Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abarr256 (article contribs).

"There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans," is this really notable enough to be included in the lead?

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.

---

Compared to everything else in the current coronavirus pandemic, I doubt we need to help propagate a narrative of mass racial injustice where there appears to be very, very little. We should really be focusing on the core issues at the moment and documenting federal and state responses, not giving spotlight to irrelevant tidbits. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's more of the same stuff being dug up, and should be removed from the lead. It does not summarize anything. --Light show (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

See List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely prevalent enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Doing so follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances here than elsewhere around the world. The addition was backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety. What is your evidence that "there appears to be very, very little"? Sdkb (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And? This is an article on the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, how in anyway is the U.S. deemed more noteworthy of its racism than any other country on that list. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidents against Chinese has started way before Trump started calling it a Chinese virus. This is irrelevant to the discussion. SunDawn (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For related context, see Talk:China–United States relations#SARS-2, add?. X1\ (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should the last paragraph of the lead section include the following sentence?

There have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans.

References

Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes (as proposer). Including this sentence follows the example at the main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article, which notes instances of xenophobia in the lead section, and there are certainly no fewer instances in the United States than elsewhere around the world. The addition is backed up by a reference to a news article in The New York Times, which documents not just scattered anecdotes but trends such as increased firearm purchases by Chinese Americans fearful for their safety; many other reliable sources are reporting similar trends. The editors opposing the sentence on the grounds that "there appears to be very, very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have so far declined to provide any reliable source to back up their claim. Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  What about other countries articles? Why only in the U.S. article we are going to include it in the lead?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  May I just point out the irony in the proposer suggesting we (the No voters) are hesitant to respond to criticism when he doesn't respond to inquiry himself? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  No one is obliged to respond to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and it's even more baffling Whataboutist cousin OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST, the logical argument being presented two posts above. --Calthinus (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. Something that constitutes such a small and measly footnote in the article itself should not see special preference to belong in its lead. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - The relevant article lists many public assaults, incidents of bullying, race-related civil rights violations, and racist commentaries by public officials. This is being reported from all over the country. It's more than reasonable that the lead should address it. -- Veggies (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  To add on to the point about media coverage, just in case anyone wants to try to claim that the New York Times news article above, which appeared on page A1 of the paper this morning, isn't sufficient evidence of the WP:WEIGHT being given to this issue in reliable sources, here is news coverage on this exact issue in every other top American newspaper:

References

I have to note that, despite the ample participation this RfC is getting, those asserting that there is "very little" anti-Chinese sentiment have yet to even attempt to provide reliable sources other than their own anecdotal experience. The closer of this RfC will be assessing the strength of arguments, not counting votes, and I expect that they will not find simples assertions of "this is unimportant" persuasive. Sdkb (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your tirades against those voting 'No' (even though you only ever quote me specifically) for not "even attempt[ing] to provide reliable sources" is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, this is not a debate on whether discrimination is occurring against a minority group, this is a debate where we are arguing that your persistent assertion that we must include a sentence that only accurately defines a meager three sentences of the entire article that only consist of 70 words, whilst the rest of the article currently contains 19,723 words altogether, does not "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. Using the race card against America with the pretext of an article for cover, is poor judgment. Play another country's cards first.--Light show (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - According to LEDE, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." We have a section in the article for this with a link to the listed article due to this article already being at 180k bytes. The US section on that article is just above 20k bytes by itself. Given that we already include a line for sports, I would argue that we should include this as a general controversial issue in addition to considering if we should add stuff like the impact on US television, the US stock markets (if the section has enough support), US restaurants, (etc.) given the size of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs)
• No. While we all agree that instances of racism occurred, this article should mainly about pandemic, not about its societal effects, and the lead section should stick with pandemics.SunDawn (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  The article body has an extensive section on the social impact, just as it does the economic impact. Both are significant; why would we want to arbitrarily exclude the social impact? Sdkb (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yet we don't have a paragraph about economic impact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  Good point. We should definitely address the economic impacts in the lead as well. -- Veggies (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• No - We should not allow racial issues in lead sections when it comes to situations like pandemics. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press. It is especially significant in that the xenophobia has been spread the by the U.S. President and the far-right.[1][2] - MrX 🖋 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As it is a minor sideline issue that further obfuscates the scope of this already poorly scoped article. Seems the nonsense that Trump and "far-right" is the reason for recent rise in anti-Asian backlash in the U.S. is hogwash as the virus was referred to by the mainstream media news as either "Wuhan" or "China(ese)" coronavirus before they switched and tried to blame Trump for all that. See this. Basically, not enough room in lead to deal with this sideline unless we of course clearly show that the initial word play on racial/locale semantics was performed by the hypocritical left wing media.--MONGO (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

At present, the page has an enormous block quote from Trump defending Asian Americans. Perhaps at the time of writing what you are saying may have been an issue, I am too lazy to check the history, but right now, it seems a bipartisan matter to note that what Asian Americans -- and to an extent other minorities -- are experiencing is an aspect of this crisis.--Calthinus (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Mixed I only support if that section is WP:SPLIT into its own article, "xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic in the United_States". A brief mention is not able to effectively communicate the situation. If this is worth mentioning then someone should demonstrate that the content passes WP:GNG. There is too much other content to share which definitely does and space is scarce in the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It's an issue that gets enough coverage to receive mention in the lead. --valereee (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - "Societal issues relevant to the pandemic in the U.S. appropriate for the article, and this particular one has been extensively reported on in the press", per MrX, there are an awful lot of defensive WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments here. Although it is off-topic - I would point out to Mongo that there is a world of difference between early days (when COVID 19/coronavirus lacked generally known names and was confined to, or almost entirely confined to Wuhan/China) - and wilfully doing so later, when one knows the words have consequences. It was possible once-upon-a-time to innocently refer to "Gay plague", because one did not know what else to call it. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • While the argument here is about the inclusion of just one sentence in the lead, which I still oppose since it is deflection, it should be noted that the vast majority of noted attacks listed here happened before Trump started calling it the China Virus and during the period that our beloved media called it that, as you say, "innocently" of course.--MONGO (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The proposed sentence doesn't mention Trump, so the timing of his terminology doesn't seem relevant. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak yes. The current last paragraph clearly focuses on social consequences of the pandemic and as such this sentence would fit there, but I feel like more besides xenophobia and event cancellation can be added on. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak yes per Tenryuu. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes it's part of the response of the highest level of government in the country. And, unfortunately so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - per BattleshipMan Idealigic (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - I am concerned about poor fact-checking and this is more based on rumor and false accusation triggered by personal agenda (reference Jussie Smollett). There is also no comparison with intermittent race-related incidents that occur when we aren't dealing with a pandemic. I think the whole section should be stricken if not taken from a global context. Also, "widespread" is far-too-ambiguous a term to use; any rational editor would strike it as having no qualitative value. dsdesc (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE. The pandemic is the only news story nowadays, and in the context of that, the coverage is nowhere near sufficient for the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree with the points made by Pincrete and others here. It's part of the societal reaction to the disease and how it manifested in the U.S. A mention in the lede is appropriate. Carter (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. From sources that I've read in the context of the wider US 2020 coronavirus pandemic, I think this is too much of a side line issue to be featured in the lead paragraph.--AdvancedScholar (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Peripheral subjects should not be addressed in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes -especially agree with the analysis of arguments being made here by Pincrete -- well said. This is a major impact of the social aspect of this crisis. Early on in the crisis, before coronavirus was even an immediate threat in most of the states, Chinese American restaurants were suffering [[3]]. If anything, we actually have an under-coverage of this aspect here, though I am glad that the blurb I wrote on the growth of anti-Semitism as reported by the ADL, Life After Hate and even the FBI on the main pandemic page got a blurb moved over here. --Calthinus (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Contributors to this RfC may also be interested in this one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but unfortunately this is only a small part of the mounting tensions in the country. Some people are buying guns and do not like the "outsiders" whoever they might be. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It has been widely covered by reliable sources and news outlets:

The New Yorker Al Jazeera NBC NPR another NPR Time Forbes another Forbes PBS ABC The Atlantic LA Times Business Insider The New York Times CNN Washington Post

These two tweets by the current U.S. President/Trump [4][5] are worth mentioning in the 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Xenophobia_and_racism section as well. Some1 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Since as much as I know, this is considered as a particular issue, which is with very/sufficient coverage (extensively reported...) to be received in the lead of the mentioned article. And likewise especially by paying heed to this issue that: it is relatively a famous long article (with almost a long lead), therefore adding the --short-- significant mentioned sentence can be more useful rather than being useless, at least based on my opinion. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• No It could be added to the lead of articles for states with large Chinese populations where it has been an issue, but it's a relatively small part of the nationwide pandemic. For states like Ohio and Tennessee I have only found some articles about restaurants and cancellations of Chinese New Year, but they're discussing loss of business from Chinese clients. Gammapearls (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: it's received a high amount of coverage from reliable sources. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• No from what I've seen, the coverage does not justify that prominence. It is only a very minor aspect of the epidemic. buidhe 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Well this is close. We have 15 yes 12 no. The content is covered in the body of the article. Supported by the NYTs (plus a dozen other sources). One sentence would be due weight for the lead. So I think the yes's sufficient support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Travel Restrictions on US & Mexico Border

As of 3/20/20 the US/Mexico border is restricted to cargo traffic and essential personnel similar to the restrictions placed at the US/Canadian border in order to stem the spread of COVID-19.

50.198.133.197 (talk) 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Can we get deaths, new cases, and recoveries back in daily format?

Why hide this information? The total deaths are already referenced several times including cumulatively in a graph in the article and this section is completely redundant and irrelevant now while there is nowhere to quickly see the daily deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2883:5400:519B:74F0:E340:ADFC (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally second this. Both deaths and recoveries have reverted from daily to cumulative. Why?? We already have a cumulative horizontal bar graph at the beginning of the page (section 2, "CDC reported U.S. totals"). Why duplicate that visual display but now on vertical instead of horizontal? Please bring back the daily bar graphs, they are more visually informative. WikiUser70176 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like daily please. 70.181.191.109 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd second this, too. Ron Oliver (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are three arguments why I think the per day deaths, cases, and recoveries bar charts make more sense than cumulative:

1. The vast majority of other countries' COVID pages have these bar charts in per day cases and not cumulative. Why should US be any different? It helps readers to do quick comparisons.

2. It is confusing. As I have said above, it looks that there are more recoveries than cases. For example, if we assume the shortest infection duration of about 14 days, we can see 8878 recoveries on April 1. These people should have been confirmed cases, at the latest, on March 16. According to the our graphs, there were not that many cases in the country then. Or tests performed. And that's just for one day. So it is visually misleading.

3. The last and most compelling argument, for me at least, is this: we already have a cumulative graph of cases, deaths and recoveries on section 2 of the page, like all the other countries' pages! It's a very good graph but why duplicate it? EDIT: I see that deaths and new cases are per day now. Could we get the recoveries per day as well? Thank you. WikiUser70176 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Are you all taking about Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases? The reason that chart is no longer included on this page is due to size and because it would push the template limit beyond the max limit because of the number of references in the article and the template itself. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus, Alucard 16. As you can see form the above discussion, all of us who commented agree that the recoveries should be presented in a daily bar graph format, just like the daily new cases and the daily new deaths. That's a unanimous Yes. I do not understand what is this size thing you refer to though; the graphs should be of equal size. Actually, the daily recoveries graphs should be smaller than the actual cases graphs, and that one fits quite well. EDIT: Aaaaah, I got it. You mean the table itself. No, no, we are talking about the bar graphs (which are derived from the table you referenced, I believe) in the "Statistics" section of the page: 2 of them are presented as daily new cases of coronavirus (orange vertical bar graph) and deaths (red vertical bar graph), respectively, as they should be, but the recoveries (green neon bar graph) are presented as a cumulative graph instead of daily new recoveries. Does this make things a bit more clear? To be honest, most people on the Talk page seemed to be more interested in the new cases and deaths to be presented as daily instead of cumulative, on a linear bar graph rather than a line log graph. Happily, that has been resolved. So if the recoveries remain cumulative instead of daily, that's not a biggie, but in the interest of consistency, I thought they also can be presented as daily new cases of recovered patients, particularly since we already have the cumulative totals on the horizontal bar graph at the beginning of the page (first graph). Thanks. WikiUser70176 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@WikiUser70176: Ah okay thanks for the clarification yup I got confused at which table y'all were talking about lol. If there is an overwhelming consensus for the change to be made and there is reliable sources for the change then there shouldn't be an issue with the change being implemented. If there is an experienced editor with auto-confirmed rights that can make the change and was part of the discussion once a consensus is reached then the edit request template doesn't need to be used. Only IP editors / non-auto confirmed editors would need to use the edit request template. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

None of us who commented here know how to or have the editing rights to revert the recoveries graphs from cumulative to daily. Since there is a consensus, can anybody please revert the recoveries chart to daily cases instead of cumulative, just like the new cases per day and deaths per day charts are? I'm taking about the neon green chart. Or put in an edit request or something? Thank you. WikiUser70176 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

add to or update Trump's promotion of unproven drugs ?

To 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § Research into vaccine and drug therapies

and/or 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States § President Trump (under "Communications" section):

• Jonathan Chait Why Trump Is Overruling Scientists to Pursue His Pet Coronavirus Drug April 6, 2020 nymag.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-medical-advisers.html
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/us/politics/trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus.html
• https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-white-house-01306286-0bbc-4042-9bfe-890413c6220d.html
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/top-trump-aid-says-fauci-s-caution-possible-coronavirus-treatment-n1177666
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-guidance-exclu-idUSKBN21M0R2
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/05/politics/white-house-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-disagreement/index.html
  • https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/05/politics/timeline-trump-promises-coronavirus/index.html
• https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/491251-trump-pushed-health-officials-to-make-anti-malaria
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ama-president-trump-hydroxychloroquine_n_5e8a9914c5b6e7d76c663197
• Lachlan Cartwright Trump Eyes Accused ‘Quack’ Dr. Oz for Coronavirus Advice; The president can’t stop talking about an unproven COVID-19 treatment—the same one the oft-criticized TV doctor keeps pushing and pushing. April 6, 2020 thedailybeast.com
• Giuliani, a familiar voice in Trump's ear, promotes experimental coronavirus treatments WaPo April 5, 2020

Again, without evidence, Trump claimed that hydroxychloroquine is a “great” and “powerful” anti-malaria drug “and there are signs that it works on this, some very strong signs.” It was the second day in a row at a White House briefing that Trump recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine, adding: “But what do I know? I’m not a doctor […] What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose?” Dr. Patrice Harris, elected president of the American Medical Association, pushed back: “You could lose your life.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the controversial celebrity doctor, has been advising senior Trump administration officials on coronavirus-related matters. Rudy Giuliani said he has spoken directly to Trump “three or four times” about the potential us of hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment. “There are obviously other people around him who agree with me,” Giuliani said.

Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro (who is not a physician or involved in the pharmaceutical industry) claimed there was a “clear therapeutic efficacy” of hydroxychloroquine in treating the coronavirus. Navarro’s claim set off a debate in the Situation Room with Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said there was only anecdotal evidence (the weakest kind of evidence, my comments) that hydroxychloroquine works against the coronavirus and more data is needed to prove that it’s effective. Navarro, an economist by training, shot back that the information he had collected was “science,” claiming his “qualifications […] is that I’m a social scientist.” Navarro later said Dr. Fauci’s caution about the effectiveness of an anti-malaria drug warrants a “second opinion.” Separately, Trump personally pressed federal health officials in mid-March to make chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine available to treat the coronavirus, though they had been untested for COVID-19. Shortly afterward, the federal government published guidance informing doctors they had the option to prescribe the drugs, with dosing information based on unattributed anecdotes rather than peer-reviewed science.

My comments: the French study that excited Trump about hydroxychloroquine he saw on FOX was small and inconclusive (I have been searching for the best ref on that).

See Intrinsic activity/efficacy and Efficacy#Pharmacology. Also relatedly see the phrase "I'm not a scientist, but ..."

Also, for reference, see previous Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 6 § another example Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

and Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States/Archive 5 § example of effects of Trump's promotion of unproven drugs, add here?

X1\ (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, sure, while certain antiviral compounds might be helpful (after testing) the infamous hydroxychloroquine is not an antiviral compound, and it is highly toxic. It has not been approved by the FDA for treating this virus. And BTW, there are certain other drugs (not against the COVID) approved by the FDA, which should never be used. FDA has a huge problem with the conflict of interest. Speaking about COVID, use of BCG vaccine seems to be very promising to reduce the probability of infection (already in the process of testing in Australia). My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not just Trump that's proposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. They do have antiviral effects (which are better understood that the anti-malarial effects), and might turn out to be useful - the problems are 1) treating them as a silver bullet/clutched straw in the absence of adequate evidence, 2) ignoring the risks of chloroquine treatment (it has a narrow therapeutic index), 3) ignoring that some of the risk groups for COVID-19 are groups in which chloroquine is contraindicated, 4) distracting attention from other equally promising avenues of investigation, and 5) making infection control practices less effective by reducing public concern. But Trump could get lucky. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, it is not some much that he is proposing them, it is that he is promoting them, see below. X1\ (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I read that Trump's indirect holding in Sanofi is all of $3,000. In this instance I'd put his actions down to wishful thinking rather than cupidity. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In which did you see the $3,000, Lavateraguy? X1\ (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Forbes. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Potentially interesting stuff in the April 7 Forbes article too:

Billionaire Ken Fisher, a major Republican donor (including to Trump), is one of Sanofi’s largest shareholders, while Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross used to run a fund that invested in Sanofi, the Times reported.

X1\ (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump has a personal financial interest in Sanofi which makes the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine, the drug Trump has been touting as a “game changer”. Trump and his family trusts are all invested in a mutual fund that features Sanofi as its largest holding. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other associates of Trump also run funds that are invested in the pharmaceutical manufacturer.

• Justin Baragona Trump Has ‘Financial Interest’ in Hydroxychloroquine Manufacturer: NYT April 7, 2020 thedailybeast.com
• Jessica Glenza Trump tells Americans to take unproven malaria drug to prevent Covid-19; President’s own public health advisers have warned against taking hydroxychloroquine April 4, 2020 theguardian.com
• Trump's Aggressive Advocacy of Malaria Drug for Treating Coronavirus Divides Medical Community April 6, 2020 NYT
• 'What do you have to lose?': Inside Trump's embrace of a risky drug against coronavirus WaPo April 6, 2020
• Dan Diamond and Nancy Cook, Trump’s ‘Hail Mary’ drug push rattles his health team; Some health officials see Trump’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine as an effort to make up time lost early in the coronavirus outbreak. Politico April 6, 2020

X1\ (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This RS has fact-checking of some of Trump's public statements (below). Can a President be charged with malpractice?

• Jessica McDonald Trump’s Faulty Malaria-Coronavirus Connection April 9, 2020 factcheck.org

X1\ (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

CDC website change

In contrast with Trump's promotions:

The CDC removed its dosing information for doctors on how to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. The original guidance – which was based on unattributed anecdotes rather than peer-reviewed science – was crafted after Trump personally pressed officials to make the malaria drugs more widely available, though the drugs had been untested for COVID-19. CDC website no longer includes that information, but instead says: “There are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19.” Some ICU doctors, meanwhile, report that they’ve seen no evidence the drugs are helping their sickest patients.

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-cdcguidance/cdc-removes-unusual-guidance-to-doctors-about-drug-favored-by-trump-idUSKBN21P39R
• https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-miraculous-recovery-some-icu-doctors-say-hydroxychloroquine-isn-t-n1177556

X1\ (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

IGs and PRAC

add Intelligence Inspector General Michael Atkinson fired in the midst of a deadly pandemic ?

Michael Atkinson was fired months after he delivered the whistleblower complaint to Congress about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, as required by law. Atkinson released a statement saying that the reason Trump fired him “derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General.” per Politico, NPR, NYT, WaPo, AP, CNN, NBC News, Bloomberg, Vox, etc

Adam Schiff: Trump is “decapitating the leadership of the intelligence community in the middle of a national crisis. [6]

X1\ (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not on this page. As about “decapitating", yes, sure, the entire country was decapitated in 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

While disturbing, I think it's tangential to the focus of this page. Perhaps there is a need to shift some of this to a new article "Trump Administration response to 2020 coronavirus pandemic" or something similar. If that's done, then I could see including it. Carter (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's tangential, Tcr25, and there is growing need for something along the lines of the Trump Administration and the 2020 coronavirus pandemic as there are so many RSs of significance. X1\ (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to create that article now, but I think it is the best approach and would solve the problem in other threads on this talk page about information about the virus's impact getting lost in the outlining of the Trump administration's actions/inactions. Carter (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Me neither, but my guess something similar will arise eventually. The virus's impact is directly connected to the Trump administration's actions/inactions, both now and previously. X1\ (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Tcr25, see Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § United States government. X1\ (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Another ref linking pandemic and firing:

• James Risen, Under Cover of Covid-19, Donald Trump Ramps Up His War on Truth-Tellers April 9 2020 The Intercept

X1\ (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR)

Trump nominated Brian D. Miller for SIGPR. X1\ (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) Chair

However, that (Trump removes independent watchdog tasked with overseeing coronavirus emergency funds) does belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Glenn A. Fine article has wording we can use here. X1\ (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are some RSs:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-removes-inspector-general-who-was-to-oversee-2-trillion-stimulus-spending/2020/04/07/2f0c6cb8-78ea-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-watchdog-glenn-fine.html
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-removes-acting-defense-department-inspector-general-11586277895
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-independent-watchdog-for-coronavirus-funds-upending-oversight-panel-171943
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/politics/trump-sidelines-pentagon-watchdog-coronavirus-funds/index.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-07/trump-ousts-inspector-general-poised-to-oversee-relief-spending

Fine was tapped to lead the group responsible for preventing “waste, fraud, and abuse” of the $2 trillion coronavirus emergency stimulus package passed last month. A panel of inspectors general had named Fine to lead the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC). Trump, instead, replaced Fine with EPA’s watchdog, Sean O’Donnell, as the temporary Pentagon watchdog. Because Fine is no longer acting inspector general, he is ineligible to hold the spending watchdog role, since the new law permits only current inspectors general to fill the position.

X1\ (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

On April 8, legislation was introduced in the House to allow Fine to continue as chair the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. X1\ (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HHS Inspector General Christi Grimm

Trump publicly attacked, on Twitter, Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm for publishing a report critical of the federal coronavirus response. X1\ (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a RS for IGs Glenn A. Fine, Michael Atkinson, and Christi Grimm. X1\ (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Placement of state cases and statistics

Why were these sections moved down? There were many, many talk discussions advocating for the state-by-state table to be moved up, as that is arguably the most informative part of this whole article for the majority of readers. Now that the cumulative totals graph is separated from the Statistics section it's probably ok for that to be further down the page, although I personally find it much more interesting to look at dynamic graphs than to slog to the bottom of each section on the off-chance that someone has added a one-sentence update. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the Statistics section now has an empty "repatriated cases by state" subsection, and the (useful) log graphs have been removed without deleting the multiple references to those log plots elsewhere in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved those sections down with the rationale: Relocated section which should be used with context via wikilinks; if the chart supports a detail from the article, then link to it. The other section which was not yet moved, Current number of non-repatriated cases by states and territories, which you wrote is the most informative part of the whole article for the majority of readers, is, IMO, totally useless filler without, at a minimum, a per capita column. And even if a column like that was added, the chart would not be relevant without some context to the article body. There were also previous discussions about why those or some other giant charts were moved as they were hogging and cluttering the beginning of an important text article. Entering the article with those was like entering a fine restaurant by the back door, having to walk through the kitchen first, IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe the discussion about the clunky giant charts referred to the ones that showed the number of cases for every state, every day; the detailed list of cases removed long ago; and the various maps; not the table that is identical to the one in the world cases article (except with states, not countries) or the bar/line graphs. Considering the cases by country table has always been at the top of the world article, I think these data are important even without per capita numbers. Multiple editors have remarked on the relevance of the US state table (see here, here, here, here, and here). The majority of users interested in the US article are going to be from the US and likely already follow their particular state's cases but want to contextualize it with other states. They are generally already aware of population differences.

The statistics section graphs show trends better than the raw case/death count bar graph (although I think that is still the most important of the graphs) since either explicitly state the number of new cases per day or have the data on a grid with numbered Y axis ticks. JoelleJay (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

After moving the table back up to the beginning, I wanted to add that while it would be great if we had a per capita number for each state, that would require editors to recalculate the exact cases/population every time they updated since there's no automatic calculation. Also, there are maps showing per capita cases in the infobox; I doubt presenting the exact incidence in real time is all that more informative than the visual representation. Clearly the template as it stands now is attractive enough on its own to garner 300k page views per day for the main pandemic page, even after almost all textual information was split to other articles. Even when the equivalent table on the main page was accompanied by lots of background info, people were noting how important it was to keep it at the top, for example: "

I go to this article frequently - as I expect thousands of people do - for the latest picture, or rather Table of cases by country. But each time I then have to scroll down a bit to see what I consider this article's main raison-d'etre, the said main table.
— User: Trafford09 10:09 28 February 2020 (UTC)

" JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay's quote's right, in that I like to go to the numbers, in articles like these, on a regular basis, to see the changing data. I tend to go the article originally and - maybe without reading every word - learn from the overall article. But after that, all that matters to me is the raw data, but I return very regularly to see what that data now looks.

I'm actually from the other side of the pond to US readers, who I assume are the main regular users of this article. As a European, I actually go to [7]. Note that this is a template, rather than the article I found it in. I was put off revisiting the article it came from, as that article persisted in burying the raw data way down below text that I'd already read.

As a frequent & experienced WP-er, I was able to give myself this solution.

WP-readers - if they who don't know how WP works - have to keep searching for the data every time they can be bothered to do so, sadly.

Maybe regular viewers of this US article may care to use the corresponding template directly, too? Then the 'view count' of each constituent is more revealing?

HTH, Trafford09 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump "I don't take responsibility at all" quote

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-coronavirus-testing-128971

Should it be included? 73.222.115.101 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

He knew about it in November [8], but did nothing. How is that he is not responsible? This is just another lie, one of thousands. Do not include it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, User:73.222.115.101; over time the most appropriate and pithiest Trump quotes will presumably stay at the surface. X1\ (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Found

• Josh Margolin and James Gordon Meek Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November: Sources; "Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event," a source says. April 8, 2020 ABCNews

U.S. intelligence officials warned in late November about a contagious disease sweeping through China’s Wuhan region. The report by the military’s National Center for Medical Intelligence “concluded it could be a cataclysmic event,” which was repeated at briefings through December for policy and decision-makers across the federal government, as well as the NSC at the White House. The warning also appeared in the President's Daily Brief in early January, which would have had to go through weeks of vetting and analysis.

X1\ (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

First shot at it here in #Reports predicting global pandemics. X1\ (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is good section about predicting the pandemics. But there is more about. There was a special task force created under administration of ... George W. Bush [9]. He had a very different attitude. He was rightly criticized for many things, but if he were a president now, a lot would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Useful to compare how this presidency is "not normal". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy Daily Infection and Death Chart

The daily infection and death totals chart is very interesting and useful. However, I've noticed that the total number of cases for the past few days (4/5, 4/6, 4/7) have been less than the total number of cases reported by Google and various other sources as of midnight central time (and midnight eastern time) over those days. Usually the case numbers reported as of the afternoon of those days (i.e. 5 PM on 4/6) on other sources will be greater than the chart reports after the day is over. I understand that it may take time for totals for a day to catch up, but this does not appears to be the issue. If we know there are say 431,437 cases as of this moment (6:35 PM Central Standard Time on 4/8/2020) per Google, it doesn't seem to make sense that days from now when even more data from today is in it will say that the case total for today was say 429,000-something. Is that an error or is there a reason for the discrepancy (i.e. all totals being as of 0:00 GMT or something similar)?

Nogburt (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As a non American, I can assure you it is noteworthy. The USA’s federal response to the pandemic is all over our media, mostly for how rubbish it is. We can be pretty confident that history is going to condemn how long it took the president to do something. The articles on China emphasise that their figures are probably invented, which on the surface seems biased, but comes from credible sources. As for making things political: the actual response is political. Not including Trump’s words and reactions just because his cult-followers get sad when they are reminded he is inept is not a reason not to include them. Vision Insider (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

push to end social distancing, add counter-argument example(s)?

• David Lim Why the U.S. isn’t on track to open up; Labs nationwide are overwhelmed by patient samples amid a shortage of critical supplies. April 7, 2020 Politico
• How Will We Know When It's Time to Reopen the Nation? April 5, 2020 NYT

The model predicts that 81,766 people will die in the U.S. over the next four months, with just under 141,000 hospital beds being needed. That’s down about 12,000 deaths and 121,000 fewer hospital beds from last week. Dr. Anthony Fauci said it would be a “false statement” to claim the outbreak is under control, stressing that it could return in force by fall and emerge as a “seasonal, cyclic” threat.

• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/health/ihme-updated-covid19-model/index.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trumps-top-health-officials-predict-diminished-coronavirus-death-toll-171456

South Korea’s CDC warns that the coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have been cured of the illness. About 51 patients classified as “cured” in South Korea have tested positive again. A patient is deemed fully recovered when two tests conducted with a 24-hour interval show negative results.

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/coronavirus-may-reactivate-in-cured-patients-korean-cdc-says

Titrated measures:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/fauci-says-u-s-virus-deaths-may-be-60-000-halving-projections
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-government-response-update-fauci-death-toll-lower/story?id=70062641

CDC Director Robert R. Redfield announced new guidelines that would allow what he called “essential workers” to return to their jobs sooner.

Relatedly (see "In contrast with" below), VP Mike Pence blocked public health officials from appearing on CNN until the network agreed to carry the daily White House coronavirus briefings in their entirety (see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and his spread of misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic). Pence’s office later reversed course, allowing for the booking of Redfield, Fauci, and Dr. Deborah Birx. CNN and other networks frequently air only the first portion of the daily briefings live – the part that is typically led by Trump – before returning to their news anchors during the second half of the briefing.

• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/media/pence-office-tv-bookings-coronavirus/index.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/coronavirus-pence-bars-fauci-and-birx-from-appearing-on-cnn.html

X1\ (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In contrast with:

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/pence-fauci-reopen-country-plan-coronavirus-175792
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/trump-health-team-crafts-plan-to-open-economy-if-virus-crests
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/donald-trump-economy-big-bang-coronavirus/index.html
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-and-businessesturn-attention-to-eventual-reopeningof-22-trillion-u-s-economy-11586301615
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/08/coronavirus-mnuchin-expects-new-york-will-take-longer-to-reopen.html

Attorney General William Barr called the practice of social distancing meant to control the spread of COVID-19 “draconian” and suggested that they should be eased next month. “When this period of time, at the end of April, expires, I think we have to allow people to adapt more than we have, and not just tell people to go home and hide under their bed, but allow them to use other ways — social distancing and other means — to protect themselves,” Barr said.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/attorney-general-william-barr-fox-news-coronavirus/2020/04/09/dfda1f94-7a12-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin believes that “if the doctors let us,” the U.S. economy could reopen in May. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow also said he believes the economy could open sooner, predicting it’s possible “in the next four to eight weeks.” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, meanwhile, warned against trying to return to normal too quickly.

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/09/mnuchin-economy-could-reopen-in-may-177037
• https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-says-us-could-be-open-for-business-in-may.html

X1\ (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Check this. There are many excellent points here. Among them, (a) this is false dilemma; saving lives is the most profitable strategy even if one thinks about it as an economist, and (b) it is a lot more important to test all people who do not have any symptoms than people who have symptoms, exactly opposite to the practice right now. My very best wishes (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

using Abbott quick test on White House visitors, add?

White House visitors have been receiving the Abbott Laboratories 15-minute coronavirus test. (see COVID-19 testing)

Every visitor who meets Trump or Pence receives the new tests, even those who feel healthy and are not exhibiting symptoms. A spokesperson for the company said they can deliver a positive result within five minutes and a negative result within 13 minutes. The new tests were approved by the FDA under an emergency authorization and company officials have not publicly disclosed their accuracy rates, which are still begin assessed as more people receive them.

• To protect Trump, White House among first to use rapid coronavirus tests sought by communities Wapo April 7, 2020

X1\ (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure. As the article tells, "company officials have not publicly disclosed their accuracy rates" [even though they have them]. Why they have not? There is only one logical explanation: the test is not so reliable or possibly not reliable at all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good question, My very best wishes. I am curious too. X1\ (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course they suppose to make public the validation of their tests. False-negatives can be significant [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned about that too, My very best wishes. I am sure there are a wide-range of variables that need to be untangled, but best not to discuss this on this Talk page; maybe at, such as, Talk:COVID-19 testing/Archive 1#false positive / false negative detection concerns, add? besides seeing what other editors have already done with RSs. X1\ (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this could be included - based on secondary sources. According to original research publication such as this, "In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (308/413) had positive chest CT findings..." (yes, a lot of false negatives with PCR test), but that would require some additional interpretation. But perhaps the test by Abbot is better (or worse)? Unfortunately, we do not know. P.S. in this ref, Deborah Birx only tells about only 50% of data being reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these are not false negatives. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is/are RS(s) that are, at least somewhat, definitive it would seem the best we could say here now is that there is confusion. I wouldn't want to put testing information here that isn't reliable enough yet. X1\ (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The graph reads eerily similar to an opposition campaign marketing piece that recently came out and is misleading as it does not take into account that when some of these comments were made U.S. cases were relatively low. The graph is just not scientific and more of a social commentary that has no place in an encyclopedic page. Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

attitude polls, add?

55% of Americans say the federal government has done a poor job preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the US — up nearly 8% since last week. 80% say they think the worst is yet to come, and 55% say Trump could be doing more to slow the spread. 37% say they’re more concerned about the virus than they were a few days ago, while 5% say they’ve become less fearful in recent days.

• Jennifer Agiesta CNN Poll: Majority of Americans now say the federal government has done a poor job of preventing coronavirus spread CNN April 8, 2020

85% of voters say they are concerned they or someone they know will be infected with the coronavirus – up 31 percentage points from early March. 70% say that the coronavirus crisis in the US is getting worse, while 20% say it is staying the same and 8% see it getting better. 63% say they expect the coronavirus crisis to be over in a few months, 23% say more than a year, and 10% say a few weeks.

• Fauci, Governors Get Highest Marks For Response To Coronavirus, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Majority Say Trump's Response Not Aggressive Enough April 8, 2020 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute

X1\ (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this information should go to Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#United States government. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, Liz. I will look into editing on that page when time allows. X1\ (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say some materials from the "criticism page" belong to this page because they are not really a criticism, but important facts relevant to the pandemic. For example, Early_warnings, 2018_closure_of_pandemic_preparation_office, Distribution_of_medical_equipment, and Healthcare_policy_and_agencies belong to this page (but perhaps most of this was already included here). My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree My very best wishes, facts exist. Where items finally land, is to be seen. If you think those item can fit into this page, I will support it. It would seem the history of this Administration's non-action/actions could fill an entire wp article page, per #IGs and PRAC comments with Tcr25 too. The Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic § United States government section is rather large now. X1\ (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

54% of Americans say the federal measures have not gone far enough – up from 45% in late March – 35% say the measures have been appropriate, and 7% say they have gone too far.

• https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_040820 Monmouth University Polling Institute

47% of Americans say they are not satisfied that the Trump administration is doing everything it can to stop the coronavirus, 38% are satisfied. The 9 percentage point spread has more than doubled over the last two weeks. 50% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s coronavirus response, while 42% approve. Among registered voters, 54% disapprove, while 43% approve.

• https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-coronavirus-poll-shows-americans-turning-against-trump-201315969.html Yahoo News/YouGov poll

X1\ (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Stats about influenza deaths per day seem to be wrong at bottom of page

Page currently says US averages 551 endemic influenza deaths per day, seasonally averaged over several years (referencing footnote 599). But that would mean around 200,000 Americans per year die of the flu and its complications. Which is too high by a factor of about five. I think the real number of flu deaths per day averages around 100, which COVID-19 passed somewhere around March 22, not March 30 as the page claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehicks (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence say "influenza AND pneumonia". Which is a little misleading because influenza is a disease and pneumonia is a condition. I encourage you to look at the sources from CDC to convince yourself that the 551 deaths is real. I'm not really sure where your 100 deaths from flu come from. It is true that flu alone cause less deaths in general. The vast majority have complications turn into pneumonia before it gets lethal. Then some states make systematic flu tests, but many don't. Maybe you refer to the confirmed tests ? Finally, if you talk about this week (Apr 9), it is indeed usual to have a low quantity of flu. The flu season is over now. While the cases of pneumonia are still fairly high. I ensure you that the deaths by pneumonia at this time of the year account for up to 8% of all deaths. It was already like that in 2009 when I was helping to edit the H1N1 outbreak and it kept going every years in between. Iluvalar (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But isn't this is comparing apples to elephants? The implication in the sentence in the article is that it is about comparing two epidemic diseases, covid-19 and seasonal influenza, which, of course, is the comparison constantly being made in popular and administrative discussions. If one includes all pneumonia deaths, it's kind of misleading because most pneumonia deaths are not related to any epidemic disease at all. The underlying culprit is some bacteria or virus or fungus or parasite that is just hanging around somebody's house or workplace or whatever. Plus, cases resulting from autoimmune disease, lung cancer, drug side effects. Not epidemic at all. These all-cause pneumonia deaths shouldn't be included in a comparison of covid-19 and influenza. The meaningful comparison perhaps should be to influenza deaths (including those that occur as a result of influenza-caused pneumonia).Lehicks (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the source we use is COVIDView [11]. It is THE official source about COVID from the CDC. It was published in Apr 4. So from a Wikipedia stand point, if the sources compare apples and elephants, we should too. This is the first time in history that such a massive test is conducted. This is the state of the art of science, the number of pneumonia that doesn't happen to be flu. This is misleading in both way. Many people with life threatening conditions for years are now classified as COVID death even though it's usually just a mild cold (often asymptomatic even). Iluvalar (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You think asymptomatic carriers are being classified as Covid deaths? If not, what does the existence of mild cases have to do with categorizing the deaths. 113.37.159.155 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, They are. And there is other questions left open about how long after recovering the tests are still positive. You may had the COVID, recovered from it and tragically 2 weeks later die from an heart attack. Will the test be positive ? Iluvalar (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Diagram of Trump statements vs. number of cases should be deleted

A diagram of the President's statements during various phases of the epidemic is a) totally uninteresting as it has no relevance to the epidemic itself and b) political as it does not mention, e.g., Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders' remarks that stopping flights from China is xenophobic - these statements were made at the same time. Let's make this page neutral and informative and not political.Herr Foo (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think so. This is not WP:OR, but something directly taken from an RS. Is it "due on the page"? Yes, it certainly is. The pandemic has become a part of US politics, and therefore speaking about the politics (as it relates to the pandemic) is inevitable on this page. Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting images on the page. Biden and Sander? Do you suggest to include their statements as well? Which statements? I am not sure, but perhaps they should be included as well. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with My very best wishes, it is interesting, as US President's non-action/actions are directly relevant, and could be expanded on. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and I agree with Herr Foo. It seems politically motivated or at least slanted to include that diagram. It is from the Washington Post, but just because something is from a reliable source does not mean it needs to be included in the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

TrynaMakeADollar, are you saying what the President of the United States does (or doesn't do) is not relevant in a national crisis? X1\ (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The diagram illustrates nicely why exactly the government (acting through CMS, the CDC and the FDA) not only "squandered a critical month during which aggressive and widespread testing might greatly have reduced the speed and scale of the pandemic", but enforced regulatory roadblocks that prevented non-government labs from assisting, as was described everywhere [12]. Why they did it? One of the most obvious and well sourced answers: the head of the state and his administration failed miserably with making right and timely decisions, because he believed (and publicly announced) that the problem will go away by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The statements of the head of any national government are an integral part of documenting that government's response to a pandemic, especially when there's significant coverage in reliable sources of the notability of their timing. The size of the diagram is also not WP:UNDUE for an article of this size. It should be kept, and similar diagrams should be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Belarus, and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Brazil. Capewearer (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the graphic is informative and reflective of what a number of sources have reported. Biden and Sanders are not POTUS (yet), so their comments are far less noteworthy. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should remain a source of neutral information for us all. I agree with Herr Foo's statement. Sierra Rider (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you think this chart is either not neutral or not "for us all"? VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It is neutral information. They are Trump's exact words. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sun Creator that's not a NPOV issue. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Besides, I think these statements by the President are important from the historical standpoint. For example, everyone remembers Louis XIV of France by his words "I am the state" ("L'état, c'est moi."). Who knows, maybe this President will be mostly remembered for saying that "In April ... it will miraculously go away". My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The image is from a neutral point of view since they are words that Trump said on specific dates at critical times. The section the image is included in covers the statements in more detail and is also from a neutral point of view. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The biggest WP:NPOV problem with the image is that it leaves out Trump's actions. Those are at least as important as words in dealing with the epidemic. By focusing on words only, it appears to be designed to give a poor impression. This is in fact X1\'s point precisely, though perhaps looked at from a different angle. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny Excuse me, what "actions?" Blocking flights from Europe and China? Closing borders with Mexico and Canada? Those.. already mentioned in another sections. In that case, I think "actions" such as downplaying it, war of words with governors and withholding aid to the states, partying in Mar-a-Lago with Brazilian President also worth mentioning, right? This article is neutral as long as using Trump's own words and not our own opinion. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those actions, precisely. Note that the words are also covered elsewhere. The problem is that the diagram gives additional weight to the words, but not the actions. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Every image on every WP page describes only one of many aspects of the subject. If anyone wants to include a diagram about his actions (or inactions), such diagram could be probably included too. Note that public statements by top officials can be as important as their deeds or lack of deeds. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

President Trump section - POV

I don't have an interest in this page, other then a casual reader, but the diagram to the right doesn't remotely meet the NPOV requirement. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sun Creator, see #Diagram of Trump statements vs. number of cases should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, similar concerns had been raise. One issue of an image is that it can't be edited by many and not in a timely manner. Perhaps the use of a quotebox or something would be appropriate. Sun Creator^(talk) 19:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sun Creator: Based on the time period the image covers (January - March) I doubt the image will need to be edited. It's main purpose is to illustrate how his comments evolved over that three month period. If the image does need editing or adjusting there are a lot of experienced editors working on this article and in this field that can edit the image in a timely fashion. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sun Creator. Note previous discussions like this one or this one about the same issue. --Light show (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also agree that the diagram is not consistent WP:NPOV and should be deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - the chart from the Donald Trump section. More because it doesn’t provide any meaningful info on the article topic. The quotes seem not particularly noted and not those of the paragraph it is next to. As attached to a chart of US cases, it can be read as he started saying and doing serious measures in early March when the US cases were circa 100. That someone did this is fine - but unless multiple RS reposted it, the quotefarm just lacks WEIGHT. Remove the chart of random quotes. I’d also suggest remove the random quotes of the first para. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. The graph reads eerily similar to an opposition campaign marketing piece that recently came out and is misleading as it does not take into account that when some of these comments were made U.S. cases were relatively low. The graph is just not scientific and more of a social commentary that has no place in an encyclopedic page.Bsubprime7 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please start proper RfC about it if you wish. But I am sure it should be kept as an illustration of one of the most important reasons for having so much trouble with this pandemic specifically in the US. Of course this is not the only reason (there are others), but this is possibly the most important. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The image has been removed. It doesn't belong in this article without consensus. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. " Sun Creator^(talk) 22:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It was included on April 1 without any objections. Once again, please start an RfC. However, if you wish, I can start an RfC with the question: "Should this image be removed from the page?" Do we need it? My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

It was actually added on April 2, and objected to here on April 9, and on the image's own talk page was objected to and described as misleading on April 8. I doubt that ~6 days counts as "long standing version" - so yes, please start an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and just because no one objected for a week does not mean the proper consensus was reached to include it in the first place. I propose we will go ahead and delete it for now, until we get enough Rfc for proper consensus. My very best wishes your rfc should be “should this image be included?” The onus is to prove inclusion Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, diagram has been deleted pending rfc Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Rush of Americans back to the US

I don't see mention of that sudden rush of American citizens back to the States -- and the crowds trapped in airports for hours. It was when there were only certain airports would take overseas flights. Any info? Abductive (reasoning) 23:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe at Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on aviation? X1\ (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Death toll is one more in ny 2601:151:C301:2CB0:24FB:7356:7747:A2EE (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RS for your claim? X1\ (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm closing this as not done because the current reliable sources says there have been 7,067 fatalities in NY and that is what the table has. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting neutrality review of Background and preparations - Preparations

Requesting review of the section {Background and preparations --> Preparations} for neutrality.

Based on a review, the neutrality of this section is inconsistent with the introduction and subsequent sections of the page. It has a limited quantity and diversity of references, and has questionable adherence to the principles of neutrality based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

This editor would like to start discussion on neutrality of this section and considers posting the "POV-section" tag above this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.250.69 (talk • contribs)

[13] I tend to agree with your concerns. The section appears to repeat the US White House's focus on the Global Health Security Index, which is a single-number metric, while glossing over the significant missteps the US made leading up to the outbreak. I'll tag it for NPOV and a rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Your article states that Trump recommends chloroquine. Please change "chloroquine" to "hydroxychloroquine."

Explanation: In his daily White House briefings, Trump has been repeatedly recommending HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, not chloroquine.

Primary Sources: Live daily televised White House briefings. Secondary Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/07/real-reason-trump-is-obsessed-with-hydroxychloroquine/ https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-malaria.html

(Thanks! btw: I'm a donor to Wikipedia.) 73.194.247.71 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@73.194.247.71: Thank you for being a donor! I checked the article and sources Trump has recommended both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine and the article has both mentioned a lot of times. Is there a specific instance that mentions chloroquine but not hydroxychloroquine where you feel it would be beneficial to include hydroxychloroquine? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: IPs do not recieve mention/ping notifications. So in this case, you should've placed {{talkback|Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States|Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020}} on the IPs talk page which I have just done. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 20:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: I did not know that :/ Well we all learn something new everyday hehe. Thanks . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Change the confirmed cases for Missouri from 3,539 to 3,799 and the confirmed deaths for Missouri from 77 to 96 To fact check the information I would like changed follow this link https://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/communicable/novel-coronavirus/ Yaboisquanto (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done 2 hours ago The information you requested to update is a template, which is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

The aid plane that russia sent wasn't an aid because the us paid for it. It should be at least mentionned, this article is Russian Propaganda. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-usa-idUSKBN21K34Z 176.102.68.98 (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Despite your request being unclear,  Done. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Something screwy going on

I've been running a spreadsheet since early March of both total cases and total deaths. This was from when both numbers were low, and I wanted to see what sort of numbers were going to play out. It was pretty horrific. I was able to predict reasonably accurately when America would pass China in both measures, and top every other nation likewise.

It's been good to see the rate of increase in cases is no longer exponential, but a steady rise. Not flattening the curve, but not running away, neither.

However, the number of deaths as a percentage of cases is exponential. Instead of being a fixed percentage, it's rising. It was about 1.2% on 22 March, now it's about 3.9%.

I'd expect a certain lag, given that it takes some time between testing positive and dying, but three weeks is too long. To me this indicates that something odd is going on with the testing. Like not near enough, and the true number of infections is a lot higher than reported.

This doesn't seem to be reflected in our article, which indicates a rosier picture. I doubt that I'm the first to have noticed this. I hope that I'm out with my analysis, but if I'm not, then I'd expect within a week or so that daily deaths will exceed daily infections, and if that continues too long it will be obvious that the data is bad. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR unless a secondary source makes a similar implication. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Special efforts have been made to try to test all deaths. As there is not enough test to test everyone. The CFR grow because, well, that's what they try to do. Iluvalar (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You can see various countries' changes in CFR here. There are all sorts of reasons for the changes, as that website discusses. 68.7.103.137 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

On April 11, 2020, Wyoming became the 50th state to declare a disaster, thus for the first time in history, all 50 U.S. states have simultaneously been under emergency declarations.{{cn|date=April 2020}

Please include that the United States has now documented more COVID-19 deaths than any other country. Please also include this source confirming the declaration of disaster for Wyoming as well.

On April 11, 2020, Wyoming became the 50th state to declare a disaster, thus for the first time in history, all 50 U.S. states have simultaneously been under emergency declarations. The same day, the United States became the country with the most confirmed COVID-19 deaths.2601:447:4100:C120:F1D1:6E42:A59B:4CEA (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)