anonymous sources questionable, but the idea that 180 KPA soldiers have died from the virus is implausible currently. Even if the DPRK hadn't closed down border transit, enforced public health measures like mask wearing, etc. that many deaths among KPA soldiers would either suggest that the KPA is full of elderly soldiers, or that potentially as many as 90,000 are infected in the KPA alone seeing as the mortality rate among the 17-30 age range found within the KPA has consistently been 0.2% in other countries. As such, this would also suggest that there are potentially thousands of deaths in the DPRK among the elderly, unless the spread has been exclusively restricted to the KPA. Regardless of how implausible that statistic is, it's doubtful that a county with 1/56th the population of (with similar population density as) China while carrying out similarly strict disease control measures, would somehow be rivaling China in terms of number of infections. -- 24.156.99.220 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend the rewriting of the North Korea section under Domestic Responses, both to include information about the actual confirmed domestic response (mask wearing initiatives, border closing, etc.) and to remove the questionable information currently presented there, if not clarifying its dubiousness. There has still only been a single, unverified report (Daily NK, via an anonymous source, on March 9) behind the claim of near 200 dead within the KPA and of officer executions for infections among their forces. Many other outlets have picked up the story despite the lack of verification, however this is typical for the limited journalistic integrity when it comes to reporting done on the DPRK, such as the widespread reporting of the later debunked "sarcasm ban." As stated previously, the claim of near 200 dead within the KPA is also very unlikely statistically speaking, as an immense outbreak in the DPRK would be necessary to lead to nearly 200 deaths in a force which comprises less than 10% of the already relatively small population, and is primarily populated with individuals in an age range with a mortality rate of only 0.2% internationally. This would likely be far higher than the 3,700 KPA soldiers under quarantine claimed by Daily NK, unless the mortality rate for the 17-30 age range is 25 times that in the DPRK than in the rest of the world. That no other sources (foreign intelligence agencies, foreign missions in the DPRK, etc.) have been able to verify the 180+ KPA dead claim, much less reported on what would be an outbreak comparable to the scale of that in Wuhan among a much smaller population, should be enough reason to doubt the report as of now. - 24.156.99.220 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy map

I took out the following:

Learners affected by school closures caused by Covid-19 as of 6 March 2020

The map is misleading, as Scotland, England/Wales and N Ireland all have separate school systems. The map seems to have the whole UK one colour, reflecting N Ireland's one temporary school closure. I'm not sure such a map is helpful, given that it will have to be constantly redrawn, but if we are to have one, it should be accurate. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored it. UNESCO is a perfectly good source.

The UK is still a country, for a little while longer anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken; it never has been, in this sense. The map is misleading and needs to be removed. In general there are way too many graphics on this article. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Complain to UNESCO than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James, per UNESCO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Flattening the epidemic curve

An illustration of the effect of spreading out infections over a long period of time on healthcare capacity managing patient volumes, known as flattening the curve

Once again, a graphic of the epidemic curve has popped up again in the "management" section. The objective of a delay/mitigation strategy is to recognise that spread of an epidemic can not be stopped, but it can be held back so as to avoid overloading the health system. I'd like to some explanation of the strategy to Wikipedia, either here or on an epidemiology page, but I can't find any reliable source. Any suggestions? Robertpedley (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned about the second panel - I get a sense of mocking the "it's just the flu" people from the drawing. While I agree they're stupid, I think it's still an issue. Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I still think it is OR, particularly when it exaggerates the expansion of the timescale. Something lifted from a non-scientific and non-official website should not be used because they often don't reflect scientific opinion accurately. What the diagram is saying is not reflected in the original CDC source. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that its a horrible diagram and it's WP:OR. The diagram that popped up on Sunday was better

but also OR. At least in the U.K. the "delay" strategy is aimed at flattening the curve [1]. I'd like to find a reliable source so that I can document this properly. Robertpedley (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The two diagrams are based on this one here - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425 (figure 1). The problems as I noted before with the two diagrams based on the CDC one are:

1. the excessive stretching of the timescale of the outbreak when there is intervention when the CDC diagram merely indicate the peak has shifted,
2. the CDC original suggests a reduction in number of total cases (the area under curve can be taken as total number of cases) in addition to lowering the peak. Both the diagrams here only show flattening of peak.
3. the CDC one suggests a reduction of impact on healthcare, the two diagram here suggest it will reduce it to below healthcare system capacity, which is OR and not supported by the CDC article. Hzh (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is in the article "A key part of managing an infectious disease outbreak is trying to decrease the epidemic peak, known as flattening the epidemic curve. This helps decrease the risk of health services being overwhelmed and providing more time for a vaccine and treatment to be developed."

That article states "A key issue for epidemiologists is helping policy makers decide the main objectives of mitigation—eg, minimising morbidity and associated mortality, avoiding an epidemic peak that overwhelms health-care services, keeping the effects on the economy within manageable levels, and flattening the epidemic curve to wait for vaccine development and manufacture on scale and antiviral drug therapies."

The before and after is supposed to have the same area under the curse and it dose. Should we remove the bottom bit? I guess we could. The first caption is someone not taking the disease seriously and the second caption is what happens when one puts in place mitigating measures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The CDC one is referring to two concept 1) delaying the speed at which cases occur without necessarily changing the total number of cases 2) decreasing the number o cases. We could use the CDC version if people prefer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

the CDC version seems best...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Both the diagrams are based on CDC one, so their diagrams should be the same as CDC, which isn't the case. The CDC one clearly stated (point #3 in Figure 1) that the overall cases would be diminished, so I'm not sure where the argument "without necessarily changing the total number of cases" comes from. These are examples of people reproducing diagrams without understanding what the original is saying. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No these are experts adjusting the graphs to emphasize one aspect of the concept.

If you want to propose a different one please do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What makes you thinks these diagrams are made by experts? The second diagram was made by someone who said he saw it on twitter - [2]. Given that the first one is so different from the CDC one, it cannot be made by someone who has any understanding of graphs. The graphs drawn exaggerate one aspect of the CDC graph, and exaggeration is by its nature false representation (for example, if someone exaggerate from "one thousand people will die" to "a million will die", that is making a false statement) and a deliberate misuse of source. Graphs have specific meaning, we should not use graphs that misrepresent what the the original says. I might make a new one, although making diagrams takes time, and I'm not sure if I have the time to do it. We'll see. Hzh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I read the biography of the author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Graphic explaining the rationale behind "flattening" an epidemic curve

here you go. this appears in the CDC publication "Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance : community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the United States : early, targeted, layered use of nonpharmaceutical interventions" [3]. i think this is ok for wikipedia use, see [4]. per CDC copyright, we may use freely as long as we acknowledge the source. (this is my first graphics upload, pls correct mistakes.) Segoldberg (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we can use this one, the only issue with it is that it does not come out clearly when viewed in thumbnail (the flatter curve is faint), but it's fine until someone can make one that is clearer. Hzh (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020 (4)

The infobox has a colour-coding caption distinguishing the colours of countries with

• 1,000+ confirmed cases
• 100–999 confirmed cases
• 10–99 confirmed cases
• 1–9 confirmed cases

The map, File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg, has another colour for countries with 0 confirmed cases, like Zambia. Please add a fifth line for countries with 0 confirmed cases. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to add this, as the fifth category's already implied by the existing categories. Will wait for another editor to review this. Cognaso (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

When I didn't see any colour indicator for countries with 0 confirmed cases, at first I wondered if all countries worldwide had confirmed at least 1 case. Having a fifth line would show at a glance that this isn't the case. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would do it. All of the people who don't get confused by it won't mind (by my guess anyway). WCGW? DarthFlappy (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The map by default is a light grey color with borders. Countries in the default color have zero cases reporting. Only countries that have at least 1 case reporting gets a shade of red/black which is what the legend is indicating. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for the first case in Turkey

The Turkish MOH had reported that the first Covid-19 positive patient in Turkey. Regards, Aozm (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Size

This article is now about 320k long (that's the length of a novel) and takes quite some time to load, especially for those not on modern technology.

The page needs reducing.

I have created a fork of the Domestic response section which I proposed to split off a couple of days ago at #Domestic response - the article is at Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. It is 91k.

I leave it up to the editors of this page to decide if this is a good thing, and if they want to complete the split (which I don't have time for tonight).

If you decide against, you have my permission to {{G7}} the new page on my behalf, or copy it to a holding page, etc..

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

I think the domestic response info belongs in the individuals countries article, so China's response goes in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak in mainland China, US' response goes in 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States. Otherwise it's fractured duplication. Sun Creator^(talk) 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we should have a main coronavirus article which has links to all these sub-articles. And as far as the health consequences, and the medical and gov't responses, I'd say -- this is that main article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree it needs to be decreased in size. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• It definitely needs trimming, but this needs to be done carefully and judiciously by someone with the skill and time to do it properly. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. it should be just an overview and a bunch of links to articles with more detailed information. maybe we should wait until the outbreak is over to organize things as they should bePancho507 (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

strongly support User:Rich Farmbrough's proposal to spin out the entire domestic responses section, and then someone with skill and time should re-add judiciously thought through content to the main page. I would do this myself, as a lot of my summarisations over the last few weeks did achieve effective consensus, but unfortunately I do not have anywhere near enough time to do it. The proposal sounds very reasonable and should be done, as others similarly don't seem to be able to commit the time to such a highly visible page. --Almaty (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The Domestic Response section now has multiple short paragraphs like this...

Germany

Main article: 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Germany

On 27 January 2020, the first COVID-19 case was positively confirmed in Bavaria in Germany.[347]

I feel we should be able to chop most of these, but how do we give people clear links to the multiple country articles (apart from expecting them to scroll down to the navbox)? Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I agree that it looks much better now. I won't touch Chinese censorship again, can we get an uninvolved editor to do that @Bondegezou:, and how would we find one?. I think each country deserves a current stat of cases and deaths, if editors are willing to update that, and then a wikilink to main outbreak. If its a major outbreak, they need a paragraph similar to sth Korea currently especially if there are massive public health responses. --Almaty (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vox

In an edit, a user removed the terminology "liberal leaning" to describe Vox, which is fine. However, if sources consider Vox News to be a left-leaning website, it is worth noting, so I propose the wording "centre-left" as a description in that sentence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are we using Vox at all. Lots of better sources say the some thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

personally i don't trust vox. Vox media companies (the verge) make mistakes like building a pc wrong, claiming that bittorrent is a company (its a protocol) claiming that bigger numbers are obviously better... i can find sources if need be.Pancho507 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Easy than User:Pancho507 find a better source that says the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Volume of testing - Czech Republic

Hello,

Could you please update volume of testing for the Czech Republic? Daily updated data are available on the website of Ministry of Health. --78.99.138.225 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not up to date

Serbia now has 12 cases Lukapecanac (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

please provide sources. Pancho507 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

children's section draft - request to contribute or include

In a previous discussion, which I can't find I had suggested adding a section on children and how their epidemiology is different . The comments were centered around having more [WP:MEDRS] sources and doing a draft. I have done the draft on "Infection in children" which I suggest should be included in the epidemiology section. Please discuss:

Early in the outbreak there was widespread concern about the risk to children because in seasonal flu both the very old and very young are at greater risk. However, a large joint study between the WHO and China reported that only 2.4% of cases were in individuals under 18. This is in line with the first SARS outbreak in which China data in a WHO consensus study indicated no fatalities in the 0-24 age group. As a result, the European CDC has stated that Covid-19 “disease in children appears to be relatively rare and mild”.

The reasons for the low infection rate amongst children are not yet understood. The joint WHO-China report noted that the virus had a “low [attack rate]” in the 18 and under group, indicating a lower susceptibility of infection in children. However, another report based on surveillance and contact tracing in China concluded that “children were as likely as adults to be attacked by the virus”. The CEO of the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovation has also stated that a study based on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship indicated similar attack rates for groups below and above age 20. Gegu0284 (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a characteristic of the disease, so detailed material belongs on the disease page, Coronavirus disease 2019. There's only room for a brief mention on this page - it's already too long. Robertpedley (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gegu0284 this is fantastic work. I don't yet support its inclusion though. Is it possible to draft it again that only refers to more strictly WP:MEDRS compatible sources - ie. not including individual reports, but the synthesis of the reports from tertiary (as in CDC, WHO, etc) sources? I recognise that's much shorter, but I think this is a very important point to labour. --Almaty (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty Can you please clarify? The issue is the the reports are all WHO / CDC reports and published on the WHO / CDC site? Does that make them not WP:MEDRS ? Happy to rejig it. Just want to understand shy these refs don't work. Gegu0284 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gegu0284 I haven't had time to read the cited sources. When on the talk page, its often better to point to them with an external wikilink like this, as opposed to the reference generator. I think that you need to summarise the content in two or less sentences, in order to gain consensus for inclusion, personally, and pay particular attention to WP:SYNTH --Almaty (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the text, Gegu0284. You could possibly abbreviate a bit, as per Almaty, but I'd be happy to see it as it is inserted into the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that was covered in CDC information and seem to be consistent with sources above and current content of the page. Yes, it is important. The disease seem to follow a pattern different from flu in this regard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Using estimated numbers form Worldometers.info for the epidemiology table

The table cites worldometers.info, which according to its FAQ uses estimated numbers. It reports 1565 cases for Germany for the 10th of March while official numbers are still at 1296. I believe, that the table should either use official numbers or contain a note, stating which numbers are estimated. 128.176.164.13 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree - Merged this from a previous comment: The epidemiology table obviously uses a mix of data from worldometer and others. Is there consent about the reliability of worldometer? I saw them citing regular newspapers as sources. They definitely diverge from the official resources eg. WHO or local health authorities. I feel that mixing sources comes close to something like individal primary research. Also - we don't need to reflect changes to the minute - there is no such thing as a real-time disease meter anywhere ... I'd vote to stick to WHO situation reports or at least to figures from the local health authorities. Semiliki (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

this is one of many concerns I have about the graphs. some very nearly or do encroach on WP:OR and my strict definition of WP:CALC above where I strongly suggest all graph makers do not divide any numbers unless the source does, because they're often not comparable numbers. --Almaty (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The only way we will be able to FORCE the table to use official numbers is fully protect it such that admins are the only ones who can edit it. So you will need to get consensus for that. User:Almaty this discussion is not about the graphs it is about the tables. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

duplicate content

i don't understand the point of having the same content on Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak and on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Domestic responses. It seems redundant and unnecessary, and as pointed out above, this article is becoming as long as a novel. would it be possible to have just a short summary on 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Domestic responses? personally i would do it but i don't have time and this article is being edited too often (understandably)Pancho507 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

a summary is left behind when a 'daughter' article is created--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin and Arrival in infoboxes by country

For the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the Netherlands infobox I have proposed an additional information for the infobox. Some editors insert Wuhan, China on every 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory, and some want to put as an origin the source for the first local cases. For Poland it was Germany, for Netherlands it was Lombardy, Italy and so on. So currently under Origin in Netherlands we have both: Wuhan, China (globally) and Lombardy, Italy (first local cases). This can alleviate unnecessary edit warring between editors for this spot and give readers more clue as to the local transfer of infecion and it's global origin at the same time. Maybe there could be additional parameter in infobox Arrival for outside source. YBSOne (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo

In "protests in the special administrative region of Hong Kong have strengthened due to fears of immigration from mainland China", the word protests should be capitalised, since it stands at the beginning of a sentence. Niplav (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --occono (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support WHO statement classifying it as a pandemic. Takinginterest01 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Support as per WHO Mayankj429 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Romper (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The origin of coronavirus has not confirmed yet! We cannot put Wuhan there. It should be under investigation or unknown.

Domestic responses

I think we can call them Domestic public health responses, because that's what they are. This isn't the governments primarily driving this, or the public driving this, it is public health physicians, the epidemiologists, the biostatiscians and infection prevention and control agencies, all "public health", terminology which has been in the lead for some time. --Almaty (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

yes we could--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Convalescent plasma therapy

I'm not sure how or whether to use this, this, this or this but the sections were archived so I have to start over.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee I think the response previously was that this is experimental and not yet backed by strong evidence. Robertpedley (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Change title of article from "Outbreak" to "Epidemic" Thelostone1224 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Already a discussion below on changing to "pandemic" as declared by WHO. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Images in the lead

File:2020 coronavirus task force.jpg

In my opinion adding all of these to the lead is too many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of pages on Wikipedia has little gallery in infobox - September 11 attacks, World War II or 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Page look more nice and has better design with that. I think, also this page should have gallery in infobox. Do you agree or disagree guys? Peter1170 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The pictures are too small. The picture of the map should get more weight. These little pictures belong in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I know, thats why we post it here, and other opinions? Peter1170 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be appropriate once the pandemic is a historical event but for now I think the map deserves more emphasis. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I like the collage and support its inclusion in the infobox. I don't think that it draws emphasis from the map at all. — Goszei (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon I am not seeing consensus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion! -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe image is a good representation of this important article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But article about World War II is also important and has images. Peter1170 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

this is a virus outbreak, medical articles much like West Africa Ebola use maps when many parts of the world are affected--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No, keep the collage, it’s a rather historical event at this point. Considering how ongoing (or previously ongoing) events such as the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests and the 2019-20 Persian Gulf crisis, which has similar image leads. While the event isn’t largely over, I think its societal impact recently can constitute an important collage of images. Kaisersauce1 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This seems uncontroversial, so closing now per WP:SNOW and unanimous support.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic – Finally declared by WHO... finally... accidentally posted on article page. Noah^Talk 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/11/814474930/coronavirus-covid-19-is-now-officially-a-pandemic-who-says https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51839944

• Strong support no reason not to anymore. Juxlos (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per the WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per Juxlos and Doc James. No reason not to move as the WHO has already declared it a pandemic. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO statement. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Guess it is time per the WHO. We call the Spanish flu the 1918 influenza pandemic so I guess we can call this the Coronavirus Pandemic. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support without question. Per WHO announcement. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As far as I know this would be inline with the titles of other pandemics (AIDS, Spanish Flu, etc.) --Colin dm (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO and precedent of 2009 flu pandemic. — Goszei (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per WHO statement Mayankj429 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support use of pandemic per the WHO. The pandemic wasn't in 2019, so 2020 coronavirus pandemic would be even better. Sun Creator^(talk) 17:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Finally, per WHO. Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per WHO, and media in general, also following the WHO on this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Per the above. I mean, well, duh, this outbreak has resembled a pandemic in the past two weeks alone, and the WHO has just declared this outbreak a pandemic, so this should be a WP:SNOWBALL move. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support WHO is the #1 RS on this topic. We should follow their lead. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WHO--Sunfyre (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Because this is a single page move about coronavirus outbreak to pandemic, there also a multiple page move request that also involve all articles retain name like coronavirus outbreak. So I recommend all users to moved to other Requested Move which contains all pages related to the main page.
• support Ive been proposing this for days,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per WHO statement. --Efly (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: All moved per consistency with the above RM. Slightly busy now, so anyone may make the actual moves unless there's a technical difficulty, in which case let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Template:Editnotices/Page/2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Template:Editnotices/Page/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory
• Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Domestic responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
• Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak on the aviation industry → Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the aviation industry

– This first eight articles that have current names like "coronavirus outbreak" needs to moved in order to aligned to new name per WTO statement. I propose that all country specific articles that retain coronavirus outbreak name must be replaced by coronavirus pandemic. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support To keep everything inline with the new title of this page--Colin dm (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support a lot of wikilinks and categories will need to be fixed but that's what you get when the WHO takes forever. Juxlos (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- Since the WHO has classified it as such, the pages about it should be renamed. Calicodragon (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are quite a few more aside from the country-specified articles as well, see here: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak — Goszei (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support this renaming strictly as proposed. This move is the logical and expected next step. Keep this new name stable for as long as possible please. History DMZ (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Actually, we should just start moving all pages required since most are splits down the chain. robertsky (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Uncontroversial change, given the SNOW discussion in the above section. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Done I finished the proposed moves above. Also, can someone please move all of the country-specific articles to the appropriate title? (Ex. 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy.) There are dozens of those articles, and I don't have the time or the energy to carry out such a massive move at this moment. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that you missed a few non-country-specific titles in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. There are also several sub-category titles that should be changed. — Goszei (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Appreciation of Chinese Response"

This section seems very out of place in the article, and at first glance appears to be potential propaganda on behalf of the Chinese government. Ostronomer (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.179.8 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• The claims are backed with reliable sources. I think it is appropriate, especially since it is immediately followed by the section "Criticism of responses". --Efly (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please : who is updating the Airliners ? For example Lufthansa cancelled 23000 Flight and grounded all 14 A380

It is still necessary update information in all Airliners. Most are travelling Empty or Terminated Flights. Air Asia is also travelling Gratis. I know seems a turbulence time or a pacification of Business or for example Alitalia who goes Bankruptcy closed next Month, but someone more expert with updated precise information in area should have to update the pages, thanks If I do i am sure like every time conflict of interests, someone will do an undo, you know how wiki is.

References

EU has determined that empty flights are no longer needed I believe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC).

Diamond Princess

Just noticed that the Diamond Princess has disappeared from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory chart. Multiple countries broke the quarantine in the middle of it and evacuated their citizens to place them under their own quarantine. When combining Japan and the DP figures, I'm wondering if we have taken into account that several quarantines of the cruise case did not take place in Japan. I know the US evacuated their citizens on the cruise and included it in their own number. Apart from Japan, other countries with citizens onboard may not have included the DP in their figures, but others like the US have, hence why it becomes confusing if we simply just add the two. The WHO and Johns Hopkins site still lists it as a separate category. I'm sure in the future they will sort this all out with the DP. 146.151.113.93 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed at 17:40, 11 March 2020 by M nurhaikal. Removal was controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Armenia

3 new cases in Armenia. Update please https://news.am/eng/news/565345.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.174.59 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to add 2 columns to the numbers table - percentage recovered and dead

It would be a simple calculation of "deaths/cases" or "recoveries/cases" as a percentage.

Percentages provide better context rather than raw numbers. The sorting can be kept as the same default if you like. But sorting the death/recovery percentages gets better transparency and visibility to health care workers and professionals, and public health officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivasundar (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

With such small sample sizes for some of the rows, the percentages seem less meaningful. A country with 3 cases and 1 fatality would have a 33.3% death rate, which obviously isn't indicative of the disease's potency.Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

These numbers are prone to over-interpretation. I oppose adding them. Bondegezou (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Very much oppose ---Almaty (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Cure of corona virus

I think that you could cure the corona virus by reprogramming the apoptosis to Attack the infected cells and maybe even the rna code It self. Plus if we can clone sheep, if we can reprogram plants US humans can reprogram the apoptosis to Hunt the infected cells and the virus It self. Maybe i'm Just stupid but of someone can do It It would be helpfull Antonsko (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Apoptosis isn't really a "thing" but it's certainly true that if we could alter our cells to self destruct early enough on in a viral infection that might be an advantage. However there are (huge) issues:

1. It would be extremely hard to design the molecular machinery to detect a virus, and kill the cell.
2. It would be even harder to ensure that this wasn't triggered by some other stimulus, for example the common cold.
3. Gene therapy is not universal, as I understand it, I.E. only a small percentage of cells are changed.
4. The virus might be quite happy reproducing in the wreckage of the cell, it would not need a mechanism to exit the cell (usually done destructively I think).

The best place for questions like this is however the WP:Reference desk.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC).

WP:FORUM, folks - cease, please.

serbia now has 18 cases

Serbia now has 18 cases. To stay up to date visit covid19.rs Lukapecanac (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Lukapecanac,  Not done the source says 12 ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Map should be cases per 100,000

The total number of cases is a meaningless statistic. Pretend the US has 3,000 cases, and pretend also that Spain has 3,000 cases. Those numbers mean very different things. That would mean that 0.0065% of the Spanish population is infected, while 0.00091% of the US population is infected. In other words, a Spaniard is over 7 times as likely to be infected as an American, by this hypothetical example. That's why epidemiologists always use cases per 100,000 (or cases per some number) to describe the incidence of a disease. Dcs002 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is template too huge

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data is now huge. It takes up this massive slice of screenspace for the article. Can we do something about that? Have it collapsed from the start? Just not have it on this article? Summarise the data better? Bondegezou (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. First of all, I think it should be moved to #Epidemiology instead of the lead. They are also discussing creating a 50% or 75% collapsible version at the Template talk page. — Goszei (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please put back the images

The collage on the infobox looked good, please place it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisersauce1 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

instead of the images put only an image of a virus

File:CoronaVirus-01.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChata (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominated the above image for deletion on Commons as a suspected WP:COPYVIO, feel free to participate in the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoronaVirus-01.jpg. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

CLOSED CASE = NOW AT TOP >>> why table has no total amount anymore ?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

it still does but now at the top of the page. due to this edit. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it should be added back --Colin dm (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Total is at the top. Doc James moved it at 20:36 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ok, understood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone add a column showing the total population of each country?

Hi,

Can someone add a column showing the "total population of each country" on the "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory" table that shows all the countries affected by the coronavirus? This would help put things in perspective.

Thanks! Vincent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.44.210 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

why? why would the reader want to know about the population of each country? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly necessary. This would clutter the already expansive article, and country statistics are already accessible through links to country articles. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This was tried before, and the change reversed soon after. It was used to show the infection rate per million. But errors and too much size caused a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Authors pls fix disrespect to POTUS

In multiple instances referring to the President of the United States the article assumes an American-leftist centric attitude.

This page is not a undergrad chat room with attendant disrespect. This page should be neutral and not reactionary.

The Chinese President and other world leaders mentioned are titled formally as "Chinese President Xi" etc and so should the POTUS who was properly elected and represents some 65million American people.

"Trump" is not respectful to the office of the President of The USA.

Being disrespectful to political figures is a reason, a easy to correct reason, many people denigrate Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carzee (talk • contribs)

We did the same for past presidents. We give titles on the first instances and surnames only on subsequent ones. Of the 14 mentions in the article body, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ones say "President Trump". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:EvergreenFir Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary topic used to convey bias and favouritism towards POTUS. This has no relevancy towards the actual topic other than figureheads of different countries responding to the virus. It does not matter who is addressed in what way, the real issue here is displaying the most recent and accurate status of this pandemic. User:Balkanite —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Under section "Prevention", subsection "Vaccine research", the entry incorrectly identifies Phase III clinical trials for a vaccine candidate by Gilead Sciences Inc and Ascletis Pharma Inc. These are NOT trials for a vaccine, rather they are trials for potential antiviral drug therapies, namely, Remdesivir and ASC-09 + ritonavir (oral tablet).

Presumably sourced from the following citation [208]: https://www.bioworld.com/articles/433331-increasing-number-of-biopharma-drugs-target-covid-19-as-virus-spreads

Please address this. 66.68.143.217 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=945117857&oldid=945117653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:69D9:B800:AD8E:D0FC:EACB:FE51 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Removed ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

There's now a disambiguation notice at the top of the topic on desktop. Is it really needed? The current title is pretty unambiguous and there have been no other coronavirus pandemics.

"Coronavirus pandemic" redirects here. For other outbreaks of different strains of coronavirus, see Coronavirus outbreak (disambiguation).

- Wikmoz (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I believe that was a left-over from this morning's page move. I have removed it. — Goszei (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast action! - Wikmoz (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename article to "2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic"

By now the WHO has given the disease the official name of "COVID-19," so why are we still using the informal "coronavirus" name? A coronavirus can mean anything from SARS to the common cold, and by now most of the general public has heard of the name COVID-19 so there is low risk for confusion. King Zowie (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

it was just moved to 'Pandemic', lets leave it as is for a while...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox no longer readable with large font sizes

Hi, I use larger font sizes to try to read the web. The large infobox under Epidemiology only shows the right edge of the first column, followed by cases, deaths, recovery, and ref. I have checked the old versions, and can't find a readable one, though it was readable yesterday. Maybe be an issue with Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jersey/Guernsey

Any particular reason why Jersey/Guernsey are listed separately? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

events canceled

Hi, I just started this list of canceled events, it's very incomplete, please help me expand it, or modify as needed. This by itself is a very notable wave of event cancelations probably on par with the second world war.Victor Grigas (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename article to ‘’2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic’’

Why are we still using the broad term “coronavirus” when it refers to a family virus that causes a simple common cold to as severe as SARS, MERS, and the new COVID-19 when we can use the official taxonomic name of the virus Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 just like the wiki article for 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak. Hushskyliner (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Because that is the common name for this virus and if I am be honest that name would be way too long for the article. HawkAussie (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply. Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support a move to the official and simple name "2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic", but not something as linguistically gruesome as the one in the title here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

In the statistics-by-country chart, please change "Dominican" to "Dominican Republic" 2601:5C6:8080:100:D1E8:9C75:D7DE:BA08 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@2601:5C6:8080:100:D1E8:9C75:D7DE:BA08: I have fixed it. Thanks! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Should we move the pandemic data table upwards in the article?

I understand that it falls under the subheading "epidemiology" but the table is leaving a huge, empty space at the bottom of that section because of it. What do you guys think? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Addition of information related to 'not to spit in public places' in the prevention section

Can this information be added in the article that spitting in public places to be avoided for prevention of the disease? I am adding references below to that it can be discussed.

1. [5] (This reference tells that the virus can transmit by saliva)
2. Avoid frozen meat, shaking hands while greeting in public: Delhi govt advisory on coronavirus
3. Watch out! Spitting in public places too can spread infections
4. Govt stops handshakes, hugs over coronavirus
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43372154 Why is spitting so bad?
6. [6]
7. Novel Coronavirus: Govt advises people to follow basic protective measures
8. UK city cracks down on people spitting 'paan' in public places This seems old article but relevant to this discussion.
9. What we know about the mysterious, pneumonia-like coronavirus spreading in China and elsewhere
10. Coronavirus: Sickos spit on elevator buttons amid outbreak in China

Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename Article to "Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic"

Time to call this the correct name for it (Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic). Same as "Spanish Flu", "Hong Kong Flu", "Mid East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)", and "West Nile Virus" are all appropriate names for viruses and the geographic locations in which they first came from.