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)

===== Informative graphs =====

Hi, I have proposal to include links to following graphs:

1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-deaths-covid-19-who?yScale=log&time=2..51&country=Worldwide+IRN+ITA+KOR+CHN

2. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-cases-covid-19-who?yScale=log&time=1..50&country=CHN+IRN+ITA+KOR+Worldwide

They are very informative, at least to me.

Licenense is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.109.2 (talk) 07:54, 13 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 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 by Amakuru 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC) per Special:Permalink/945073603#Requested move 11 March 2020. Originally closed by Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC) as World health Organization declared Pandemic March 11. Reformatted and re-closed as uninvolved editor. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

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.

cases/numbers

Uruguay missing

There are four confirmed cases there.

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)

There seem to be inconsistencies even in the offical RKI data (no increase in NRW for 3 days???). But that shouldn't be a reason to use unofficial numbers such as worldometer or even some funky local newspapers. None of them give proper reference to their primary source of information - it's a huge mess. The issue was discussed a bit earlier - proposition is on the table to limit statistics strictly to official ressources and to restrict edit access to the statistics table to admins only - sounds good to me. Semiliki (talk) 17:28, 12 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)

• Some interesting projections about development of the pandemic here. This is probably not an RS though. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 13 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)

Israel now has 109 cases. [5] 77.125.118.173 (talk) 19:07, 12 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)

Here is an abridged version: Only a small percentage of Covid-19 cases have occurred in children.  Most cases are relatively mild with very low fatality rates in the under 18 age group. [6] This is similar to the first SARS outbreak.[7]  The reasons for the low infection rate amongst children are not yet understood.  A 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.[8]   However, others have claimed that “children were as likely as adults to be attacked by the virus”[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegu0284 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 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)

sounds good - what needs to be done? Semiliki (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I also never heard of this source before and it does not seem like they publish their methodology or use experts to assemble the data. I would be sceptical here and be against that source (but I dont know it myself). Maybe discuss over there? --hroest 17:37, 12 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)

Is there not some way of including the idea and stating that?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:19, 12 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)

Agree with the images being nice, but consider they take up about 2x the space of the current infections map, which is IMO way more important (I personally use this article to be up to date with the figures). Perhaps the map could be moved to the top position? Although, once the pandemic is over they could possibly go back to how they are now. GoodCrossing (talk) 23:55, 12 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)

Indeed it should be kept. Looks way more nice and shows what's going on in the world because of the virus. Coldbolt (talk) 09:33, 12 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)

I thought the infobox image looked great as well, if a compliant one can be recreated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 12 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)

But other special legal entities of Faroe islands of Denmark and French overseas territories are counted under their mother countries.

You should include Channel islands under UK count and mention that count below. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. They are Crown Dependencies. Ptilinopus (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It will be ambiguous when the time comes, for instance, a new unknown strain of coronavirus with an outbreak emerges and will therefore be called a novel coronavirus (nCoV). I could for instance get a common cold caused by a strain of coronavirus that is not SARS-CoV-2 but still a coronavirus nevertheless. You see the problem here is what if I caught a cold from a coronavirus and people will mistake of me having COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 when a caught for example HCoV-HKU1 virus instead. Then they will quarantine me just because I have "coronavirus" even though it's not the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic virus/COVID-19 virus that hit me? That's why it is better of calling the pandemic with it's rightful name the SARS-CoV-2 rather than just simply coronavirus to avoid mistaking it from other coronaviruses that exists like SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, HCoV-HKU1 and others. Hushskyliner (talk) 16:32, 13 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)

I have removed the wrong text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 12 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)

As I remarked above, the pandemic only occurred in 2020, so that's another issue to address. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 09:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC).

The problem with renaming it to 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic is the redundancy of the title itself which is 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic which mentions the year 2019 twice, while using the name of the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, solves the problem which is better since other wiki articles for outbreaks such as 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak, Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic uses the name of the virus, and it would be better of calling this pandemic outbreak as 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic in case a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak emerges in the future one day or if a new strain/species of coronavirus that is not of SARS emerges which is why as early as now we must rename the outbreak 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic despite not being a Wiki common name because it doesn't seem to apply here. Hushskyliner (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wanted to voice my opinion that I believe it's ok that the name of the pandemic should contain "2019-2020" since although the pandemic became real and prevalent in 2020 it did have its origins in 2019.

As to the name of the pandemic, I agree that the proposed name 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic is too long and not in common usage so people can navigate to this page and be educated about it and the pandemic. I feel the current name is fine but if we wanted to improve it, I believe that 2019-20 SARS-CoV-2 disease pandemic is a good compromise and accomplishes all that everyone wants. Cheers Jccali1214 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus pandemic" is perfectly fine imo. There isn't any ambiguity as to what coronavirus it refers to given that there are no other coronavirus pandemics going on. "SARS-CoV-2 disease" is unwieldy and potentially misleading, though, given that the virus is called that rather than the disease, and I would recommend "COVID-19" if people want to rename it. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose because "coronavirus pandemic" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose There is only one coronavirus pandemic at the moment. We can explore renaming again when this blows over or when there is a need to further distinguish with another yet unknown coronavirus pandemic in the same time period (heaven forbids, but the future is uncertain!). robertsky (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jersey/Guernsey

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

Separate legal entities to 'the UK' (and Isle of Man should be separately defined for the same reason). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The are Crown Dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom. Ptilinopus (talk) 15:09, 13 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)

that you for the post, an important consequence of this outbreak--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:51, 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)

The problem with renaming it to 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic is the redundancy of the title itself which is 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic which mentions the year 2019 twice, while using the name of the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, solves the problem which is better since other wiki articles for outbreaks such as 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak, Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic uses the name of the virus, and it would be better of calling this pandemic outbreak as 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic in case a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak emerges in the future one day or if a new strain/species of coronavirus that is not of SARS emerges which is why as early as now we must rename the outbreak 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic despite not being a Wiki common name because it doesn't seem to apply here. Hushskyliner (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandemics apply to diseases, not viruses. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY still strongly favor "coronavirus" over "COVID" by about a 7:1 ratio according to Google Trends and in general media usage. There are no other coronavirus pandemics so it's unambiguous. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:01, 13 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)

The name of this (and some other places) were shrunk to fit better on small screens like phones. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 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)

it is fine for now in its current place, due to how the article is structured, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's still creating a huge, empty space. The table is very big. Are there other ways of handling this? Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 13 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. [10] (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. [11]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:B463:53BF:2DA4:FFDD (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No Ghits for this name, so this won't be happening. It's probably not even worth a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy, is that you? [12] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: of course the statistics that is announced by Iran's ministry of health isn't reliable at all. Iran's government has had many false reports and wrongdoings in history and you can search for them in the internet. But we should always rely on the formal statistics. Aminabzz (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to check if the affected person are animal eaters

Need to check if the affected person are animal eaters Dhayalanandhini (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If we do it, it is original research. Perhaps more of the badly affected smoke tobacco though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Volume of testing: India

In Volume of testing table, India is mentioned with 4,058 tests. According to Gulf news, a total of 4,058 samples from 3,404 individuals have been tested (as of March 6). Multiple samples from the same individuals are tested. So it should be 3,404 IMO. -Nizil (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for link, however please realize that as numbers come in they are changed using the most reliable source(s), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We should add a column showing the total population of each country having affected people (110). This would help put numbers in perspective.*

70.50.44.210 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• We should add a column showing the total population of each country having affected people (110). This would help put numbers in perspective.

• It could be nice to have if you had a big screen. It was tried before and removed. Phones have trouble already display the full width of the table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Guyana coronavirus case

The government of Guayna confirms its first coronavirus case on March 11. [13] --cyrfaw (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Added thankyou. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

number of Iran deaths

I have noticed the time of Iran deaths edit has been made before Iranian authorities announcement of it. How did the editor know it? Aminabzz (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

When I changed it, the numbers were on the worldometers site. But someone edited before me to put in a much bigger number of 783 deaths. Ask @Mg27127: where this came from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: @Aminabzz: On Sky News and Iran, they expressed the number as 429 deaths in 24 hours, so I updated it with the new figures however it was misleading and it meant 429 in total, so I edited it wrong but before I got to edit it correctly, it had already been done. (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/numbers

Recovery numbers for Iran

The official Irani source does not provide recovered numbers [14]. And 7 march recoveries are higher than 5 days prior total cases, which is impossible. Elk Salmon (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Coronavirus cases in India

To anyone who can edit.The Coronavirus cases in India has increased to 75 from previous 74. Please edit it. Vasprad (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please supply a reference. The one in use says 74. 1 death. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/coronavirus-cases-in-india-live-news-latest-updates-march12/liveblog/74585629.cms also says 74. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are reference. Don't be silly. There are about 130,000 cases at the moment, with various outcomes. That would mean at least 200,000 references. Just provide the numbers, and correct them, as Vasprad said! I mean 200,000 references for a damn table. BUREAUCRATS!! The Admins are becoming too consumed with their own importance, rather than trying to help people. Wallie (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Appearing and disappearing

Why did the animated map disappeared on 4th March and came back on 7th or 8th March and disappeared a day later and only came back yesterday or today. Hi poland (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove cases after recoveries

Can someone remove a person’s case after they got recovered or there is actually the normal amount of cases and recoveries as well. Hi poland (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In our counts, the confirmed number remains the same but the recovery number will increase. If someone is transported from one place to another, we may just count the place where it was diagnosed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Children

Are there any reasons for children (whether or not divided into 'young, with limited vaccination record' and 'older, with a reasonably full vaccination or natural immunisation record) not being affected by the virus?

Ditto the proportion of people who for whatever reasons have a sufficiently mild dose of the disease for it not to be recognised as such ('just a throat/a cold')? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the point for distinguishing between having vaccination or not? This is a brand new virus and there is no existing vaccination of any type that would have helped. Anyway, sources may not have that level of data granularity. If you have encountered any, feel free to raise them here and hope that an editor will entertain your request. robertsky (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A large portion of the public is not familiar with immunology. We don't need to explain it unless it's going to be discussed in the myths section. However, it was apparently confusing enough to trip up the President: At one point, Trump asked whether the normal flu vaccine could be used to prevent the spread of the current COVID-19 strain of coronavirus that is causing global disruption. "You take a solid flu vaccine," Trump said, "you don't think that would have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?" - Wikmoz (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

School closure in Turkey

The Turkish government recently announced closure of middle and high schools. Where would I put this information? Is this even relevant enough to be on this article?   ApChrKey   ^Talk 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you have WP:RS, you can start a new "Turkey" section under Domestic Responses. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Domestic responses

Chinese New Year (25 January) celebrations were cancelled in several places.[242] Private vehicle use was banned.[243] -> Chinese New Year (25 January) celebrations were cancelled and private vehicle use was banned in several places.[242][243]

Without specifying, it looks like the whole of China banned private vehicle use, but just in several places. --MspreilsCN (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reworded these sentences to try and clarify the scope of the ban Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

It could be interesting to add 2 external links to mathematical modelling of epidemic evolution at this page [15]. I propose the following links:

"It’s not exponential: An economist’s view of the epidemiological curve "

"A simple mathematical model for a better understanding of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak"

This last link provide also source code for the modelling. Amaya13 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

DocJames What do you think? Mgasparin (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: fixing ping DannyS712 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence

"In some cases of COVID-19, people have no symptoms."

This sentence is unsourced. Who in hell's world thought it was a good idea to add this to the article? MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, completely irresponsible without a source. It was probably meant to as "people can pass it on before symptoms show" but that sentence cannot stand like this. Removed per Wikipedia:Bold for now. Mkwia (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where it was but it's accurate and important that people know they can be asymptomatic and still carry the infection. According to the WHO: The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, tiredness, and dry cough. Some patients may have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea. These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don't feel unwell. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing special treatment... May be some nuance to "infected [with SARS-CoV-2]" vs. "have COVID-19" but the WHO at least felt it wasn't worth going into that detail. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

British English banner / flag on talk page

Why should a major, world outbreak of disease that started in China have a giant British English banner slapped on it? Trying to force people for every section for every country (including the American portions) to use British English is asinine. Regional articles, fine, but there are no "strong national ties" here except for possibly China (or Hong Kong?). And the previous discussions do not really suggest a consensus for this. No good reason to forcefully align an international article. Master of Time (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR particularly the "Retaining the existing variety" section for the guideline involved here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Section on vaccine research

As it stands, the section on vaccine research is almost all speculation. We'd all love for there to be a vaccine, but the sequence of research, develop, testing, and production mean that reputable sources don't anticipate large scale vaccination in less than 18 months. I don't want to delete the whole section. Any suggestions? Robertpedley (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd support merging that info up to the Prevention section, after the current Contact tracing sentence above Handwashing. In any case the info looks meaningful indicating that the research does exist and is ongoing, as opposed to none at all. Brandmeister^talk 23:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request - comparison of coronavirus spread, by country

There is an excellent graph in Financial Times [16] showing the sub/exponential spread for different countries based on John Hopkins data. Could we show something similar, instead of just comparing China to ROW? It would be great to see which countries succeeded in curbing the spread.77.125.118.173 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just realized there is a paywall. Here is a non-paywalled version so you can see which graph I am referring to.[17]77.125.118.173 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible chart about Societal impact

Hi, is there any chance to create a table similar to this one on BBCNewsnight with all types of social distancing measures imposed by different countries (schools and universities, food parlours and restaurants, sporting event, mass gatherings, travel restriction and lockdowns)? I think that it could help to get a better picture of the situation. With a color code such as green=nothing, red=total yellow=partial. I am not good with tables but the sources are probably all there in the article.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded - I think it'd be good for the article. I've no clue how to make such a thing, so if somebody more experienced could come along and make it, that'd be great, heh, nevertheless I'll look into it and try to make it myself. GoodCrossing (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the image in the tweet is a decent starting point. Countries should be ordered by iso code, I suppose (the most neutral option) and maybe a different order of the measures for the columns is also possible (not sure if there is a better one). "travel restriction" should be "internal travel restriction", and another column more related to "border control" could be added. Other possible variations are "nursing homes" and "private business" (for example in Italy most of small shops not selling drugs or foods or IT equipment are closed now, but not factories)--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a draft at User:GoodCrossing/Draft of coronavirus impact table. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free to make changes to it. I might have to go before I finish. I'll probably add those categories you're suggesting. As I don't have a lot of time, I'll start by adding the five most infected countries and if anyone wants to add more, feel free to do so. GoodCrossing (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I might add also a column for "date of first measure" if you like the idea. I also leave here a note for the future... because I am optimistic. Now, it's clearly getting bigger and will be updated regularly, but we should keep in mind what we will do when they will be removed in some months. I suppose that we can freeze it at the top of the more rigid measures, we think about it if you have better idea.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've got to go. Feel free to continue the table at my draft. I might carry on tomorrow, I mean, heh, being in quarantine gives me plenty of time. (for those wondering - my local government recommended home quarantine for those who travelled to Madrid recently - that includes me!) GoodCrossing (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

numbers of people hospitalised?

are any countries providing statistics of the numbers of cases hospitalised and could it be included in the table if yes? I know that those figures are analysed in England & Wales for influenza for example, have to admit I haven't seen them for covid-19. Petunia15 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Change the phrase "Stocks plunged again based on coronavirus fears, the largest fall being on 9 March 2020." to "Stocks plunged again based on coronavirus fears, the largest fall being on 12 March 2020." A source is needed, and therefore, https://apple.news/ANXEb6z-cR4CoP3ZHIABYAw can be a good source (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/historic-market-plunge-traders-describe-a-day-that-went-from-uncertainty-to-panic.html / Historic market plunge: Traders describe a day that went from 'uncertainty to panic') 2604:2000:69D9:B800:55DB:D392:A429:BCFB (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Add BNO News as a reference for the coronavirus case numbers/death numbers/etc. https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/01/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/ 2604:2000:69D9:B800:55DB:D392:A429:BCFB (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently it is reference 109. Use will come and go, depending on whether it is used or not. It had some errors for a while earlier, so we switched to other stats aggregators. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Rephrase grammar: Another recent, and rapidly accelerating fallout of the disease is the cancellation of major events including the film industry, music festivals and concerts, technology conferences, fashion shows and sports.

Cancellation of the film industry doesn't make grammatical sense, but it applies to the other events, maybe except sports. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:55DB:D392:A429:BCFB (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Special:Diff/945323657. Wordier than I like but gramatically correct, I hope. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

@Rhain: Can you add a link to Black Thursday (2020) to the list of socio-economic impacts? 2604:2000:69D9:B800:55DB:D392:A429:BCFB (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a link there, but it could do with a sentence. Do you want to write one? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-live-updates-drastic-measures-issued-globally-pandemic/story?id=69551458 claims 1,663 cases and 40 deaths in the USA. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have 1746 cases and 41 deaths, so that news source may be earlier than the source we used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to address the elephant in the room in introduction

I tried today to add "which may be deadlier than common cold outbreaks". I know it's a common point of view that we certainly can't sweep on the carpet anymore. Governments are closing schools and what not under the assumption that this is something else then a common flu. We should mention in the lead why this virus is notable. I'm fully aware that we have no solid evidence in a way or the other, but there are way to convey this in a succinct way in the lead. Iluvalar (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar, I agree with you, but we'll have to find the sources that support that assertion. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The 3-4% "mortality rate," while cited, is not accurate. No one has mentioned that the potential under-reporting of mild cases, or those who do not seek medical care, is inflating the rate. Should change this to crude mortality rate, because that's what it is currently. There is no official mortality rate/ratio yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.166.225 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There are issues around correctly determining the mortality rate, which we should discuss in the text, but we should report what good citations are saying, as well as potential issues with the numbers. One issue is the possible under-reporting of mild cases. I would like to see much more on both that and the under-reporting of all cases.

To go off on a tangent, this article remains obsessed with giving the number of reported cases when we know these are not the actual number of cases (for a variety of reasons, many unavoidable). We need to make clear that these numbers are not some gospel truth and that reliable sources are certain they're under-reporting. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All the nonsense about "mortality rates" and ill defined "fatality rates" is a real shame. I have tried many times to have these problems corrected because I believe Wikipedia should have much better quality standards/control. First, it should be made VERY clear that mortality rates are one thing and fatality rates are another e.g. the "2%" of the 1918 Spanish Flu is a mortality rate and should not (can not) be compared to fatality rates. Second, if this wikipedia article wants to talk about fatality ratios with graphs and figues etc... it must CLEARLY STATE what it means by "crude" fatality ratio. I prefer to use the term "Confirmed Case Fatality Ratio" as opposed to the classic CFR e.g. the CFR for the seasonal flu is typically 0.1% but if you calculate the CONFIRMED case fatality ratio (as is obviously and inevitably done for covid-19) then you end up with 7-8% (using CDC data for this years flu in the US). TheRightKindOfDoctor (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@TheRightKindOfDoctor: I've made an attempt to distinguish between case fatality rate and mortality ratio. Feel free to correct further, but preferably such stuff should be linked to existing articles. If none exists, a section within the existing relevant article or a new standalone article can be created. Brandmeister^talk 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Main table all wrong

The table is presenting a false (and bleak) picture of the virus. You can't even correct it! For example, in New Zealand, there are 5 (five) cases, and most have recovered. The table shows no recoveries. The first person recovered on 1st Mar [18]. I mean, that's almost two weeks ago!! There are references for the others too, but I can't be bothered supplying them. I know they reported on the others, for example case 2 of the 5, a woman, is definitely recovered also. I'm sure that most if not all the other countries are wrong too. Please someone supplying this table - correct it, or remove it! It is wrong wrong wrong. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO reported yesterday no recoveries for New Zealand. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The source you gave said "on the mend" which does not mean fully recovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Been added anyway, without source so far. Sun Creator^(talk) 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of "New Zealand coronavirus patient recovers but concern about pandemic spreads" is unclear? The second case has been released and that is documented also. It is plain silly to give references to every single case. As stated, that is over 200,000 references. Wallie (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect of the table I find odd is the discrepancy between the number of countries listed at the top and the actual number by count. At the present moment the summary at the top says 132 countries/territories. An actual count comes to 125. Where are the other 7 countries or territories? If they are included in a mother country (e.g. French Guiana in France), then they should not be counted separately as a country. Or if they are counted then they should be listed separately. Lack of accuracy/clarity on this verifiable point leads to doubt about the other less readily verifiable figures. In addition, there is a disconnect between the table and the map. The map shows at least 3 countries affected which are not in the table: Guinea, Sudan, and Cayman Islands. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does main page photos doesn't have any photo of Wuhan?

I noticed photo in infotab doesn't have any wuhan photo. 168.211.42.33 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-symptomatic spread

Within section "Causes" and subsection "Transmission" there is the sentence: "The WHO has stated that the risk of spread from someone without symptoms is "very low (...)"". Although this sentence can be seen in the source , it truncates the rest of the explanation: "However, many people with COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms. This is particularly true at the early stages of the disease. It is therefore possible to catch COVID-19 from someone who has, for example, just a mild cough and does not feel ill.", which may provide a false sense of safety (would for me), of the risk of close contact with those that have no symptoms. Jsmelo93 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's one preprint of a study which shows that by the time they had tested patients starting to show mild symptoms, the peak shedding of virus had already passed. Patients released a lot of virus in their early stages (1000 x higher than SARS), whether that means they were infectious before symptoms appeared is not clear. Hzh (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

No. of cases/Cases per capita or Deaths per capita?

The first map in the infobox, showing total cases per country

File:March12 cases per-capita-COVID-19 V.2.png

The second map in the infobox, showing cases per capita

As more European countries are running out of tests, and both the UK and especially the US have had low testing rates from the start — counting cases is likely to poorly reflect the state of the pandemic. However, deaths are likely to be much more accurate, both at the aggregate level and the per capita level. Should we shift at least one of these maps to cover deaths or deaths per capita? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a nice map to have but I don't see a need to replace either of the maps there now. Adding a third map to show deaths per-capita would be preferable to replacing one of the existing maps.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mistake regarding Nadine Dorries

"British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and MP, Nadine Dorries, was tested positive for the virus in late March."

This is impossible, as it's not even mid-March yet.

136.181.195.9 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that phrase. Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

in the article introduction, the term --public health-- should be wikified, should it not?

i would do it, but the article is locked. --Johnfreez (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

the page/article is semi protected[19] not locked--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please Correct : Brasil 151 Cases Confirmed !

Also 1 78 years old canadian confirmed in Recife, due Silver Shadow restricted in Recife due an attack. Maybe this guy is not already counted in list, so probably 144 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Prepare yourself to the exponencial South America now

References

Venezuela

Venezuela confirms its two cases of coronavirus. [20] --cyrfaw (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done --cyrfaw (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Hong Kong listed separately to China?

Shouldn't Hong Kong be included in the figure for China, in the table? We don't list, for example, England, Scotland, etc. separtately (they are combined into United Kingdom). You could also argue that Taiwan shouldn't be listed separately either, because very few countries recognize it's "independence". Same goes for Palestine, as it isn't a real country.MisterZed (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@MisterZed: Because our articles separate the mainland from the other three territories; each of the NHC daily reports (since the case confirmation in the Tibet AR on 29 Jan) also cites 31个省（自治区、直辖市）, which is the number of provincial-level divisions in the mainland. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Because there is no freedom of movement between Hong Kong and the mainland China, they have very different healthcare systens, and the measures taken by the governmant of the PRC are not valid in Hong Kong and vice versa--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/numbers

Lithuania

In lithuania 6 people are now infected. Lukeris14 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic in lithuania

6 infected in total in lithuania Lukeris14 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

México

Mexico have 18 Cases, no 12 Rodrigo Bruno Ruiz Serrano (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Map should be coloured | All Red is Distracted !

I am the Opinion it should have a contrast. For the Bad Regions like China, Iran and Italy can be remained Red, but second Yellow, Green and seas blue and the countries with less than 10 cases White. Then can be seen better. Now all red seems an apocaliptic Situation which is not, example

Estimate on New Scientist is "poor source"?

My recent edit included an estimate of the overall fatality rate was essentially reverted. The sources was an article on New Scientist. To my knowledge, New Scientist passes both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A search on WP:RSN shows that New Scientist is a reliable source, but I'll be starting a new discussion there to clarify whether it's WP:MEDRS. My position is that any article in New Scientist which features expert opinion and summarizes research findings does indeed qualify as WP:MEDRS. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Impacts on health subsection?

In the Societal impacts section, shouldn't there be a subsection on Impacts on health? This would be for indirect effects such as crowding out patients with other pathologies from hospitals. There are also positive impacts such as saving people from air pollution. (In China this is estimated to save many more people than die from the coronavirus.) Sylvain Ribault (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Need help

I am currently updating the pages on specific countries to show it is now a pandemic. I am updating the short descriptions, the current event tags, the infobox headers, and the first paragraphs of those articles. That is a lot of work for me to do so I am asking someone to update those pages as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh man, so many airliners & Ships pages, people here nobody cares. Took Attention several times, but now too lazy to start something. Let wiki unuptaded. simple...

Map

The infobox map should be replaced with File:COVID-19 outbreak global case count map scripted.svg. It is generated hence less prone to errors. It also complies with mapping conventions. Ythlev (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My only concerns are the colour scheme, it feels kinda odd to see everything in the shade of orange, don't get me wrong. The colour scheme has been discussed before, participated by several editors, so a sudden change won't be widely acceptable. And the second and last concern of mine is the file, why do we need to use multiple files for a single purpose map? These are just my opinions by the way. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 20:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)