Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 788: Line 788:


* Officially confirmed cases are increasing, just at a low rate at this point. Regarding reliability, there are ongoing discussions at {{Section link|Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China|Is there something in this article relating to the concerns about accuracy of number of infected/deceased?}} and {{Section link|Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China|Possibility of under reported cases}}. --[[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
* Officially confirmed cases are increasing, just at a low rate at this point. Regarding reliability, there are ongoing discussions at {{Section link|Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China|Is there something in this article relating to the concerns about accuracy of number of infected/deceased?}} and {{Section link|Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China|Possibility of under reported cases}}. --[[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
**None of those sources are very good. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


== Table showing cases by country is gone ==
== Table showing cases by country is gone ==

Revision as of 17:28, 9 April 2020

    Template:Vital article Template:COVID19 sanctions

    In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 16, 2020.

    Highlighted open discussions

    NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
    [[Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
    To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

    01. Superseded by #9
    The first few sentences of the lead's second paragraph should state The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.[1][2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne.[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.[2] (RfC March 2020)
    02. Superseded by #7
    The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020)
    03. Obsolete
    The article should not use {{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)

    04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

    05. Cancelled

    Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

    Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024)
    06. Obsolete
    There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)

    07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

    08. Superseded by #16
    The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read ...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates. (RfC April 2020)
    09. Cancelled

    Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact[a] and by small droplets produced when those infected cough,[b] sneeze or talk.[1][2][4] These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances.[1][5][6] People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face.[1][2] The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours.[7] Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

    Notes

    1. ^ Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO[1] and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.[2]
    2. ^ An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).[3]
    On 17:16, 6 April 2020, these first several sentences were replaced with an extracted fragment from the coronavirus disease 2019 article, which at the time was last edited at 17:11.

    010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

    011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

    012. Superseded by #19
    The lead section's second sentence should be phrased using the words first identified and December 2019. (May 2020)
    013. Superseded by #15
    File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method.[1] (1:05 min) (May 2020, June 2020)
    014. Overturned
    Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)

    015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

    016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

    017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

    018. Superseded by #19
    The first sentence is The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). (August 2021, RfC October 2023)

    019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

    Regarding “first few” sentences, the discussion was mainly on just the first two.

    RFC on the lead transmission first two sentences

    And instead of “not generally airborne,” we’ve currently decided to go with the phrase “are not generally spread through air over large distances.” FriendlyRiverOtter (talk)

    Changes 2
    I'll update that consensus a bit. {{u|Sdkb}} talk

    Treatment section

    Moving the treatments to another page, then moving from that page to another page, then from that page to another page ... means that nobody can get any information about treatments. This critical information has been lost in the bowels of Wikipedia.

    You guys are idiots. People are dying and you are more worried about editorially "correct" Wikipedia articles rather than making it as easy as possible for people to find information about cures. If putting cure information in this article directly saves even one life, then it belongs in this article. What might have been "right" a month ago, maybe not be right NOW. Any information that can save even one life needs to be as easy as possible for people to find the information. Playing editor Gods, in this case, could literally cause somebody to die that did not need to die. Do you editor Gods really want that on your conscience?

    Combination treatment of the following 5 items has shown almost 100% success with patients who are just starting to have the symptoms of shortness of breathe, either at a doctor's office or right when they get the hospital. Preventing people from having to go to the hospital in the first place or worse, being put on a ventiltor, will reserve much needed ventilators for people who this treatment does not show signs or working or have other conditions that make this treatment not the appropriate choice.

    • Drug: Hydroxychloroquine (anti-malaria drug)
    • Drug: Azithromycin (antibiotic)
    • Dietary Supplement: Vitamin C (boosts immunity)
    • Dietary Supplement: Vitamin D (helps with respiratory viruses)
    • Dietary Supplement: Zinc (helps Hydroxychloroquine work even better)

    RfC - Limiting the countries covered in the domestic responses section

    This page is already longer than it ought to be, and it's very much at risk of becoming bloated further. The domestic responses section is particularly at risk since everyone seems to want to add their home country (Egypt was just added, and I'm sure things are bad there as they are everywhere but we just don't have room). I can add a hidden warning to achieve consensus at talk before adding further countries, but that'll only do so much to stem the tide. Therefore, I think we need to come up with some criteria for which countries get a section and how long those sections can be. I think it's obvious that we need some individualized coverage of e.g. China, Iran, and that countries like e.g. Finland, Peru can safely be shunted to the "other" subsection, but there's a middle ground between them with e.g. the UK where I'm less sure. What are all your thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would remove Japan, as many other countries are more affected, and as Japan is otherwise also not specifically notable for its response (unlike South Korea). Voorlandt (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a problem if this section includes summaries on every country that cares to add one? This might be the only page downloaded by some people for offline viewing, and as such the single only/best place to get an idea of the kind of responses from each country, at a glance? Also, what makes the US or UK special in any way? 169.0.60.231 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many countries have cases of coronavirus, it is simply impractical to give all of them. I would say keep South Korea because it is cited in multiple notable sources as an example of a successful strategy in dealing with the outbreak. UK is not really necessary, although it attempted something quite different early on that seemed interesting, but it has since abandoned that. Japan is also unnecessary, although I think a brief mention (say a sentence or two) under the "Other countries" section may be warranted if the Olympics get cancelled. Italy as a separate entry is necessary I think, although I think perhaps a new section on other EU countries (or Europe) may be possible since many EU countries have seen significant outbreaks, and Italy can be placed as a subsection in that. Other individual European countries like Spain or Germany would not then not need their own separate sections. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the more severe outbreaks (judged by the death numbers) should be listed. In my opinion, that includes at the moment Italy, China, Iran, Spain. And possibly France. Then optionally the US and the UK. The fact France, and its lockdown, is absent from the page while the UK is described is quite strange. Mayfoev (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the fair way to do it would be to only list those countries whereby the situation in that country was/is noteworthy and comparatively unique. Whether that be particularly bad outbreaks (China, Italy, Iran) or for some other reason, like particularly effective strategies (e.g Singapore), or like in the UK where the government defied the strategy of most other countries in their response and received backlash. Naturally this will include countries like the US (Trump controversy etc.) and exclude other ones (Germany, France etc.). Countries with moderate outbreaks, or those which had/have responses that are similar to many other countries are not noteworthy and should therefore be only explained fully in their own separate article. Please say if you agree/disagree. How will we know when we have consensus on this? Magna19 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: Good question. I've added polls for specific countries below to better gauge that. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: Thank you. I have replaced Japan with Singapore using above criteria for now. I will vote below. Would it be better to use 'include' instead of 'keep' and 'exclude' instead of 'remove' given some countries listed here are not currently included in the article? Magna19 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would, thank you. I've refactored. Sdkb (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magna19: This edit has created a poorly-formed RfC. Whilst the statement (courtesy of Sdkb) is certainly neutral and brief, it completely lacks context in the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: feel free to refactor my statement if you want to give it better context. Thanks for your efforts to tidy things up; hopefully it'll make it easier to discuss the issues at hand. Sdkb (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: Not my statement unfortunately. Magna19 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Country Polls

    Please vote below with either Include or Exclude for each country. Please keep explanation minimal, and discuss overall criteria above. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Italy - include
    Italy
    Iran - include
    Iran
    Spain
    France
    United States - include
    United States
    UK - include
    United Kingdom
    Hzh - Though still technically in Europe as a continent, it would just get continually changed due to editors' Brexit opinions etc (sigh), better and easier to leave as separate section. Magna19 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany
    South Korea - include
    South Korea
    Japan
    Singapore
    User:Gtoffoletto, although most countries will inevitably end up with lots of cases, I would say it would be right to add one country thought by most to have best tackled the crisis. At the moment, Singapore fits that criteria the best. Please consider changing response based on this, if not then I would be happy to replace it if a more suitable country can be suggested and agreed upon? Magna19 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Magna19 South Korea is the country you are thinking of. Over 50 million population and cases declining fast from a major outbreak without lockdown. Cases in Singapore are growing fast unfortunately and pop is tiny. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gtoffoletto, thanks for the info. I will remove sub-section on Singapore for now but will add again depending on any additional votes. Magna19 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    European Union
    It is better to use Europe because a number of European countries aren't in the EU, like the UK, Norway and Switzerland. Hzh (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Includebut title "EUROPE" so we can cover the rest of Europe without having to give them their own headers. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exclude. There's no coordinated European response, no coherence in how the epidemic is handled (compare Italy and Sweden, for example, with drastically different measures), there's a plethora of health care systems, no coherent philosophy around testing. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include. In particular, failure in negotiations and lack of consistent response at European Union level had a high impact on reliable sources and is worth mentioning. European Central Bank reaction might also be worth mentioning. --MarioGom (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    Include: China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, US, UK

    Exclude: Australia, Netherlands

    2 quick final votes if possible before we make the edits?

    @QueerFilmNerd: , @Hzh: , @RealFakeKim: , @Sdkb: , @Gtoffoletto: , @Bondegezou: , @MarioGom: , @Calthinus:

    Europe section to be called Europe or European Union?

    • European Union - Vast majority of European countries not in the EU don't seem too noteworthy anyway. Magna19 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe. The individual governments seem to be the ones mainly coordinating the response rather than the EU, so it makes sense to use the geographic grouping of "Europe" rather than the arbitrary political grouping of the EU that excludes Switzerland for no good reason. Sdkb (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - per Sdkb (the UK and Switzerland btw) — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • European Union - as in the "political and economic union of 27 states" which is coordinating several countries in a similar way to the US and individual states. It would be crazy to include individually each US state (although they each have their own individual response). Monetary policy is an example of how the response is being coordinated at the EU level. Switzerland is not included and not relevant IMHO as well as other small countries not included. The only relevant individual country within the EU is Italy that could have a sub section within the EU section as it was the first with major cases (this might change). Germany France etc. just treated within the general section.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rate of infection outside of tiny countries. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of Hubei, Italy and Spain I think. I don't think number of cases is relevant in this as they are subject to change and soon many countries will have a lot of cases.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe - We don't really know which other European countries will become notable enough to be mentioned in the future, and this will cover any potential ones worth mentioning. Italy should have its own section under Europe, Spain possibly, but not Germany or France which merit a paragraph each under the Europe section. Hzh (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If Europe, is the UK noteworthy enough for its own sub?

    The situation may develop in such a way that that is no longer the case.--Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • UK -- yes, European Union not "Europe" if we have to use it. Hundreds of millions of people live in non-EU European countries. We cannot simply lump them in... if we are "lumping at all" (eventually I foresee us being at a point where it is "Other countries" and not "Europe" that is the "leftovers basket" section). --Calthinus (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Other Eurpoen countries have in some cases 10 times the cases of the UK. — RealFakeKimT 08:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: their "herd immunity" response was unique. They have given it up now though apparently so No is acceptable too. I guess I'm abstaining here! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but may be mentioned in a paragraph under Europe on account of its early approach (which has since been abandoned, therefore not worth looking at in details). It can change if cases escalate there. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can always re-visit at a later date and adjust where necessary but most are pretty unanimous for now, would normally wait longer but given the fast moving picture and significance of article, should be at its best soon as practical IMO. Magna19 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Hzh. The polls so far align pretty well with what's in the article currently, so the page will be fine. We don't yet have a clear consensus on the more borderline cases. It's fine to start fleshing out what a Europe section might look like, though. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems now is that with the summary added, people think it has concluded and stopped adding their votes. Perhaps remove the countries listed in "include" and "exclude" in the Summary section, and wait for a day or so first and see if anything changes. True, it can be revisited later, but there is really no need to hurry here. And yes, keep the discussion on Europe/EU going in the meantime. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus seems strong for several. Some are contentious (Singapore and Spain). However Spain is included in the EU discussion. Can we "Close" the non contentious ones and only keep Singapore open and continue with the EU discussion only? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've collapsed the ones with clear consensus (unanimous or near-unanimous with sufficient votes and is unlikely to change). A few others like European Union could be collapsed as well, but we'll see. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordering

    Another question we need to answer that seems to be somewhat arbitrary in the article currently: how do we order the countries we do include? I think it definitely makes sense to list China first, given that chronologically it was facing this before anywhere else. After that, we could go either by first reported case to try to keep some semblance of chronology, or by highest case/death count to list the most prominent examples first. What's your preference? Sdkb (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think by first reported case is probably best. Saves changing the order if one of the countries overtakes another in case numbers. Magna19 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s poorly worded because doc james wants it clear that it isn’t known to be airborne, but we agree to want to make it clear that it can be transmitted via exhalation in the lead . An alternative would be “primarily small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, and talking. These droplets can be transmitted through breathing, but only during close contact, and not over large distances “ Almaty (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Which maps to include

    Okay, so as we start to figure out consensus on which countries to include, the next step is to determine how long each section should be. One big part of that is whether to include a map of the country with cases per capita in different regions. I see several possible ways to go about this — we could include maps for all or none of the countries we list, we could include only for the most severely hit and/or largest countries, or we could take into account how much regional variation there is in the virus's prevalence throughout a country. What's the right strategy here? Sdkb (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there could be a fixed length for any section. China and US can be trimmed somewhat, but otherwise the other section are fine for now and should not get too big. I don't feel that any map is necessary since that should be in the individual articles, and you'd need to remove other images or tables otherwise it gets too crowded. Hzh (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to add a map for Europe since it seems to merit one and replace the U.S. map with the better per capita one, since that section has room for it and the U.S. is big enough for there to be regional variation. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a map for China, since it's also a geographically big country with a roomier section here, but as it's not there currently I won't add it. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Section on Latin America?

    I do not think any countries in Latin America currently deserve a section on their own, but Latin America as a whole deserves a section. In particular, Brazil is notable for Bolsonaro's relative downplaying of the threat [1] (I haven't seen this in any large country other than Brazil). Ecuador seems especially ravaged on a per-capita basis. [2]. The only issue is that if we add a section on Latin America, we might as well add a section on Africa as well. Alternatively, we could split the section by continent as a whole, which could clean up the "Domestic responses" section. Nmurali02 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really a global pandemic at this point, so I agree it might make sense toward having "Domestic responses" split into continents and then, if needed, countries, like we do for Europe currently. Questions that come up there is how we want to handle the Middle East and Australia.
    Overall, this section is a mess, since the prevailing !votes on yes Singapore and no France aren't being enforced in the actual article, and there's some conflicts between different parts of this discussion e.g. on the UK. The article itself is looking okay, but the disconnect between that and the talk page here needs to be remedied. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transition to excerpts

    Woah, Sophivorus, could you slow down a bit? I endorse switching to excerpts, but the "domestic response" sections need to reflect a careful balance so as not to make this already-overlong article more bloated, as is reflected with all the discussion above here. Switching to excerpts for various European countries seems to be making the sections on a bunch of European countries way too long and switching the images to maps (which we don't want, since we already have a map of Europe, and we need some variety). (The edit history is pretty complex, so apologies if it's not your edits that are introducing the changes.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just undid the change to an excerpt for the Europe section, which introduced a bunch of redundant language. It's fine for the lead of the Europe article to state that the pandemic started in China, but not at all okay for the article here to state it in the Europe section where it has no relevance. There are similar issues in the other excerpts — please fix them or self-revert until a better way to implement the excerpts can be found. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I fixed the links to this article in the intros of the articles about Spain, Germany and France, which causes them to show as plain text here. It could be argued that saying "2020-19 coronavirus pandemic" in each case is still a bit redundant, but weighting the benefits of the excerpts against that tiny prose redundancy yields a clear answer, at least on my scale. I hope you'll agree? Else let me know. I also went through the three domestic response excerpts (Spain, Germany and France) and managed to condense the intros, but I think I'm reaching the limit. Each has approximately one paragraph about the arrival and early stages of the outbreak, one paragraph about the government response and general evolution of the drama, and one paragraph about the current numbers. Can any of that be left out, either here or there? Sophivorus (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: Okay, thanks for the edits! Going through them now... The Europe intro paragraph looks much better from the perspective of this article, although I think the editors at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe might have reasonable concerns that the intro there is now too short. If they do, we'll have to reassess, since it's a tricky and possibly impossible balance — the proper length of the intro there is probably longer than the acceptable length of a section here. Also, do you know how we might be able to change the map back to a case count rather than a death count and make it larger? I'm personally fine with a death count, but I was overruled by a prevailing consensus here to continue using primarily case counts, and we need to respect that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: Looking at the sections for Spain, France, and Germany, I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to use excerpts. There's a lot of lines like On 12 March, president of France Emmanuel Macron announced on public television that all schools and all universities would close from Monday 16 March until further notice. That's appropriate for the lead of the France article and shouldn't be removed from there, but it's just too much detail for here. If we announced every school closure in every country as big/bigger than France in that format, it'd take up a large portion of the article. Instead, what we were doing was condensing all the education info into the education section, which notes broad things like the percentage of the world population out of school, and mostly keeping it out of the smaller country sections. The France section is now four paragraphs with a map, which is just way too much; it was previously one paragraph with no map as of yesterday. Above, five out of seven editors !voted to have no specific section on France at all, and although that probably changes within the context of a section on Europe, such a major expansion severely infringes on that consensus. I could see some use for judicious fragments here and there, but wholesale replacements of sections with excerpted leads of other articles just adds way too much. This page is way too long as is, and we need to be slimming it wherever we can, not adding to it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging RealFakeKim: since this is a significant change, it'd helpful to have a third opinion, and if my memory serves me right you helped draft some of the country sections. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed Europe's map from the death count to the case count. As to the length of the excerpts of the countries, I think the intros can be condensed some more (of course editors there may disagree, but maybe not). However, if the requirement here is one paragraph per country, then the only way to keep excerpts would be to craft the first paragraph of each lead as needed here (which arguably would be useful there too, because the most important information should always go first, in my opinion) and then excerpt just the first paragraph. This would be doable, I think, or at least worth a try. However, maybe it's the wrong approach and we should rather improve the intros of the continents and excerpt only those. In any case, I'd like to mention that while doing what I did, I noticed several instances of outdated information, both here and in the subarticles, so we should also take that into consideration when deciding whether on not to give up on excerpts. Anyway, I agree, lets wait for a third voice. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With your comment on outdated information if you use excerpts it's only one thing that's outdated not two, potentially with different information, so I think they are best for keeping information constant. Although the section might have a better flow if they are written to specifically fit the section not being the lead of a few countries. Overall I think excerpts worked fine in the section but you shouldn't rely on them in the article. Also, don't change too much in the countries article to suit the section. The article comes first! — RealFakeKimT 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: As I said above, I think moving toward continents rather than countries is largely the right direction at this point. Regarding the overall situation, I'm still seeing a lot that needs to be remedied. Countries like Germany should not have a dedicated map, especially when countries like Italy do not; the wider variety of photos that used to be there were better (the article has plenty enough maps). And the map of Europe is still too small. I hope I'm not coming across as overly picky or grouchy — as you know from my engagement at the excerpt template page and use of them elsewhere, I support the work you're doing spreading them. But it's very important you understand that, especially for an article this heavily trafficked, there's a lot of work that's gone into fine-tuning the sections here. Just staying on the maps, yesterday, for instance, I requested and implemented a case map for Europe that was red, rather than blue, so it could be standardized with the other red case maps in this article. It's very frustrating to see that, along with many many other changes, undone in the course of a unilateral switch to excerpts, and to then have to put in additional work just to get the article back to where it was before. I understand that it's not always clear why things are the way they are, and I sympathize that this talk page is extremely long with a gazillion archives, but still, if you want to come in here and start switching to excerpts in a whole bunch of sections, it's incumbent on you to take more care to ensure that the excerpts will be at least as good as the sections they are replacing, and to come to talk to get consensus before switching to excerpts that introduce significant changes. I hope that's a reasonable ask. – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I changed the map at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Europe for the red version. Agree with the rest, cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sophivorus: I just added a transclusion to the middle of the lead where there was some nearly identical text between here and coronavirus disease 2019. It appears to have introduced an unwanted paragraph break between "two to 14 days" and "common symptoms", though. How do we resolve that? And any progress on getting the Europe map back to size? That's absolutely not an issue that can be safely ignored — it needs to be big enough that it's reasonably useful without needing to click on it, and right now the scale is miniscule and the smaller countries are hard to see (it definitely shouldn't be smaller than the China map). This issue has now been present for about 48 hours, which means that around two million readers have viewed the inferior version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And sorry to keep harping on the section lengths, but I just checked the number of page scrolls (the official section size counts above don't reflect excerpts), and Europe is about 3.5, whereas the entire rest of the world is 4.5. That's definitely way too much focus on Europe, even considering that it's the current epicenter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I just replaced the excerpted map for a not-excerpted bigger version. Regarding the section sizes, I don't know what to do. Sophivorus (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sophivorus: I think the ultimate solution for section sizes will be converting to continents rather than countries, but for now, I replaced the maps for Germany and France with photos, so at least that issue is resolved. For the unwanted paragraph break in the lead section, could we introduce a parameter to Template:Excerpt that uses span rather than div? I think that's the only way to solve it if I'm reading the code right. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I added the parameter myself and fixed the paragraph break issue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should India be added?

    India's entire country lockdown has been quite impactful and phenomenal, despite not having as many cases. NoNews! 03:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You can always add India to the list above and see if others agree or disagree with its inclusion. Personally I think not just yet, as cases reported are still low. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we switch the lead infobox map from cases per capita to deaths per capita?

    Per Metropolitan's arguments here, the death count is a better metric at this point of the severity of a pandemic in a given region than the case count, since the latter is highly dependent on the region's testing capacity. Accordingly, I propose that we switch to using the deaths per capita map as the top map in the infobox, with the others collapsed beneath. Sdkb (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. For months, we have focused on case counts. I see no compelling argument to change this right now. I understand that testing is not being evenly applied across regions but the case count (and cases per million) is the best number we have right now to measure the extent to which the pandemic has impacted each region. And testing volumes are increasing dramatically everywhere. Death rates are greatly influenced by each region's healthcare system quality and capacity. I'd oppose changing for now. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to look at it might be that we want the map to reflect the fact that some countries' weaker healthcare systems are leading to higher death counts there. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The current stage of the crisis is of a different nature than what it was in january, requiring us to change our perception on this. Some countries such as South Korea or Germany have tested at a very large scale, even people with very mild symptoms or no at all [1]. However, in many other countries such as Italy, Spain, France or the UK, healthcare systems are totally overwhelmed and the testing capacity is saturated. Testing is limited only to the most serious cases and healthcare workers [2]. As a result, the number of confirmed cases reported daily remains steady, not because we're nearing its peak but simply because there's no testing capacity to report more. Using this metric as the main one can easily lead to very fallacious conclusions about the maturity and intensity of the epidemics from a country to another. Obviously deaths count has its own bias as well [3], yet, very sadly, the number of deaths will never reach any saturation point like testing does. As such, reported deaths remain, despite its flaws, a much better metric to get an idea about the intensity of the epidemic in each country. Therefore, it would seem wiser to use the deaths metric as the ranking by default on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data table. Metropolitan (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these concerns can be fairly addressed with a footnote. We're already seeing death-to-case ratios vary by an order of magnitude from one country to the next so I really don't think counting deaths is a fair indicator of anything. Testing capacity limits are rapidly being resolved and cheaper and faster tests will come to market over the next few weeks. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The first map is based off a recent consensus formed here. It's to early from that to change it in my opinion. — RealFakeKimT 14:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @RealFakeKim: When I formulated the question for that RfC, you'll notice that I referred only to "per capita" vs. "total", and left out the word "cases". That was a deliberate choice, since I anticipated we might at some point want to switch to using death counts instead. I'll leave it to others with more medical/statistical experience to decide what the best approach is at this point (I haven't been persuaded to wed myself to one or the other yet), but I don't think that that RfC should be used as an argument against switching. The other maps RfC might serve as a slightly better precedent, but it was a little muddled since it was asking about per capita vs. totals/cases vs. deaths/collapsed vs. uncollapsed all at the same time. Plus it was started over a week ago, which is meaningful given how rapidly the situation is evolving. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Death is not the only consequence of the disease, and the constant fixation on the fatality rate in the media can likely be of partial blame for the complacency seen among the general public (e.g. "It's no big deal, only 3.5% die!" or "Don't worry, only boomers and retirees die!"). There are plenty of infected patients that do not die, but end up in ICU and require emergency intervention, not to mention we don't fully understand the long-term chronic implications of the disease yet (e.g. lung tissue scarring, and whether or not patients are able to eventually regain most of their pre-infection lung capacity). The spotlight needs to be on infection, and not excessively on cases of death. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an incredibly important point. I'd also add that as treatment improves in coming weeks and months, the death rate will become a weaker and weaker indicator of the pandemic's reach. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per capita confirmed cases were always dependant on testing capacity, and as the pandemic continues and countries like the US fail to increase testing capacity, the numbers quickly become misleading. Unfortunately, deaths are not subject to the same issues of testing capacity; we could test no one and the rate of reported deaths would remain the same. Given the known issues with testing capacity in many countries and the growing death toll, per capita deaths are a better representation of the extent of the pandemic. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't this depend on the country's (or local provincial) specific procedures? If there is little to no testing capability for cadavers, then if an untested patient dies, wouldn't the cause of death be recorded as unrelated pneumonia? If the local provincial/national policy was to cremate all pneumonia-case bodies, tested or untested, would they record all bodies as coronavirus cases? --benlisquareT•C•E 02:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. The testing capacity required to have an accurate count of deaths is much lower than the testing capacity required to have an accurate count of infections. If we ballpark the death rate at 3%, you'd need 30 times more testing to identify 90% of confirmed case than you would need to identify every death (and that's assuming we never test someone without the disease). It also is more likely that in regions with limited testing capacity, tests will be limited to severe cases which are also the ones most likely to die, so cases that lead to death are more likely to be identified well before actual death. I find it unlikely that covid19 deaths will go misreported as pneumonia-related deaths since every doctor in the world is on the lookout for patients with pneumonia-like symptoms. Even if there are the occasional errors, the much greater error is using data we know represents testing capacity and not infection rates and then tell readers that it represents infection rates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In some countries, the number of deaths counted depends on testing, so the whole point is moot. For example, in Iran, it is said that they classed the deaths as pneumonia or other causes if they had not been tested for the virus. Hzh (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As @Wugapodes: stated. The readers want to make sure these details are there for them to see. We cant have anymore misinfomation or missing detail on such heavily worked topic. Regice2020 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Death is only one of the possible symptoms of COVID-19. People who spend days in ICU and place a significant stain on the healthcare system are also to be accounted for. The main map should reflect the spread of COVID-19, not the number of respirators available to save people. Moreover, countries that under-report the number of cases often also under-report the number of death. Of course if the global consensus goes towards death per capita map, then we should follow it!Raphaël Dunant (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Is the most object quantity (with least amount of uncertainty) Voorlandt (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per Raphael Dunant--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Death numbers are much more comparable between countries. Also: We should always prioritize numbers per capita over absolute numbers.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No good reason to change it, especially as the death rates appear to vary considerably between countries, over ten times the difference in some cases (e.g. very low in Germany but very high in Italy). Hzh (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The above is likely explained by Germans testing much more than Italians by now. The above is a reason to prioritize the death map, not because deaths are the only important thing, but because deaths are probably a better basis for an estimate of the real cases than the confirmed cases are; both confirmed deaths and confirmed cases are subject to incomplete testing, but deaths would seem less so. Ideally, show both per capita maps and drop the map with absolute numbers, and then it will be no longer so important which of the two maps is prioritized. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, since some countries don't count deaths they haven't tested, they simply attribute deaths to other causes like pneumonia, therefore death number would also be unreliable. Hzh (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too soon. There will come a time. But right now for a current event what is more of interest is the infections/infection rate. --Calthinus (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The per capita map just needs its ranges tweaked or added to. It's far too homogeneous in colour to be helpful at conveying the data. Worse, it might be misleading, implying some countries have similar rates when it's anything but. If you're going to lead with that map you at least need to include the specific numbers in the following chart because, as it stands, it requires users to look all of the information up themselves and do the math.135.23.106.211 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The article should switch to using a harmonic mean of infection rates, hospitalization rates, intubation rates, and fatality rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.111.74 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The deaths per capita, although comes with its own biases, is a better indicator of the effect on the region and is less affected by the saturated testing capacity in many regions.--17jiangz1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as per 17jiangz1 and others. The cases figure is known to be all over the place because of different approaches to testing from country to country. It could be off by more than an order of magnitude. Deaths, while still having some differences in recording, are much more comparable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The reasons given above are strong and convincing. Cases are nowhere near as reliable a statistic as deaths. The only valid argument I see in opposition is that a pandemic is not characterised by deaths but by cases. While this is true, one could argue that the impact of a pandemic is indeed better characterised by deaths. I feel that argument ends up being a 50/50 about what is considered important, with equal validity to those who say deaths are more important and those who say cases are more important. With equality on that argument, and the reliability argument favouring heavily the use of deaths as a metric, I definitely support this change.Wikiditm (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per others' comments. I don't see how "for months, we have focused on case counts, why should we switch now" is a good argument. If you have focused on the wrong thing for months, shouldn't that be an incentive to focus on the better measure immediately? Once cases become the better measure again, you can always switch back. Only tangentially related: in the "Deaths" section, can someone explain to me the difference between "death-to-case ratio" and case fatality rate? The section makes it seem like those are two distinct measures, but (and I am not an expert), to me they seem to be the same thing...? Felix.winter2010 (talk) 8:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Support - The cases map is certainly misleading, as it makes the most efficient countries like Germany and South Korea look like problem cases. Quite the opposite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Case count is largely meaningless as a means of comparing the epidemic in two countries, due to the huge discrepancy in testing regimes. It's comparing apples to oranges. The death count, although not completely consistent (some countries may be less likely to test for COVID in a postmortem than others, for example), is certainly much better than case count, because most deaths will be recorded unlike many stay-at-home-and-isolate cases which are not.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument simply doesn't make sense. Countries that don't test much, whether on the living or the dead, won't register deaths as being due to Covid-19. I'm not sure why people would also assume that post-mortem test is something even done in most countries (I would think most countries don't do it when even rich countries like Germany don't). This is in addition to countries that have been accused of deliberately downplaying the number of deaths. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The countries that test less focus their small number of tests, and they focus them on people who are more likely to carry the disease; that's the idea. In such countries, covid-infected people are more likely to escape testing than covid-infected dying people (dying of covid or with covid.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still the same problem - those who don't test won't assign the deaths to Covid-19, I have no idea why people assume that those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19. For example, in China people who died from flu for many years were attributed to other reasons, giving China an unusually low death count compared to other countries - [4]. Hzh (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My post does not suggest that "those who died would be automatically attributed to Covid-19", nor is it concerned with "those who don't test" but rather with those who focus their tests, and the only non-focused tests would be random-sampled tests from general population with no pre-selection bias. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both – because deaths lag cases by several weeks, but also they are arguably the more reliable statistic. Countries like S Korea and Germany have kept things under control by much more extensive testing which gives comparatively high case figures. I maintain the graphs of new cases and daily deaths on this page and lacking any better measure I use the weighted average of the two figures to pick the top 5 countries. If a statistician can suggest a better combination I'm open to it. Chris55 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought about it for a few minutes, it's probably better to use the geometric mean. Chris55 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't make sense to take the mean of two statistics which aren't independent.Wikiditm (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pets and tigers

    Various sources reports that cats can be infected with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I think there should be a section about this as virus spreads between species! – Vilnisr T | C 06:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a source [5]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The direct source is this. Rather belongs to the virus itself, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The cats appear to be asymtpomatic. Brandmeistertalk 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, these cats were infected directly with syringes. Unless you have a cat who can work a plunger and has serum handy and hates you, your species should be fine. Fine sucking up its cats' faces, anyway (but if you kiss two cats, have the decency to wash up between them). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seen this: "Pets or other livestock may test positive but can't pass on coronavirus to humans". I've checked both sources and they don't state this as far as I can tell. The statements I do see are:
    • Coronaviruses that infect animals can sometimes be spread to people, but this is rare.
    • We do not have evidence that companion animals, including pets, can spread COVID-19.
    • Pet cats and dogs cannot pass the new coronavirus on to humans, but they can test positive for low levels of the pathogen if they catch it from their owners.
    None of these statements equates to saying that no species of pet or livestock whatsoever can possibly pass the virus onto humans. Clearly there's no way every species can have been studied in sufficient detail to reach this conclusion. Furthermore, there are warnings out there that inanimate objects can carry the virus; if this is true then surely almost any animal could carry it just the same? — Smjg (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just modified the section header above to include tigers, as the Bronx tiger has come and gone several times over the last 48 hours. I think it's a distraction, it doesn't belong on a page which documents a disease which has (so far) killed a hundred thousand humans, and there is no evidence that this event is significant. But I don't want to start a war! User:-sche, User:RayDeeUx, User:Mx._Granger please comment! Robertpedley (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, Robertpedley. I feel that we could touch upon the Bronx Zoo tiger in the main article (it is a first for confirmed cases of animals with COVID-19 after all), and if the situation for COVID-19 worsens for pets/animals, we could make a See also notice leading to a smaller article focusing on COVID-19's effects on pets and animals above it and add more content in there. Cheers, u|RayDeeUxcontribtalk page 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Maybe the information would fit better in the Coronavirus disease 2019 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had cut the mention of the tiger down to a three-word parenthetical (which could alternatively be reworked to e.g. "Pets, a tiger and other animals..."), since I respect the argument that a tiger being sick is not per se relevant to transmission (the justification I saw for it being removed), and not "due" three whole sentences. I did leave the three-word mention, since people had kept adding mentions of it, but I don't mind it being cut out. I did, as a separate matter but using some related sources, add a clause and some references which are on-topic for a "Transmission" section, briefly noting that transmission from humans to animals infrequently seems to occur, complimenting the existing statement that animal-to-human transmission is not evidenced. I do think having a single sentence about both of those kinds of transmission is appropriate, for a section on transmission. -sche (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, there is no evidence that cats, dogs, or tigers have contributed to the transmission of the pandemic, so any mention on this page should be kept to a minimum, at least until more evidence is available.[[6]] The tiger, in particular, grabbed the headlines for a couple of days but no-one cuddles a tiger.
    I agree with Granger that it's a characteristic of the virus so it's worthy of a mention in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
    COVID-19 is a human disease, it doesn't belong there.
    So I propose to trim the sentence back to "pets and other animals" if no-one objects. Robertpedley (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross-linking a related discussion, #Animals, where someone has pointed out that the UK advises handwashing after animal contact (I'll add that with the ref given there) (because, it seems, animals may not transmit the virus to humans themselves, but an infected person petting an animal and them an uninfected person petting the animal could). -sche (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Video

    Video summary (script)

    Wondering peoples thoughts? The script can be edited easily and the video updated easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • video is very good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is any consensus to incorporate the video into the lede of the article at all, nevertheless it was added by Doc James twice, which is not covered by WP:BRD any more).
    We are an encyclopedia, not a video site. Foremostly, our medium is text enriched with static illustrations. While an occasional animation is okay (as is, IMHO, a link to a quality video in the External Links section), many people consider "moving" contents a distraction and annoyance. If a video would be actually needed to convey the message, it means that we failed in our core discipline to explain the topic in prose.
    In the case of videos, users not having suitable plugins installed and scripting enabled may f.e. just see a large empty box instead of a video. This looks very odd, in particular in the lede of a high-profile article such as this one. It completely ruins the page layout and makes people stop reading the article beyond the lede. I would appreciate for the video to be removed again. (A link to it under EL would be fine with me.)
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps finding an accurate number for the amount of students currently enrolled and comparing it to the number on the UNESCO site would work Sam1370 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is still the number of total students affected on the site, so doing some arithmetic should allow us to get the correct number Sam1370 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sdkb Thanks for the info. Sorry — should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Herd Immunity

    The article states that 60 to 70% people need to get infected and survive the disease in order for the community to reach herd immunity. In reality it is "get infected and survive, or get vaccinated". (The percentage depends on R0). The alternative of vaccination should be mentioned.

    --Stefanhanoi (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You’re very right. This is a glaring oversight, and I went ahead and made the change. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is no vaccine (in reality, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone you. Sources don't mention an alternative. BBC didn't mention immunity. Does the Drosten interview really mention 70%? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that right now, right here, it’s a pipe dream. But I’ve read some estimates of a year and a half, which compared to older times, ain’t bad.
    And I’m going to invite the other people who have commented to this discussion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two million years of catching the old coronaviruses colours me less optimistic. But yeah, fingers crossed! For now, though, let's reflect current outlooks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @FriendlyRiverOtter: Actually, there is theoretically a third option: Cross-immunity (not yet detected for SARS-CoV-2, but not to be excluded).
    The article mentions only one way to get to herd immunity. The question is: Sticking with the article, or give all the possible ways how to achieve eventually herd immunity. Stefanhanoi (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about listing the major ways, backed up with references? As our article currently stands, even if an elementary school student were to read this part . . I think you see what I’m saying. To me, a glaring oversight, but maybe not every feels this way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ————

    @Stefanhanoi:, @MiasmaEternal: and @CRGreathouse: should we cover vaccination the same time we talk about herd immunity, and if so, how? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused, because I was about to say we need to account of natural immunity in the population, I read a research that postulated 20% and I'm expecting even more immunity. But I just fell on a WHO conference where it is said "no one have immunity" is that backed by any solid evidence ? Iluvalar (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the research has been done, nor has there been time or resources to test a sufficient sample of the non-infected population. There is also the fact that it seems some people can be infected, but show no symptoms. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, we should wait for further research on vaccination (the vaccines currently in development are in Phase I trials, so we won't know for some time whether they work on humans), while herd immunity has been extensively covered. But I'm not a medical expert, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Our opinions are great, don't get me wrong, but maybe we just look for a published expert opinion on whether up to 70% of some population or another could, should or must be vaccinated for herd immunity to do its thing, then cite that publication (alternatively, don't make any such claims up through consensus). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the current sentence intended to be a general explanation of how herd immunity is achieved? If so, then yes, it's a large percentage of a population gaining immunity through infection or vaccination. See measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pertussis, diphtheria, etc. Or is it intended to be some kind of a solution? If so, I haven't heard any reputable medical sources endorse this as a good idea without factoring in vaccination. I'd recommend deleting the paragraph and rewriting with better sourcing. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the sentence to be Patrick Vallance's specifically British advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vallance's advice was never mainstream and it seems like he has backed off the idea. If we're presenting his old ideas, we should qualify it with the current general consensus that it was considered by many to be a bad idea. Good article here explaining this a little more. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't attribute anything to "many", though, name names. On that note, Matt Hancock backed off in your article. He's not Vallance. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are about 500 here and another 680 here. Another letter from the British Society for Immunology here. In contrast to herd immunity, the current mainstream recommendation is to gradually move from mitigation to control by dramatically expanding rapid testing. Then ultimately solve this with a vaccine in the next two years. I don't believe this is a pipe dream given current technology and the resources going into vaccine development. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be some herd immunity here: 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships. DMBFFF (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough one. Some readers will read article in a very here-and-now frame of mind and want a good deep dive of the present. On the other hand, with the current statement “estimated that 60% of the British population will need to become infected,” well, even a 10-year-old child might ask, how about vaccine? So, we do both.
    And if different scientists give different estimates, that’s real world and a good thing and we include the range.
    And if this Patrick Vallance guy gives wild card advice, we should say so, whatever his position with the UK government. I mean, if there are people speaking against his predictions, we should cover that as matter-of-factly as anything else. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scientifically speaking, he's not crazy. But from a public health standpoint, a government policy based on his counsel would be. Because unlike in natural science land, civilized peoples put their dying in intensive care units, near overwhelmable and essential medical pros. So acting naturally like the country's top scientist suggests Britain could would destroy civilization. That's the major gripe from the "vaccines are possible sometime later" crowd. Civilized people don't want to die alone, disconnected from technology. And public health officials are overwhelmingly pro-hospital, so herd immunity is controversial, not merely bonkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes think people from a more academic background run into trouble because they feel compelled to list every possibility. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenophobia and Racism

    In the above section, can we add the repeated mention of SARS-COV2 as Chinese virus by Donald Trump as a form of racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitaphul (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, "Chinese" refers to place of origin. A form of placism. Better known as nationalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so under which section should we mention this fact? I mean I still think this is racism. Check out the following article: [3]Sitaphul (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Sitaphul 05:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is discussed on the Xenophobia and racism pandemic topic page. The related section in this topic is just meant to be a brief summary of that topic. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump's a racist, but the term isn't. I'd call it the "PRC virus" or "Xi Jinping Virus" or maybe the "XJV." In wikt:Wiktionary:Requested entries (English), I've requested wikt:Trump virus. DMBFFF (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Trump's own accounting of his motivation for using the term, it was more political than anything else. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole Trump-CNN-opinion triangle is thoroughly documented in most articles about Trump, if you're looking for agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump may well be a racist, but his reason for calling this the Chinese Virus is to pander to the racists who think he's on their side. Fomenting racism and division wins votes. It's an old strategy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also can't think of it as the American virus if it's the Chinese virus, making America (seem) great again. Older strategy than the slogan, even. Passing the buck, the kids used to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a very old strategy. I mentioned Trump, but politicians in almost every country have used it and still do. I see it as similar to politicians play the Law And Order(!!!!) card. We do mention when politicians do that, in a diplomatic way. There is no reason not to say they are playing the Race card. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason. The kids now say "race" to mean skin colour, nose shape and dick size. The Big Orange One is playing a more social, economic and cultural race card here. White supremacists may get on board that train, but only because it's compatible with modern racist views, not flat-out appealing to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already there: U.S. president Donald Trump has faced criticism for referring to the coronavirus as the "Chinese Virus", a term considered by some critics to be racist and anti-Chinese. That wording is fine, and any proposed significant changes to it should be discussed and consensus reached before being implemented. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did just make one small tweak, removing the word "some" that someone had added, as it's redundant. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be tightened to "Critics called U.S. President Donald Trump's term 'Chinese virus' racist and anti-Chinese." Trump "facing" it isn't exactly an activity. Mostly dodges it, truth be told. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/world/americas/brazil-bolsonaro-coronavirus.html
    2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/03/826675439/corpses-lie-for-days-as-ecuador-struggles-to-keep-up-with-covid-19-deaths
    3. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/24/politics/us-china-coronavirus-disinformation-campaign/index.html

    Wrong info

    Moved to Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data § How to denote missing data

    Countries/Territories

    The current count is 223 countries/territories + 4 ships. This should be reflected both in the stats box and in the info box at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please provide a source for this? We are currently using worldometers.info.
    Sam1370 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ships don't count as their own respective territories, they belong to the territory they are currently in. There is no reason for it to be placed in the infobox. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 08:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant by that is that it makes no sense to show 209 in the infobox and 225 in the table, it should be the same number in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Animals

    Related discussions: pets and tigers & in animals

    The mainstream media has reported cases of coronavirus in animals. It's important enough for this article to have a section about it. Jim Michael (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    it may be more appropriate in the disease article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd want to see a truly reliable source saying it's a scientific fact, not just "reports", or ""claimed", or anything weak like that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Over a million animals have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. What's more interesting is whether or not non-human animals, in particular non-human vertebrates, have been lab-confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 positive. But that would be more likely to be relevant to an associated page, such as the disease article, not this one. Boud (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a section about coronavirus in animals in both coronavirus disease 2019 and this article. It's part of this outbreak as well as the disease. Jim Michael (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Animals don't have a choice. If they're not happy with their place in the world, too bad. They have to live the life they've been given. Humans, on the other hand, don't have to. We have a choice." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, the idea of "pandemic" is what separates us from them. They don't get the social deal, even if they catch the disease. And if they're not contributing to the human numbers, they should stay the hell out of our pandemic, sorry-not-sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If animals are infected, they're part of the pandemic. Jim Michael (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they counted in the confirmed cases, the hospitalizations, the deaths or the recoveries like "we" are? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually not. However, I'm not suggesting that they be included in the article's table on those stats. I'm saying that now we have mainstream, reliable sources (such as the BBC) stating that animals have tested positive for COVID-19, our article should have a short section about this pandemic having spread to animals. Without it, the article gives the impression to readers that only humans have it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still sceptical. While on most matters the BBC is an excellent source, this is a medical matter, and all the BBC will be doing is quoting somebody else. What matters is who that "somebody else" is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiger at Bronx Zoo tests positive for Covid-19 Jim Michael (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "...experts have stressed there is no evidence they can become sick or spread the disease." Just like us, right? Start a new article for the supposed beast pandemic once WOAH declares it, Jim, leave the WHO stuff to the humans. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, we have for some time already had one single (referenced) sentence noting that while animals can test positive and there is a low but documented possibility the virus can be transmitted to them, they cannot transmit it to humans or thus spread the pandemic. IMO, having this one short sentence in the "Transmission" section of our 345,000 byte article is reasonable. (See also discussion above.) I do not think we need a whole "section", though. -sche (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, both american CDC and OIE (WOfAH) have advises about animals:
    Also with British cats it is needed to wash (human) hands before and after any cat contact https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-for-people-with-animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.241 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point; I've seen other sources note that an infected person touching an animal and then an uninfected person touching it could transmit the virus like touching any other surface could. I'll add a brief mention of that with your last source and one other. -sche (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We need an accurate source for the number of learners affected by the coronavirus

    This number was previously reported as 97% on this page, and 98% on the impact of coronavirus page. I don’t know where these figures came from, so in an earlier edit I corrected the data using information from the original UNESCO source. However, I reread the UNESCO page and it said that this 91.3% figure only corresponded to the number of nationwide learners and not the learners in total. If you find a way to get accurate information on this topic please reply immediately.

    Sam1370 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sam1370: Alright I fixed it using cross multiplication. Someone let me know if the explanatory footnote is too unprofessional and needs to be edited. Sam1370 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam1370: I was the one who updated it from 91% to 97%. I forget exactly what my source was — I think it was UNESCO at the time — but it was in the body in the education section, and that section has since been turned into an excerpt, so it's hard to tell the history (I just spent too long trying haha). Anyways, I see you've interpreted the UNESCO current data and come to 99.4%, which seems a lot closer to the mark. It probably depends a bit on what you define as "affected", but any number below 95% I'd be skeptical of at this point as out of date or incomplete. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    @Sdkb: Thanks for the info. Sorry — should have looked over the UNESCO article more carefully the first time, then I would have realized it only applied to nationwide learners and the information would have been updated correctly the first time. Sam1370 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam1370: No worries! And re the note, it's not ideal, since it's more targeted at editors who might be tempted to change the number than readers. Could we change it to a hidden comment instead? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: Sure, I’ll do that. Sam1370 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Showing death counts without per capita is a disgrace

    I increasing think that showing covid-positive death counts without showing per capita figures is a disgrace and must stop. If you cannot publish per capita figures alongside, or at least average all-cause daily deaths in the region (say in 2017, we have data for that), don't show any counts at all and delegate that publishing task to sources that can do that.

    (A similar discussion was Talk:2019–20 coronavirus_pandemic/Archive 27#Putting per capita figures into the article. It did not get anywhere. Something must be done. This must stop.)

    --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Polansky: Absolute death counts per country and territory is one of the two figures, along with confirmed cases, that can be found in every single reliable source (WP:RS) publishing worldwide statistics about COVID-19: World Health Organization, ECDC, Reuters, The New York Times, Bloomberg, BBC, El País, Berliner Morgenpost, South China Morning Post and Johns Hopkins University, just to name a few. --MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying myself from before regarding the table data:

    I support this per Dan Polansky's rationale. It's not as vital as it is with the maps, since there's not the misleading implication that a measure of density is being displayed, but it'd still be very useful information for readers. Regarding how to implement, though, the table would need a new column each for cases, deaths, and recoveries, and there's definitely not room for three more columns, even if we move the references to the name column (which I think we should do regardless—there's no need for them to have their own column). Instead, I'd favor including a separate table in the article with the per capita counts.

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb: I agree it is useful in the maps, which we already have. If we add a new table, I would suggest that it is updated at most once a day based on WHO Situation Reports. Or calculate it automatically based on data from {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}. I don't think we have the capacity to keep up with real-time updates manually for yet another table. See the statistics for the current table: 15,808 total edits, 2,570 in the last 7 days. --MarioGom (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: the population data is pretty stable (let's hope), so yeah, it could be calculated automatically once set up. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to add daily all-case deaths per region as a column, for a recent year for which we have data. I know of data for 2017. Then, we won't need to recalculate and keep updating anything: the figures are of past (say 2017) and once entered, will need no update at all. And it will provide all the context that is required, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, that's not the way that epidemics work. They start in small communities in each country however large the country. Do remember that this one started in the country with the largest population in the world and they managed to essentially contain within one fairly small province. In the US by contrast it has taken hold in many states across the nation (9 states with more than 10,000 cases and 26 more with more than 1,000) reflecting the uncertain way in which the government reacted. Chris55 (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I output relevant results at B:User:Dan_Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths in context. This or some other context data needs be added to the table to prevent a disgrace. I need something like consensus to expand the table. The table needs some context. Let's be professional and uphold some minimum ethical standards for publishing epidemiological data. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the data item for China is pretty meaningless because of the dilution; we would need average daily deaths for Wuhan, and average daily deaths for Lombardy; data to my hands, please. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's do a little exercise and consider Italy: 17127 covid-positive deaths; 1667 average daily 2017 deaths. Let us assume (wrongly) that the covid-positive deaths are covid-additional deaths. Let us assume that the Italian covid-additional deaths were generated during 30 days. We get 570 covid-additional deaths per day beyond the baseline 1667 deaths per day. Let's go further: Italy has 5 ventilators per 100 000 ppl while Germany has 30 per 100 000 ppl, per W:Template:Hospital beds by country and W:List of countries and dependencies by population; please double check that I got the division right. Better look specifically at Lombardy: what are the covid-positive deaths there, what are the average daily deaths in 2017 there, how many ventilators there per 100 000 ppl, and how many ICU beds there (7 ICU beds per 100 000 ppl per [7]); I don't have the other data now. Let's look at the data; there is a lot to see there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which leads us to the following falsifiable (and hence scientific) hypothesis:
    The covid outbreak has only moderately severe health outcomes, and the outcomes are moderately severe only in regions with poor ICU bed counts per capita, poor ventilator counts per capita or too high pre-covid load of these resources in percentual terms; in other regions, covid is pretty much a non-event healthwise.
    What are the data items refuting the above hypothesis? Maybe there are; I don't know; I know nothing or close to nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the table should include per capita incidence & death rate - this will show for example that Belgium & Switzerland are proportionately much more severely affected than the US. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. And yet, Switzerland's weekly total deaths[8], while showing something like covid-driven growth in the last weeks, show nothing worse than what was seen in 2017, per graph in the same source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A side-effect of this pandemic will be that some causes of death will be significantly lower this year. For example, far fewer people travelling will mean that far fewer people die in transport accidents. However, this article is primarily about incidents & deaths from this virus rather than overall numbers of deaths or death rates. Jim Michael (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true. Still, the all-cause number of deaths per day or week seems to be a more reliable measure of impact of covid than the covid-positive deaths as long as these are not properly distingushed from covid-caused deaths. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, ourworldindata.org for Switzerland shows that road injuries form a small fraction of all deaths, the leading causes being cardiovascular, cancers and dementia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jim Michael: The article does include things like the mortality impact of the reduction in pollution in China, which is estimated to have saved 77,000 lives. But I take your overall point. I don't think we need to get into a bunch of complicated analysis about baseline death rates and all that to make the case for having data per capita; it's simply what you said about being able to compare Belgium and Switzerland to the U.S., and that's enough. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) Let's expand the Italy exercise: The premature deaths due to air pollution in Italy in 2016 were 76200 in total[9], which is 6350 per month. That is compared to 17127 covid-positive deaths in 2020. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still cannot see how it is so bad to report counts in the same way that is done by 11 reliable sources (see my comment above), including the World Health Organization. --MarioGom (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It is pretty obvious. I don't know why it is not obvious to those "reliable" sources. I do not find these sources reliable as for choice of manner of presentation of figures. Let's use our thinking capacity, and pay attention. Authority fallacy is a fallacy. Let's engage the brain. And let's be ethical. What these sources are doing is unethical; they probably do not realize as much, but it is unethical anyway. Anyway, I prefer #Expand the table with average daily all-cause deaths for 2017. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And some of these sources are showing graphs with case counts and death counts without test counts in the same graph or any other graph; that is also unethical, I believe. I know they are aggregating multiple data sources, but any data source they are using that provides case counts without test counts is either unreliably incompenent or has an ulterior motive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's do some calibration: at one point BBC showed a world graph with colored regions where the colors were based on absolute numbers of covid confirmed cases rather than densities. Then they stopped and started to use a different kind of graph, having learned the lesson. BBC is pretty respectable, but they also make mistakes, and it is good that they are learning from their mistakes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan Polansky: It is pretty obvious. I don't know why it is not obvious to those "reliable" sources. [...] What these sources are doing is unethical Maybe you are right. Or maybe not. In any case, this seems a perfect example of WP:GREATWRONGS. We do use cases/deaths per capita in some maps, which are already presented in some articles. There is some support by reliable sources to use per-capita counts for the purpose of colorizing maps. --MarioGom (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not too long ago, someone was claiming that per-capita maps were original research, on this talk page. What is the problem, finding reliable sources that publish per-capita? I believe ourworldindata would have published the per-capita figures alongside their maps, but I would have to look. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, I think you need to take a few hours away from the laptop. You're getting increasingly hysterical about these things, and i note that you are repeating how you personally disagree with reliable sources. That's on you. But Wikipedia uses numerous reliable sources and presents them in graph and table form. The analysis of those figures is for the reader, not the editor. You might feel very invested about adding a form of original research, or correcting what you think is a significant oversight, but ultimately, Wiki is not here to placate your fears. Take some breaths and come back without the "fire and fury". doktorb wordsdeeds 11:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing death counts without per capita is indeed a disgrace, so we ought to use per capita figures especially where the use of raw deaths would be misleading. I had to insist on the inclusion of the per capita map. But it seems that the number of declared cases and deaths may be influenced by policies in place for the pandemic. Having said that, we need to work with what we are given by our sources. It's now well-documented that two-thirds to three-quarters of deaths are people who had co-morbidities, and whether the CV actually carried them off in the end can be open to discussion. The French health chief makes a point to give comparatives from an equivalent period last year. I'm not sure that such figures are available in every territory, though. -- Ohc ¡digame! 11:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's drop the personal and focus on the substance, merits and demerits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More on substance: in physics, you have to publish numbers with units of measurement. In epidemiology, the one human death without reference to anything else is the not a meaningul unit; you must relate the numbers to some other number, or you learn almost nothing and tell almost nothing. Somewhere deep, the brain might think, look, one thousand deaths, my whole tribe was wiped out. But no, the tribes or nations are no longer 1000-strong, and the population of the world is no longer 10,000 people. The unrelated figures appeal to irrational psychological forces that originated long long time ago. Publishing such unrelated figures amounts to yellow yournalism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Expand the table with average daily all-cause deaths for 2017

    Instead of #Showing death counts without per capita is a disgrace, I propose to expand the table with average daily all-cause deaths for 2017. I have the data from ourworldindata, and since it needs no further update once the data is put there, I find this preferable. I have created a separate heading to obtain support. Please, let us publish data in proper context and maintain some basic ethics for publishing of epidemiological data. For reference: B:User:Dan_Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths in context, which gives me a good impression. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    and you believe your suggestion to be an improvement on the table as a whole?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe it is a much needed improvement. It is imperative to provide context for the death numbers. I believe it is an ethical imperative. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me give you a sample for selected countries (the only column that would be added would be 2017 Avg Daily Deaths): 

    Region       Covid-Positive Deaths    2017 Avg Daily Deaths   Ratio
Algeria                      193        436       0.44
Austria                      273        217       1.26
Belgium                     2240        285       7.86
Brazil                       688       3528       0.20
Canada                       381        730       0.52
China                       3333      28036       0.12
Denmark                      218        143       1.52
Ecuador                      220        234       0.94
France                     10328       1508       6.85
Germany                     2017       2528       0.80
India                        149      25270       0.01
Indonesia                    240       4465       0.05
Iran                        4003        993       4.03
Ireland                      210         81       2.59
Italy                      17127       1667      10.27
Mexico                       141       1936       0.07
Netherlands                 2248        393       5.72
Norway                        93        107       0.87
Peru                         107        376       0.28
Philippines                  182       1747       0.10
Poland                       136       1064       0.13
Portugal                     345        304       1.13
Romania                      209        728       0.29
South Korea                  200        811       0.25
Spain                      14555       1107      13.15
Sweden                       695        241       2.88
Switzerland                  846        168       5.04
Turkey                       725       1053       0.69
United Kingdom              6159       1597       3.86
United States              12905       7564       1.71

    --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    while it does introduce a different numerical angle youll need many more editor opinions for this to happen...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ! I love it. She should add 2 notes for context : 1) The typical death for pneumonia at this time of year is 7-8%. 2) The amount of tests done vary wildly from country to country and it's likely to be the main cause of such variation. Italy and Spain went trough a lot of tests per capita before reaching their plateau. Iluvalar (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ozzie10aaaa: Please indicate what are the substantive arguments against adding the column, and if you are opposed to adding the column, please indicate clearly that you are opposed, ideally with substantive reasoning to meet the Wikipedia consensus-building standard. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are you trying to prove? That COVID deaths aren't that significant? That COVID deaths are inflated? By putting average deaths from 2017 next to current deaths from a specific pandemic next to each other, you are creating confusion. It's adding stats for the sake of it. Nothing constructive other than wanting to feel involved by messing around, potentially dangerously, with statistics. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding this column would be original research. --MarioGom (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A very good and valid point Mario. It would be a distraction, a pointless addition which could mislead and confuse. It's best to put this idea to bed. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a dangerous interpretation of "original research". Please, let those who agree with me post their support. If anything misleads or confuses, it is the current presentation. Let those who disagree add some substantive arguments to the discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "Nothing constructive other than wanting to feel involved by messing around, potentially dangerously, with statistics": That is personal and should be stricken out. Let us focus on the substance, which is the ethics of publishing of epidemiological data. Let us discuss merits and demerits of proposals. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not WP:OR. The CDC have been plotting pneumonia cases or a "% of all deaths" for years. [10]. Iluvalar (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Formatting of sentence about xenophobia

    The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.

    Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:

    1. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and people of Asian descent. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people of Asian descent only.)
    2. ...as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots. (Sentence mentioning discrimination against people from other hotspots, but highlighting Asians.)
    3. ...while xenophobia and discrimination against various ethnic groups has increased internationally. (More ambiguous formatting not mentioning specific groups.)

    So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the sentences about misinformation/conspiracy and xenophobia/racism should probably be split in two separate sentences, since the current "as well as" formatting implies that the discrimination is happening exclusively online. --Tiiliskivi (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what's been happening in the past 24hr or so, but there have been plenty of other versions beyond those recently. When I last checked in, it was Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people. I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I am not sure why did you start a RfC before even discussing this. I wouldn't mention Xenophobia against people from "hotspots" in the lead. The Xenophobia is mainly against Asians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence originally included the words "East Asian and Southeast Asian" not "Asian". I don't know why "Asian" has been suggested when the term "Asian" refers to so many different groups. More than 1 billion Asians (most South Asians, Southeast Asians and Central Asians) aren't even experiencing any racism so to use "Asian" provides an incorrect image that suggests all Asians are facing discrimination. In Asia, itself, it is only those with Chinese (East Asian) features that have faced xenophobia and racism. It makes no sense to change it to "Asian" when only part of the Asian population has been directly affected by this. Additionally, xenophobia and racism have increased towards Westerners so this needs to be pointed out as well. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in the one at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#RfC about whether or not to include a sentence on xenophobia in the lead of that article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the implementation of option 2 into the lede. I however object to the use of "Asian". "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Sapah3 - You provided citations. I agree that we use "East Asian and Southeast Asian" as per: "and there have been numerous incidents of xenophobia and discrimination initially against Chinese people and people of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and increasingly against people from hotspots in Europe, the United States and other countries as the pandemic spreads around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this, I appreciate it. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    @Iswearius and Sapah3: I'm glad you two have found agreement on using "East and Southeast Asian". I'm fine letting that stand as the prevailing consensus unless anyone comes along arguing for just using "Asian", in which case we'll need to discuss further. Iswearius, your edit reintroducing the language also made a few other changes, some of which seem to go against best practice and/or consensus. Namely, I don't see consensus for listing out the countries after "hotspots", so I'd ask you to please (regardless of your personal view) go back to the wording that ends with "hotspots" so as to abide by WP:STATUSQUO. (I'm not comfortable reverting you myself since I've made some other reversions recently and don't want to violate WP:3RR.) You also added back the two additional references Sapah3 added, which means that there are now six citations for that sentence. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the general best practice is to have as few citations in the lead as necessary, and my understanding is that six is way too many. The Atlantic one is alright, but the Guardian one is an opinion piece and thus a pretty weak reference, so I'd ask that you or Sapah3 remove it (or at least move it to the body). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. As long as the international character of the emergent hotspots, as in the sources, is reflected.Iswearius (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your edit since the use of "increasingly" is WP:OR and the word international is redundant since hotspots can already be/already are international. Some1 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Some1. "as the pandemic spreads across the globe" also feels redundant and wordy to me. It wasn't in there originally, and since Wikipedia isn't a thesis paper we don't need to wrap up the intro with a tidy bow at the end. Iswearius or anyone else under the 3RR, would you be open to removing it for now to revert to the status quo of just ", and others from hotspot"? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: You're free to revert to Status Quo since no consensus has been reached yet and this RfC is still ongoing. Some1 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: You've edited the sentence again, going against the prevailing consensus from Some1's and my comments, and moving away from the status quo while an active discussion is taking place here. You need to stop acting unilaterally and respect the BRD process, and if you do not do so you may face sanctions. (I'm personally ambivalent about the way you rephrased — it's better than the previous attempt — but that's beside the point about adhering to process.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb - I returned to the article and found the sentence worded in a clumsy way. I simply clarified spontaneously, no offense intended. I feel, as you mentioned, this rendition is a good compromise. Otherwise, it is not clear that the emergent hotspots are not in Asia which, in accordance with the sources, they aren't. As for the incidents pointed out below by Some1, they unfortunately concerned a now indeffed sock notorious for warring.Iswearius (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Iswearius The edit you made, as pointed out by Sdkb above, still has issues with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Please stop editing the sentence until consensus is achieved. This is what this RfC/ discussion is for and if you have any suggestions, add it here and not the main text while discussion is still in progress. Sdkb, could you return it back to Status Quo? 11:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at Iswearius's recent contributions; it's full of edit warring about the xenophobia sentence in the lead of this and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked yet for their disruptive editing. Some1 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iswearius: Your rationale about why you think your version is better (which is perfectly decently argued) has no relation to the issue of whether you are willing to abide by established processes, very much including WP:STATUSQUO. You should have self-reverted. I just did so for you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb - Not at all. My suggestion is just a little something brought to the table. I wasn't aware that you were waiting for me; I was waiting for you! I leave it to debate. Although, perhaps WP:STATUSQUO may still permit "...and yet others from global hotspots".Iswearius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessarily wordy ("yet"?) and as I mention before with your edit, hotspots can be/already are global/international. The current wording of hotspots in the status quo is fine in regards to WP:WEIGHT and conciseness. Some1 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific? What part is WP:UNDUE exactly? Considering the majority of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic are incidents against Asians, more weight should be given to that in the lead per WP:DUE. SharabSalam makes a good point about xenophobia being mainly against Asians and that xenophobia against people from hotspots shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. If others want to include hotspots though, then Option 2 works best since it balances out what's due and undue. Some1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's UNDUE with regard to the significance of the issue within the article, rather than about any specific groups of people being the victim. The section devoted to it is simply too big, and any mention in the lead should also be broad and minimal. (I also don't see why panic buying should be mentioned in the lead at all). Hzh (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support option 2 and agree with Sdkb and MelanieN that adding "incidents of..." is useful for clarity. My reason for supporting option #2 is that a plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 1 is closest to the truth, but as I have elaborated on in the section below, this xenophobia isn't rational or deeply thought about. China is the bogeyman and whipping boy here, so what we have is an irrational fear of people who LOOK Chinese to the people doing the discriminating. It's no more complex than that, and we must not pretend it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to describe subset of Asians that have faced the brunt of discrimination?

    I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:

    1. ...against Chinese people, other Asians, and...
    2. ...against Chinese people, other people of Asian descent, and...
    3. ...against Chinese people, other East and Southeast Asians, and...
    4. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent, and...
    5. ...against Chinese people, other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance, and... (the loose status quo)

    Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copying Sapah3's comment from above to start this off:

      "Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
      — User:Sapah3

      {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I say that it doesn't make sense? Why include Southeast Asians when we are not talking about Malays, Indonesians and the likes? If you just say East Asians, that would include most people who look vaguely Chinese, including some of those from Southeast Asia like the Vietnamese. Hzh (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The nuances of ethnic group relations get really complex, and I don't feel qualified to judge in this case. I've put out some invites to pertinent WikiProjects, so hopefully we'll get some editors here with better expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about nuances of ethnic group relations. This is about irrational fear of people with slanty eyes. I know that term became politically incorrect back in the 1970s, and we invented inaccurate terms like "Asian" and its variations to replace it, but in these frightened times those applying this discrimination aren't thinking carefully about the ancestral and ethnic background of the people they discriminate against. China is the bogeyman here, so they discriminate against people who LOOK Chinese to THEM. Nothing more sophisticated than that. Anything more complex on our part is synthesis and original research. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I think, too. Most of the incidents occur against the Chinese or those who look Chinese. As you said, those doing the discriminating aren't thinking of the ancestral or ethnic background of the people they're discriminating against. I would suggest wording it to "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian descent and appearance..." or "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." Some1 (talk)
    Part of my point is that East Asian tends to have no meaning to the haters. It's simply China and people who look Chinese to the them who are the target. Not East Asia, which is a vague term at the best of times anyway. Some of them probably don't even know that China is in eastern Asia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you personally word it? "...against Chinese people and people who look Chinese...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese appearance...", "...against Chinese people and people of Chinese features..." or something else? Some1 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how I'd word it, but I think the words "to them" or similar need to be there. Maybe something along the lines of "...xenophobia and discrimination against people who look Chinese to those doing the discriminating". Feel free to massage those words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with what Hzh (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs) and Some1 (talk · contribs) are saying. I noticed a similar incident at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic where there was disagreement over the use of "Southeast Asian" because the Asians that have been facing discrimination are those who look Chinese and that's why other East Asians (Japanese, Koreans etc.), many Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, some Thais, some Filipinos) and a few South Asians (Indians with East Asian features) have faced discrimination because they look "Chinese". The original statement on this page and the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page was "...against Chinese people and people of East Asian appearance..." but other users came in and added "Southeast Asian". The only reason why I included "Southeast Asian" in my suggestion above was because I didn't want what happened at the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page to happen here and that included all this edit warring between different users. (Sapah3 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    I would say it's mainly against Chinese people. Some people mistakenly think some other Asians are Chinese, like Japanese etc. However, their only phobia is against Chinese. How about saying there has been increase in Sinophobia because of the coronavirus. This term is used in some sources and I think it is more suitable here. It includes Chinese culture, food etc. People have stopped editing in Chinese restaurants because of this coronavirus. Otherwise, I think discrimination against Chinese people is enough.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Sinophobia could be a good solution if we can figure out a good way to phrase it. The obvious downside is that "sinophobia" is a fancy word that not everyone will know without having to click on the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good solution to me; it avoids the Asian descent/appearance distinction problem above. Just curious how this would be added on. Is it to replace the xenophobia sentence above (which will replace the List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic link with the sinophobia link)? Some1 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) See [11], [12], [13] and many other sources in a similar vein which I have not listed. This is wider than anti-Chinese, and Sinophobia is just a handy term which doesn't quite fit the actual situation. IMO, there are at least two factors here, (1) denigration of asianish persons for anything disagreeable which can be tied to asia and (2) denigration of anyone who can be seen as different from the denigrator. (1) is a subset of (2), and WP isn't going to be able to solve that problem. Classing it as a problem without citing a supporting source could be said to be both WP:OR and WP:POV (and I'm not arguing either way here on the POV question except to observe that, if there is such a question, WP:DUE deals with that), but it could also be said that it is beyond the proper scope of this article to get into the weeds about that; WP:SS pushes that down into that article wikilinked from here, along with the question of whether that article title is POV. All of that is just my own not thoroughly thought out and not-quite-mainstream opinion. On the question posed by the header of this section, I think the current wording in the article does a pretty good job of walking that tightrope. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe."Iswearius (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." is unnecessarily wordy and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and prominence to hotspots. The "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's what the top RfC is for and so far, there's more voting for "and others from hotspots" to include hotspots, but also keep it short and concise to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues; but there's also quite a few voting to remove hotspots entirely from the lead. Some1 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some1 - I beg to differ. As MelanieN, Darouet and others have pointed out, the discrimination is not Asian specific; it has occurred, and is occurring against people from major global hotspots, such as New York and Italy, as per the article "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic".Iswearius (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's occurring, I never said it wasn't. As I stated above, "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" against Chinese people/people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance/etc. are far greater [in numbers] and widespread (per the news sources) than "incidents of xenophobia and discrimination" "against people from emergent hotspots." That's why if we're including hotspots in the lead, then Option 2 with "and others from hotspots" works since it avoids WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues (and Option 2 is what MelanieN and Darouet voted for, with Darouet stating in their vote: "plurality or majority of these incidents have been directed against Asians, but there are also examples of others being targeted."). Some1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the proposed rendition of the sentence, there are already twice as many words supporting the Asian component (Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese) as there are supporting the hotspots (emergent hotspots around the globe). I feel that is sufficient. Let us not belittle the suffering of thousands.Iswearius (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in your proposed rendition, it's "against the Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese" versus "as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe". That's giving WP:UNDUE weight/prominence to hotspots in that sentence. That's why Option 2: "and others from hotspots" works if we want to mention hotspots and to avoid UNDUEWEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. To me, "...and others from hotspots" comes across as scant and a tad disrespectful. Let's see how the others feel.Iswearius (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, others should chime in. Also, please read Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it.(Iswearius clarified their comment after my comment) We edit based on reliable sources, what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia policy such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, etc. not what we perceive as "disrespectful" and the likes. Some1 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Some1 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense intended. We are working together.Iswearius (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bring reliable sources that prove that there is a notable xenophobia against people from hotspots. Xenophobia is mainly against Chinese people. Also, the problem here is that American understanding of the word "Asian" is different from other countries. To me the word "Asians" refers to people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. See our article for more about this (Asians). Sinophobia has been used by many sources. E.g [14]. It's better and more encyclopedic. "Chinese appearance" is not used by any source and it sounds really weird.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    People who "appear to be Chinese" or people who have a "Chinese appearance". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is heading in the right direction. I like the first part of suggestion above from Iswearius - "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese." Forget the other hot spot stuff for now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this some more after reading Wtmitchell and SharabSalam's comments above. Does "perceived to be Chinese"/"Chinese looking"/"Chinese appearance"/etc. constitute as WP:Original Research and have reliable sources used those terms? (I only found one article using those terms so far [15]). As SharabSalam pointed out, the word "Asian" is too broad and can mean different things to different countries, that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work. In the USA, "Asians" typically refers to East and Southeast Asians. [16][17][18][19][20] Here's an Australian article which states "directed at Chinese Australians and Asian Australians" [21] I think #5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian". Some1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Asian" is bad. The people doing the discriminating aren't thinking "Asian". They are thinking "Chinese". Israelis are Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated in my previous comment: "Asian" is too broad... that's why Choices #1 and #2 won't work." "#5 (the current lead/ status quo) does a decent job of defining "Asian"". Some1 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But that still includes "other people of East and Southeast Asian descent and appearance". That definitely doesn't work. The discrimination is against people who the discriminators think look Chinese. Euphemisms involving the word "Asian", no matter how they are qualified, are not what the haters are thinking. Donald Trump is calling this the Chinese virus, not the East and Southeast Asian virus. He knows that will fire up the bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would remove Southeast Asian. The same argument against Asian would apply to Southeast Asian, since the vast majority of Indonesians and Malays don't look anything like the Chinese (same for many other Southeast Asians) and they form a significant part of Southeast Asians. Note also that Asians in Britain typically refer to South Asians. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for repeating that UK perspective. It seems a lot of people who think "Asian" is a nice way to refer to people from China and those who look a bit similar are completely aware that in Britain the word doesn't mean that at all. It means someone from places like India and Pakistan. It's like that with political correctness and euphemisms. They come into use without formal definition, and remain that way, with quite confusing results. In this global encyclopaedia we must not use "Asian" in any form to mean people who look like they might have come from China. And it's the latter characteristic that this is all about, people who look like they might have come from China. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say drop the subject and pick any sentence that is approximately accurate. How many covid-linked deaths from xenophobia are there? People are dying, economies including small businesses are taking a massive hit (possibly an unnecessary one), and we are discussing xenophobia? Come on, people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China number of cases and deaths

    China's number of cases hasn't increased in over a week now. I'd say this is highly unlikely. According to a lot of news outlets, the Chinese government seems to be lying about the numbers. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71531/scientists-claim-china-is-lying-about-total-coronavirus-covid-19-cases/index.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1250786/coronavirus-proof-china-government-cover-up-wechat-censor-keywords-xi-jinping-spt

    Shouldn't China's numbers at least have this added: [dubious – discuss] ? Or an extra section could be devoted to elaborate. I already added this info and it was archived, but I can't find it anymore. Besides it's not solved yet. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference: Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 28#China number of cases and deaths. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite true. On April 1, the number of cases was reported as 81,589 and it's steadily increased to 81,802, that's an increase of 213. Whether that is exactly what the article has said all along I'm not sure, but that's the data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/. Chris55 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Copypasting the argument of a previous discussion is not going to change the outcome of the discussion. Yes, it is extremely likely China (and others) is lying about the number of infections and deaths. But unless reliable sources start making those claims, it's not relevant to this article. Additionally, for things like the data tables, we can only use the data we have. Assumptions and guesses will not fly. Resolute 15:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We should just go with what Johns Hopkins or Worldometers does. We should not be making up our own criteria for how to count cases, which numbers to disregard, etc. Just pick one reasonably reliable authority and stick with it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Table showing cases by country is gone

    The table under Epidemiology has been replaced by the map showing total cases. The table was MUCH more easier to understand the number of cases country-wise than the map. I don't see the need for the map to appear again as it is available in the infobox too. Any chance we can bring it back? Thundermage117 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And it's back, that was quick. Thank you very much. Thundermage117 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be gone again? I agree, it was MUCH easier to understand. --LatinumPulchrum (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And... it's back. Whats going on ? --LatinumPulchrum (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Confliction between number of territories reported by Worldometer and number of territories reported by Wikipedia data

    The territories affected by coronavirus as reported by Worldometer conflicts with the number of territories affected we have on the page 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory. Since one links to the other on this page, which do you all think we should use? Sam1370 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No strong opinion, you? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian laboratory Vector

    There are some reports that there could be connection between an outbreak in Wuhan and spike of pneumonia in Siberia in late 2019 after a blast at the Russian viral laboratory Vektor in mid September 2019.

    Back on 19 September 2019 Dr Filippa Lentzos, an expert in biological threats and a senior research fellow at King's College London, said that while the Russian story was “consistent”, she would not be surprised if more details later emerged because of the country’s track record. (Sarah Newey. Russian lab blast: smallpox facility passed WHO biosecurity inspection in January. The Telegraph. 19 September 2019)

    signed Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Outbreaks of pneumonia were reported in several regions of the Russian Trans-Ural near Siberia, in particular in Orenburg Oblast, Chelyabinsk Oblast (An outbreak of pneumonia is noted in Orenburg Oblast (Вспышка пневмонии зафиксирована в Оренбургской области). Channel One Russia. 19 November 2019 (video footage Template:Ru icon), For the third year in a row in Chelyabinsk schools are being closed down for quarantine (В Челябинске третий год подряд из-за вспышек пневмонии закрывают школы на карантин). Rosbalt. 16 October 2019 Template:Ru icon). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Several dozens of groups in kindergarten were closed on quarantine, there are lines to polyclinics. In Novosibirsk Oblast began an epidemic season. Viruses this year are especially cunning, the most common complication after acute viral respirator infection (AVRI) and flu is pneumonia (Несколько десятков групп в детских садах закрыли на карантин, в поликлиниках - очереди. В Новосибирской области начался эпидсезон. Вирусы в этом году особенно коварны, самое частое осложнение после ОРВИ и гриппа - пневмония)". (The epidemic season began in Novosibirsk Oblast (Эпидсезон начался в Новосибирской области). VN.ru. 1 November 2019. Template:Ru icon, There implemented quarantine in dozens of kindergartens of Novosimbirsk Oblast (Карантин ввели в десятках детских садов в Новосибирской области). Izvestiya. 28 October 2019. Template:Ru icon, The pneumonia of strict regime: The Siberian about how he after treating himself at home ended up in a strange hospital (Пневмония строгого режима: сибиряк — о том, как долечился дома до воспаления легких и попал в странную больницу). NGS news. 20 October 2019 Template:Ru icon) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In late October of 2019 in Wuhan took place the 2019 Military World Games, which consistent with Chinese claims about the fact that the virus might have been brought by military. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall repeat the opening of this thread with some emphasis of my own. "There are some reports that there could be..." We cannot base content on anything that vague and speculative. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pneumonia is super common. We need better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak" listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Environment sentence in intro

    This sentence was added to the intro sometime in the past day: Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there has been a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions, which has had a beneficial effect on the environment. Is it important enough to stay there? (And anyone feel like writing a Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the environment article?) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    is doing such an article important?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture from U.S. in the Infobox photomontage?

    Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but does it not seem out of touch to anyone else that the infobox photomontage (which is otherwise excellent) has no photo from the country with by far the highest number of cases? Perhaps a photo from the U.S. placed further down in the article could be substituted in, if appropriate? (This wouldn’t be at the expense of any of the images already there, of course.)

    Food for thought. —RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 12:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    its not necessary...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC — Should we stop the use of excerpts?

    Malformed. The question of whether to use excerpts applies project-wide, with few or no special considerations for this particular article, so this is not an appropriate venue to consider it (especially given how crowded this talk page already is) due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerns. Given that (a) there has been no consensus reached on their use when the question was previously raised at this page, (b) there has been support to pursue them elsewhere, and (c) they have remained in the article for at least a week (the assertions that they have been recently removed are erroneous), they will be retained as the status quo for now without prejudice toward future removal should the community decide. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Should we stop the use of excerpts which take material from Coronavirus disease 2019 and copies that same material into 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?

    For example, the second paragraph of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic uses . . . . Excerpt|Coronavirus disease 2019|fragment=Spread|nohat=y . . . . , with double braces at both ends. 14:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

    ——————-

    @Liz: @Doc James: @Juxlos: @Brandmeister: @Sdkb: @Sophivorus:

    I’ve started this RfC (Request for Comment), and as persons who have previously commented, you are each hereby invited :-) as are other interested persons. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

    Website requesting to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention Subtitle: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&gettingStartedReturn=true#Prevention

    Sentence requesting to edit:"According to the WHO, the use of masks is recommended only if a person is coughing or sneezing or when one is taking care of someone with a suspected infection."

    What to replace it with: "With the continuum of maintaining the 6-feet social distancing, the CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and not know it from transmitting it to other individuals."

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html Aspencer0522 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=949988287"