Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelGrossmanjr (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 21 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Graph question

Recognise theres a log one but what do we think of this, being easily editable, for the China daily case rate? But I was hoping to make a graph "cumulative daily reported case fatality rate" based on the daily reports of the cumulative number of cases and the cumulative number of deaths for China as a whole. If I do a division of the two numbers is there a WP:SYN issue? --Almaty (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Please note this graph is from February 1 to 16, for the China daily new reported case rate (I need help with the axis titles) --Almaty (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated what do we think of this graph? -—06:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020[1][2]

The cumulative case fatality rate in China compares the total number of deaths with the total number of confirmed cases, on a daily basis. It is based on reported figures. The current figure is not an estimate of the severity of the disease, nor an estimate of likelihood of death from coronavirus disease 2019.[2][3]
[EDITED] It looks good, BUT using or even presenting the case fatality rate (CFR) during an outbreak is extremelly deceiving! I'm annoyed by how the WHO keeps using this silly statistic to downplay the severity of the virus! The D/(D+R) is a much better approximation to the final CFR and is, thus, much more useful. If you intend to make a timeline for the CFR, you must make one for the D/(D+R) (ideally in one figure to show how they eventually converge) and mention that the latter is more reliable. Otherwise, it's better to have nothing, since it would be deceiving people with WHO's malefic politics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, data manufactured by the CCP is false. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this graph has to be removed, as it misleads the general public. The graph is mixing (dividing) the number of people infected e.g. 30 days ago and diagnosed 20 days ago (-30 days from today infected, -30+10 days incubation = -20 days diagnosed, 0=today dying) with the people diagnosed today, that is about 10 days ago infected). Even D/(D+R) is not the best approximation, as I can imagine the infection to death time interval can be significantly shorter (or different) than infection to recovery time interval. It will be nice to dig out from the WHO/Chinese data the average time for diagnose to death time interval and diagnose to recovery time interval. This can be used for calculating of better estimate of the mortality by improving D/(D+R) formula. Vladimir.Smutny 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the true death chance/mortality at each stage/day of the outbreak should be a bit lower than stock D/(D+R). However, if we try to improve it by considering those delays you mentioned we would likely get framed for WP:OR as we would be adding a degree of subjectivity to the data. I think there would be no problem if we used a professional research that did your suggestion (why isn't the WHO doing it? money involved?). Alternatively, we could comment that the true mortality as of each day (during the outbreak) is a bit lower than the D/(D+R) and much higher than the CFR. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Refactored] It isn't deceiving it is a statistic, that is used in outbreak investigation. Please note that Doc James (talk · contribs) is fine with the graph. I'll put in the disclaimer that it is not a mortality rate either. --Almaty (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the graph. The citation given to support the graph contained nothing like this graph, in which case this goes beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR. Show a reliable source (preferably MEDRS-compliant) that presents data like that or else I don't see how it is acceptable under WP:OR. And there's certainly no consensus here for the graph, so please establish a consensus for it before seeking to re-add it. Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: can you please explain how WP:CALC applies? Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I would suggest it passes both tests; the chinese press release explains exactly how they calculate it (within the limits of google translate, and also it is a true reflection of the figures in the sit reps. Although I'm unexperienced as to what we consider obvious and correct I would also argue that the calculation is obvious and correct, its a very simple division expressed as a percentage. It is the commonest method used, has a disclaimer, was verified by another editor quickly Here, and here by @Global Cerebral Ischemia:. The calculation is wikilinked in the title. Main reason to use the table is to avoid primary sources which are conflicting. I think the "death rate" is a major thing that people want to know, and the terminology is important. --Almaty (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that escalated quickly. So, is addition fine but division not? Even the stock D/(D+R) shouldn't be considered WP:OR since it's basic probability, which can be learnt before lesson 1 of statistics. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almaty, I appreciate you are trying hard to do something useful here, but 5 people have expressed views in this discussion: 4 of us do not support this graph's inclusion, while you do. You need to respect that and work out what to do here before you can re-add to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this[1] graph. The one above I am not sure it is needed as we have the other one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did so because I thought Doc James (talk · contribs) supported the second graph. I wouldn't have reinserted it otherwise and there's also 3RR. I won't have time to work on this today. The rationale for having a different graph is because it it shows the best we have on what everyone wants to know IMO. The Chinese cites show it each day I'm pretty sure. --Almaty (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put it on the timeline page for now. Request help with wikification and from native Chinese speakers to assist with the sourcing. I think its helpful as a separate graph, because when looking at the first graph, it doesn't show how the CFR has been remarkably stable throughout, it looks like its increasing. --Almaty (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can just put the risk of death here IMO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No no no that's the point @Doc James: we don't know the risk of death, at all. Thats why I think my graph is helpful. --49.195.82.107 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources that say "As of Feb 11, 2020, the cumulative number of confirmed cases in mainland China has reached 38 800, with 4740 (12·2%) cured cases and 1113 (2·9%) deaths"[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have some WP:PRIMARY sources such as the ones you've listed which is why I'm trying to use the WHO. We can see that it is changing on a day to day basis, and as the outbreak continues I expect this will change. Perhaps in late February the graph could then change to a weekly basis, until it stabilises. I don't want to WP:CRYSTAL but I think that will take about a month (just a hunch, we really don't know) --Almaty (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just reiterating, I'm not completely against the graphic, I just want some compromise (at least include D/(D+R) [D = deaths and R = recovered]). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Edited] Yeah I'm not sure I agree for the deaths section. CFR is inherently biased especially early in a rapidly spreading outbreak, not due to intent or politics but due to the delay of deaths, as we can see logically. It's still a valid statistic, it's used everywhere and gives good encyclopaedic information, Eventually, it becomes a good indicator of disease severity, but for now I've tried to disclaimer for this outbreak at this stage. I tried to overcome the inherent bias by using the graph, then the reader can come to their own mind, avoiding any synthesis. Im not sure where you source D/D+R? Interested to know. It would likely have even bigger problems, from the top of my head, who defines a recovery, delays in reporting recovery, etc. When you have a surveillance system (as many infectious diseases do, eg. measles in many countries), clinicians are much more likely to input disease, and death rather than recovery, then there's loss to followup when people are better, etc. Also, with WP:CALC which has been referred to you have to do two lots of math, CFR is just the one. --Almaty (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D/(D+R) is shown here 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/China_medical_cases. It's probability 101. It's just like calculating how likely it is to get heads or tails: get the events of the outcome you are interested and divide by the total number of events. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that it has been used on Wiki and it is a simple ratio, thanks @Alexiscoutinho:. Are you able to point me to sources on how/when/why it is used in outbreaks or infectious diseases? Or a WP:MEDRS source showing it used in this outbreak and the disease? --Almaty (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almaty, first, stop re-adding your graph, here or on the Timeline article. There clearly is not consensus for it. Establish consensus, then you can re-add what is supported by consensus. We shouldn't be trying things out in the article: get it right here, then you can add it (presuming there is some form of the graph that is acceptable).

Why am I concerned about WP:OR? I can't see anything like this graph in reliable sources. If it was a useful and meaningful way of presenting data, you'd think someone else would have done it. They haven't (that I can see). If you can show me something like this graph in a reliable source, that would be a good argument for it. The discussion above says to me that there isn't consensus about what these numbers mean, or if these are the right numbers to use. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou yes I can see that you don't see consensus here. I'm trying to explain. Recoveries as a data point is not reliable, but we use a lot of it, leading to misinformation IMO. Lots of non WP:MEDRS compliant sources use this type of graph, we cite them many times already. All the outbreak investigators are following this graph closely in the background. I just think it is misleading to give any kind of death rate without using cumulative CFR with a caveat. I'll add worldometers which is being used a lot, hopefully allaying some of your concerns --Almaty (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almaty, I don't see consensus here because there isn't consensus here. Until you have consensus, you should not add your graph anywhere except Talk space. Do not add a revised version of the graph anywhere except Talk space. Doing so is edit-warring and can get you banned. Do you understand? Bondegezou (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou please calm down, I don't believe I am edit warring. Generally edit warring leads to a block not a ban. I have never broke 3RR.--Almaty (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:3RR, you can be guilty of edit-warring without breaking 3RR. You have repeatedly re-added content against consensus. When your graph was removed from this article because it lacked support, you added it to two other articles instead! Do you not understand the problem with that? Respect Wikipedia procedures: as per WP:BRD, discuss what you want to do here, in Talk space, with respect to this graph. When you have something that most other editors support, it can be re-added. Not before. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK point taken. I was suggested by other editors to put it on other pages, but yourself seems to be the main one following MEDRS. I think the main graph has real statistical problems which will get worse esp if the outbreak continues. Am I allowed to WP:BOLD remove that graph so they both have to be discussed. Also can we please mutually refactor the discussion for clarity and if you want to untemplated warn me, please do so on my talk page for clarity of the dispute. Context - it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type, followed by a plethora of publications. For the interim our graph is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with this graph and your over-eager attempts to place this graph on article space. I do not wish to restrict your other edits: if you think another graph is problematic, BOLDy remove it, explain why in a new section. We have had a large number of reliable source coronavirus publications, so I don't believe your argument that it will take a few weeks for secondary sources to show a graph of my type. I doubt such will appear, because it's not a useful graph. Bondegezou (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however we both should not be WP:CRYSTAL, the epidemiologists are interpreting heaps of data. I'll Boldly remove the graph (very reluctantly) and put it on the RfC which explains all the concerns. Thanks --Almaty (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:CRYSTAL means. We follow what reliable sources say. We do not seek to predict what reliable sources will say. This is one of the basics of how Wikipedia works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we agree here wasn't clear. --Almaty (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some graphs. They have a proposed approach... the early stage of an epidemic when local surveillance is affected by substantial ascertainment bias and export and death data are available and better ascertained --Almaty (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports". www.who.int. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  2. ^ a b "2020年2月4日新闻发布会文字实录". National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Lipsitch, Marc; Donnelly, Christl A.; Fraser, Christophe; Blake, Isobel M.; Cori, Anne; Dorigatti, Ilaria; Ferguson, Neil M.; Garske, Tini; Mills, Harriet L.; Riley, Steven; Kerkhove, Maria D. Van (2015-07-16). "Potential Biases in Estimating Absolute and Relative Case-Fatality Risks during Outbreaks". PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 9 (7): e0003846. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003846. ISSN 1935-2735.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

RfC about epidemiology

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize: Graph 1 (original graph) that shows cases deaths and recoveries, Graph 2 (CFR); Both graphs; No graphs, or use a Epidemic curve as per reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex discussion. Think needs a bit more than third opinion.
We have a graph on the COVID-19 outbreak page that has consensus, and whilst its great and speedily updated I believe it is slightly misleading. I have concerns about the data point "recoveries" - and any inferences the reader may make from this. Recoveries has a few problems, namely that clinicians are less likely to report recoveries, loss to followup etc. They generally always report cases and deaths in a rapidly developing outbreak such as this
I'm suggesting balancing the current graph with this graph:
Graph 2 (CFR) --Almaty (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Proposed Graph 2 (CFR)'Cumulative calculated case fatality rate in China by date, February 2020[1][2]

The cumulative case fatality rate in China compares the total number of deaths with the total number of confirmed cases, on a daily basis. It is based on reported figures. The current figure is not an estimate of the severity of the disease, nor an estimate of likelihood of death from coronavirus disease 2019.[2][3]


In outbreak communication a standard way of reporting is the case fatality rate. However, at the earliest stage of the an outbreak, the CFR is inherently biased. We're now past the very initial stages, almost 2 months into the outbreak. I created this graph to attempt to convey the uncertainty. It involves a simple division and therefore I don't think its original research, and I think it could go on this page, or the disease page.
I think when people go to wikipedia they want to see a "death rate", the new graph conveys the uncertainty of the "death rate" with using the CFR standard and a sourced disclaimer. So I don't think we should include WP:PRIMARY sources that state a CFR it without the graph because its changing. Opinions so far have included: 1. WP:CALC - I believe that using the WHO situation reports as the main source, there is one simple division and therefore "obvious and correct"
2. That WP:MEDRS sources are not showing the CFR graph at this stage, just the figures. Primary published sources show point in time CFRs which are unreliable and changing. However, they certainly don't show our current graph.
3. A statistic known as (D/D+R) has been suggested to be used, which I don't think is a standard statistic in outbreak communication. It runs the risk of vastly underover-reporting the "death rate", due to recoveries not being reported or lost to followup, IMO and I haven't yet been pointed to a source. --Almaty (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So sorry to WP:Boldly remove the current graph, as discussed with another editor. I recommend putting it back in once recoveries is removed for now, the achieve consensus about the recovery deferring to experts where possible. I think this letter is explaining a significant amount of the epidemiological uncertainty well. Also, Sorry I will not be available for replies for about 10-12 hours. --Almaty (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Almaty Can we make the graph of % mortality narrower? You are proposing putting it in the section on deaths? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc James done (on the train no less) --Almaty (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc James and yes just on the section on deaths. (unable to log in at present, this is Almaty) --156.22.244.15 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Almaty: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 6,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the death rate after diagnosis. NOT the death rate. In a typical coronavirus outbreak, there might be about 1 infected over 1000 that is even diagnosed. Typically, people with flu symptoms never get tested; They stay at home. We have no tool at all to calculate the actual death rate of this virus. It's most likely 1000 time lower then what is shown on this graph. Please avoid original researches. Iluvalar (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying anything is a death rate, I put it in inverted commas. I just wish to include more standard stats and graphs than current. Such as the case fatality rate. --Almaty (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to write an elaborate comment but I'll leave some thoughts in defence of the chart:
1) While reporting recovery rates is unusual it's not unheard of (see eg. [3]) and though it is approximate, so are deaths and case rates. Considering how closely monitored this disease is I'd say recovery figures would be more reliable here than in previous epidemics.
2) There have been a lot of arguments on this talk page (and in academia) over incubation times and death rates, both still hard to determine at this stage. Instead of displaying judgement on these issues in Wikipedia's voice we can show the readers the raw figures and let them make up their own mind (though of course we should also give prominence to the views of professionals).
3) I'm no opponent of boldness but consensus around the chart seems to have been pretty decisive in that while some parts of it may have been flawed it is, as a whole, a useful resource. When I asked for opinions before adding recoveries to the chart I got a positive (albeit small) response. Considering that the chart has a prominent role in this article I'd say consensus should be shown to be in favor of removing it, rather than consensus needing to be found to keep it (either way, it shouldn't take too long to determine consensus given how active this talkpage is).
Edit: I'm referring to the "COVID-19 cases in mainland China" chart. CheeseBuffet (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here has become confusing: there are two charts in question and it's not always clear which people are referring to!
We have reasonably good text discussing what the mortality rate might be. We should focus on good text that reflects reliable sources. That text should explain the difficulties in estimating these numbers. This is a better approach that anything that might fall foul of WP:OR and violating WP:CALC.
If we are to have graphs and charts, they should be inspired by what reliable sources do. If reliable sources present a certain sort of chart, but we can't simply replicate that chart because of copyright issues, then let's do our own chart along similar lines. Show me reliable sources do a chart of a particular type, and I will support having a chart of that type. Bondegezou (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you started a new section, I'll briefly defend my suggestion. Including the D/(D+R) statistic in the new chart is good because:
1- It is an "obvious and correct" calculation (it's perfect in theory (probability 101) and is the best simple estimator in practice) that should comply with WP:CALC. Take this example, if you don't mention anything about an outbreak and ask a kid in a maths test which estimator of the probability of Y is better in a situation with 2 possible end states (Y and Z) and 1 intermediary state (I), the kid should obviously choose the estimator of the form Y/(Y+Z) and not Y/(I+Y+Z) (which is theoretically equivalent to the CFR).
2- Screw WP:MEDRS, it's not our fault if big entities are doing a sloppy job (or hiding the truth) of turning their numbers into visualizations.
Just to show how decent D/(D+R) can be, it is only 2% off from a professional mortality estimate[4] of 18% in Hubei on 10 Feb. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3- I would agree that doctors might not strictly report the recovery of all patients of a common disease. However, this is COVID-19 and it is very possible that doctors and government want to be sure they count everyone to keep recovery rate high to calm the public. If this is true, then D/(D+R) only slightly over-estimates mortality because of the reasons discussed by me and Vladimir.Smutny in the beginning of the Graph question section. Thus, it should captioned that D/(D+R) is only an approximation of the mortality.
4- It would be nice to see/feel the slow convergence between the CFR and D/(D+R) as the outbreak progresses.
5- It would be pertinent to hint readers about the mortality of the virus. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some great epi curves. They give heaps of detailed information, inferable to the general reader, probably my preferred option after this publication. No DOI yet --Almaty (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever made the first graph, you can make it into an epidemic curve from the latest data very easily. Compromise ? --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity please respond with Graph 1 (original); Graph 2 (CFR);No Graph;Both graphs; or Epidemic curve which I will source from here

and the like --Almaty (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I remain confused what is being proposed or what "graph 1" and "graph 2" mean. Can you make this RfC much clearer? Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: is it OK now? --Almaty (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the way to run an RfC, with the question changing partway through the discussion. You're not going to get any sensible answer out of this. Personally, I oppose Graph 2 (CFR). I support the epidemic curve along the lines in the paper cited. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reason being trying to compromise with the original graph when it was reinserted. They can regig it to a standard epidemic curve with minimal effort --Almaty (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin please close this RfC as withdrawn due to clarity and being now out of date, as we have better sources. I'll make another one on the template page. Sorry if incorrect procedure I am very time poor. I tried to give this a shot but I won't be able to do it. Happy to remove consideration of the above Graph 2 --Almaty (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the template here and reopened with the new question here @Bondegezou: thx --Almaty (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects

Can I get some help cleaning up the double redirects that came from moving this page? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Oof, all those need to be manually corrected? Sleath56 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that there are bots that do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems like so. I've corrected a substantial amount number of them already for more prominent mainspaces, but best to wait a while and see if any bots pick it up. Sleath56 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Adjustment to the Infection / Death / Recovery Chart

There are some countries that have had infected patients but they have either died or all recovered. Maybe we should highlight those countries that currently do not have any ongoing cases. Just a thought. Dannelsluc (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think delete the recoveries can see how unreliable it is --Almaty (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

The grammar of the following sentence is so poor that I can not determine its meaning.

The early response by city authorities was accused of prioritising a control of information on the outbreak. 69.137.146.91 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone had a stroke when writing that. Actually, nevermind, this grammar is giving me a stroke.Dannelsluc (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to make an epidemic curve

But won't spend heaps of time on it unless has consensus wants it. --Almaty (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This is the best interpreted data out of china so far. I think follow this publications lead. --Almaty (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a graph like figure 3 in that paper? That seems useful. Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing that. Yes it is a standard form of graph for outbreak investigation. --19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Current events portal

This is for people who edit this a lot. Keep an eye on the current events portal, as it can give new details not the virus and it’s spread, event before it is listed here. Most people probably knew that, but just a heads up. (Saying this after Iran reported first cases today). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to SARS 2 outbreak

The virus has been named SARS-CoV 2, the article should be called SARS 2 outbreak, following usual disease-agent nomenclature. Erkin Alp Güney 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally called this SARS 2.0, so I agree. I was also in China during SARS 1.0 OSSYULYYZ (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an established phrase though? Attest with at least two sources, at least one of them being reliable. Erkin Alp Güney 16:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One source from me using SARS 2.0. Few more are needed. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7995229/SARS-2-0-Scientists-coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2.html Erkin Alp Güney 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME I recommend a proposed change to SARS 2 coronavirus outbreak or something similar to make sure nobody gets confused. --burntbuttons (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2020
Oppose As per WP:COMMONNAME, no-one much is calling the outbreak the SARS 2 outbreak. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at this time, but I think we should look out for this possibly becoming a common term, but I can see arguments for this. Part of the issue is that the "official name" of the virus is indeed SARS-CoV 2, but WHO has (for reasons likely more political and diplomatic than scientific or medical) designated the disease caused by SARS-CoV 2 as COVID-19. The question is this: Is the outbreak of viral infections or of the disease? Considering we're talking about asymptomatic individuals at length—that is, people who do not have signs or symptoms of the disease—there's an argument to be made that we're talking about the spread of the virus rather than the disease. To an extent, COMMONNAME doesn't work so well in that situation, since "outbreak" becomes a qualifier rather than part of the name. But of course, the definition Wikipedia uses for outbreak is centered on the disease rather than the infectious agent. And so we wind up back here. I don't know. Another problem is that the popular press are using terms for the virus and disease interchangeably (I've seen news sources talking about a "virus" called "COVID-19", for example). So really getting at what the COMMONNAME is becomes very problematic—what do we do about misuses? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The outbreak is of the disease not the virus! And the disease page is currently Coronavirus disease 2019. It is that title that this article's title needs to become consistent with, not the virus name. EMS | Talk 00:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not what the CDC, WHO, etc use. That the DailyMail uses this is a great reason for us NOT to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Daily Mail is unreliable and should not, ever, be used as a source, except in rare circumstances. please see WP:RSP. Do not trust whatever the Daily Mail says. Pancho507 (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but most articles I've seen are named after diseases, not viruses. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "SARS 2 outbreak" is not commonly used, while "coronavirus outbreak" is far more common and more recognisable [4], therefore it should not be changed. Changing it would also likely cause confusion with the SARS outbreak of 2003. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per all opinions given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate recovery column indicating maximum estimate of 12.5% mortality, minimum estimate 3%.

Please reinstate the recovery column. It is extremely useful for estimating upper and lower bounds for the death rate.

Recoveries outnumber deaths by 7 to 1, so the mortality is at most 12.5% using this morning's figures (Feb 19). (This assumes that dying on average takes just as long as recovering, which may not be the case. It is a maximal estimate because mostly only symptomatic cases are documented within mainland China).

Similarly the minimal death rate can be estimated from the non-Chinese cases: about 190 recoveries of which 6 have recovered, so a minimal mortality of 3%. (It is a minimal estimate because both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases are detected outside China via PCR analysis.)

In the coming weeks the minimal and maximal estimates will converge on the true value, in line with other Corona virus mortalities (SARS 2002 had 9% mortality, MERS 2012 had 30% mortality).

So please reinstate the invaluable recoveries column. Thank you. 86.161.82.254 (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an extensive discussion about this with the graphs. Surveillance systems are not standardised worldwide, and comparing deaths to recoveries is near impossible at this stage. Hong Kong had many cases and only 2 recoveries from memory. That can't be compared in a graph to other countries - it is very misleading. If you follow my contribs you can see a fair bit of the argument --Almaty (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is inadvisable to compare the tiny sample of HongKong with anything, as you correctly say. But it is nonetheless highly informative for example that 8 out of 9 UK patients and 13 out of 16 German patients have been released after x number of days fully recovered, whereas the remainder are still in hospital after y days - that tells about the duration of recovery, which then allows us to calculate the mortality rate. There are so many useful things you can do with the data. We are all aware of the caveats and shortcomings. Please let us be the judge whether we can handle raw data, not you.86.161.82.254 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've got good data in the recent CCDC paper. We should be referring to that rather than trying to calculate things ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Please implement the good data from the CCDC source into the Wikipedia table in a resurrected column "recoveries". 86.161.82.254 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have text about the CCDC paper describing the mortality rate. We don't need raw numbers if someone else, a reliable source, has done the work for us. Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting confucius. This thread is about the recovery column in the table, which was deleted this morning without much warning or support. (Perhaps someone felt the recoveries column made the Chinese government look bad, and should be suppressed? No, surely not.) 86.161.82.254 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support reinstating the recoveries column for the reason stated above, namely estimation of bounds on the death rate. In addition, people who have been following the page may now wonder if these recoveries are now in question - as those previously "recovered" now appear to be "sick". If we are worried that readers will mistakenly compare between the percentages for China and other countries, we can add a disclaimer explaining why direct comparison of the data from different countries may not be strictly correct.77.125.11.104 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support reporting recoveries. Once the number of new recoveries and deaths starts to exceed the number of new cases being reported, that will indicate that the total number of infections is starting downwards. That will be a very good sign. EMS | Talk 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely misleading to do so, if this virus is anything like other coronaviruses the amount of infected people is 100 to 1000 time more then the confirmed case. There is no evidence that it's not the case here. There is up to 99.9% of the people who do not seek medical attention. By the look of things, this virus gonna stick around a decade or two. Iluvalar (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of preprints on this wiki

https://github.com/midas-network/COVID-19/wiki/Documents --Almaty (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no more data?

what happened to the data on recoveries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.253.160 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have restored for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to tabulate the daily history of cumulative deaths and the rate of change

I don't see that the article shows the daily values of the cumulative deaths; it only shows the total deaths as of today. The columns of data next to the daily bar chart show the daily values of cumulative numbers of cases and the relative change from the previous day. What if someone adds a column listing the daily cumulative numbers of deaths and the relative change? I would think that a lot of people would be interested in the history of deaths, not just the history of cases. For one thing, I think it might indicate the lag between diagnosis and death, for those who died.CountMacula (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. 86.161.83.159 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. The data is there. The daily deaths increase by ca 6%. I expect that number to drop. Xenagoras (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm changing the title of the section from "Does the daily rate of change of cumulative deaths match the daily rate of change of cases?"CountMacula (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Mainland China cases might not be accurate?

The CDC China has published their latest papers according to two major news outlets[5][6] in China on the outbreak of corona virus in a domestic medical journal. Their tally of casualties of the virus and when it might have started largely corroborate with what many reporters have seen and it is in total contrast to official government figures. For example, according to one paper, before 1 Dec, 104 cases had already been recorded . While between 7 Jan and 16 Jan, the Wuhan government said there were 41 confirmed cases during that period, the paper revealed between 1 Jan and 10 Jan, there were 653 and between 11 Jan and 20 Jan, there were a whopping 5417.

Beijing News also reports the average waiting time for a patient with serious symptoms to get admitted to a hospital is about 10 days. Swoopin swallow (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports". www.who.int. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  2. ^ a b "2020年2月4日新闻发布会文字实录". National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Lipsitch, Marc; Donnelly, Christl A.; Fraser, Christophe; Blake, Isobel M.; Cori, Anne; Dorigatti, Ilaria; Ferguson, Neil M.; Garske, Tini; Mills, Harriet L.; Riley, Steven; Kerkhove, Maria D. Van (2015-07-16). "Potential Biases in Estimating Absolute and Relative Case-Fatality Risks during Outbreaks". PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 9 (7): e0003846. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003846. ISSN 1935-2735.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ "Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV)" (PDF). Imperial College London. Retrieved 2020-02-18.
  5. ^ http://www.bjd.com.cn/a/202002/18/WS5e4bdf8ae4b0094948681c52.html
  6. ^ https://new.qq.com/omn/20200219/20200219A0H2FK00.html

2 deaths on international conveyance??

The table says "Deaths on international conveyance: 2", but there is nothing else about it in the article or elsewhere. What's the scoop?24.108.56.72 (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

should be referring to this: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/24c3b1bf4030-breaking-news-2-elderly-passengers-of-virus-hit-ship-died-japan-govt-source.html robertsky (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source just before I came here, but the source should be in the article.24.108.56.72 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian case: false diagnosis?

A couple of days ago the media reported that the Egyptian "coronavirus" patient turned out to be negative after RNA/DNA testing. The diagnosis was in error. This would mean Egypt needs to be dropped from the league table and from the map. Can someone follow this up please? 86.161.83.159 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. So we leave the table as is. (By the way, your source does agree with my source in saying "State TV earlier said a foreigner thought to be carrying the coronavirus had tested negative, raising questions about his initial infection." My hunch is thst someone in the lab got the RT-PCR wrong thus creating a false positive, and now they are pretending the patient's immune system has claared the alleged "virus" in just a couple of days and therefore the follow-up test is negative. This saves the reputation of the lab. I hope someone had the wit to store an aliquot of the original sample, for future investigation.) 86.161.54.108 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo under epidemiology

"propogated" should be "propagated' Bhimasena (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak&diff=941739020&oldid=941737798 Fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestilence Unchained (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

text in the image box for the animation of the spreading (top right of the article) is outdated

Animation file says through feb 19, text says through feb 18 Airtwit (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing that out, this is a fast moving event(and therefore article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

Can you clarify outbreak vs epidemic? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:3A (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is incorrect. MEDRS approves of "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies", which includes WHO and the CDC. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are neither guidelines nor position statements. Guidelines means evidence-based medicine guidelines, that is, secondary or tertiary sources that provide recommendations citing sources. For instance, the Guidelines for drinking-water quality, https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/. Position statements refers to a shorter form guideline on a very specific topic, such as a specific treatment or similar, that is also a form of evidence based medicine document. For instance, the Rabies vaccines position paper, https://www.who.int/immunization/policy/position_papers/rabies/en/. Public affairs documents, such as news releases and unsigned FAQs are neither guidelines nor position statements. Furthermore, the purposes for which MEDRS allows such documents is not for settling whether something is an outbreak or epidemic, but whether a treatment is efficacious and supported by the medical literature. It’s a bit like claiming that something written in the style of WebMD is a MEDRS-compliant source. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Covid-19 is rather new, as you may have noticed. We're not going to get quite the same materials on it as we do with guidelines for drinking-water quality. But these WHO, CDC etc. documents are based on the best evidence available, and clearly satisfy MEDRS. They are not "public affairs documents": they are public health documents. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at those links? Or have you ever read a medical research or policy document? These public-targeted information resources, like the pamphlets you find in a doctor’s office, and trying to shoehorn them into the same category as actual research and position papers is frankly offensive to everyone who actually works in healthcare. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I conduct medical research and input on policy. Indeed, I am conducting coronavirus research with the UK Department of Health and in consultation with No. 10, but WP:EXPERT. These resources are like the pamphlets you find in a doctor's office. But they are based on the best evidence available from reputable sources. They satisfy WP:MEDRS. I am baffled by your quixotic objections here, but take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) if you think there's big problem here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These resources are like the pamphlets you find in a doctor's office. But they are based on the best evidence available from reputable sources. And they are neither guidelines nor position statements. I am baffled by your quixotic objections [...] I could say the same. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9 day survival time for coronaviruses: literature review value

I had to restore this text in the prevention section on information from a review of medical research literature on the survival time of coronaviruses. Someone had left in a reference which has a brief quote by a scientist who says "a few hours" and removed the literature review estimate. The original reference is set earlier; for convenience, here it is: <ref name="GunterTPS_9days_persistence">{{cite journal | last1 = Kampf | first1 = Günter | last2 = Todt | first2 = Daniel |last3=Pfaender |first3=Stephanie |last4=Steinmann |first4=Eike | title = Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents | journal = [[Journal of Hospital Infection]] | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Elsevier | date = 6 February 2020 | url = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670120300463/ | url-access = <!-- (subscription/registration/limited) default=free --> | issn = | doi = 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022 | pmid = 32035997 | id = | biorxiv= | accessdate = 15 February 2020 | archiveurl= https://archive.ph/Ftr5w | archivedate= 15 February 2020 |url-status=live <!-- live|dead|unfit|usurped -->}}</ref>. [I said "review" here, because I'm not sure of the difference between a "review" and a "meta-review".] The source of this reference was from discussion on this page (search in the archives). Boud (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unencyclopedic to provide medical advice that the virus only persists a few hours on surfaces, when reliable scientific and medical sources say it might persist over a week. The questionable low estimate could lead to someone assuming it is safe to move into a room or ride in a bus used by an infected person the very next day or 12 hours later without disinfecting it, resulting in new infections.. Edison (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

Since we have several articles named "(name) related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" such as Evacuations related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Should we create this new one: Travel ban related to the related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak? There are many sources for this, such as https://fortune.com/2020/02/06/countries-china-travel-restrictions-coronavirus/, https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-01-31-20-intl-hnk/h_d3eea9b0845b9bad6103629d601b71c9. 152.133.14.9 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel restrictions are in 2020 Hubei lockdowns#Reactions and measures outside Mainland China. You can go to the talk page there and propose splitting off Travel bans related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Boud (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally concur that elsewhere is the right place for discussion, but bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with posting notices on related talk pages of an ongoing discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Boud (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quadratic growth and comparison to previous research

A recent preprint paper models the infected and death statistics as highly regular quadratic growth. I added a paragraph about this and included the following sentence:

The regular quadratic growth is compared to previous research describing how Chinese organ donation statistics was falsified using a simple quadratic equation.

This sentence was removed by User:CaradhrasAiguo. I believe this information is an accurate description of the paper's conclusions, and highly relevant to the article. Feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipe42 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is not an accurate description of the paper. Reference 7 of the paper - Robertson, Hinde & Lavee 2019 - is only mentioned in passing in the Conclusions section of the paper; the abstract and main thrust of the paper are that the author argues that a quadratic model is epidemiologically justified, giving a theoretical justification of why it would make sense in the present context, and an empirical graphical argument that the model fits the data well, without any statistical analysis. He seems to refer to falsification, as per RHL2019's suggestion, as one possible explanation, but that his model provides a straightforward explanation.
The evidence for organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China at the level of 10,000 or so live donors "sacrificed" per year is overwhelming and obviously a crime against humanity, with the Kilgour-Matas report being one of the best-known summaries of evidence. But a passing comment in a preprint suggesting time curve similarities is not justification for the proposed sentence. Boud (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The shifting of medical staff to handle the COVID-19 outbreak might right now be delaying organ transplants, so many of the prisoners may effectively be given a few extra weeks or a month or so longer to live before their organs are transplanted to transplantees. But getting evidence of this would require a whistleblower from medical staff normally responsible for removing the organs from the prisoners; the prisoners themselves and their families are presumably not informed in advance of their planned days of sacrifice, or of delays in the sacrifice dates. A whisteblower report published by a reliable source, e.g. sent to the NYT on their https :// www dot nytimes3xbfgragh dot onion/ service over Tor (anonymity network), and published by the NYT after their journalists judge the information credible, would most likely be notable enough for this article. Boud (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the preprint itself: there is no explanation of which sources the Table 1 values come from and in what precise way they are extracted, except for a hint that they come from "daily news reports" and that WHO, Devex and Worldometer provide data. There's no explanation of the difference between lab-confirmed cases, clinically diagnosed cases, possible limits in lab-testing, and how he models all of these to interpret the data in an epidemiologically justified way. Also, the author fails to comment on the last 4-5 days of the cumulative count. Figure 2 shows that the e-folding time of the cumulative confirmed cases is huge - above the scale of the plot - during around 14-19 February; in other words, the cumulative number of confirmed cases is no longer following his quadratic fit since 4-5 days ago, so "does not show any sign of a decline" in the conclusions means that the author didn't notice what was in Figure 2 and what is obvious in File:NCoV20200209 Hubei China ROW cases.png. Boud (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal to include disease name

As I have stated before, an outbreak is of a disease, not a virus. In Wikipedia, the disease is now called Coronavirus disease 2019 after a recent move. Under the guidance of WP:Article Titles and the principle of consistency, we should be using that name in the title of this article. As that results in a cumbersome name, I will make 3 suggestions:

  • 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak is the obvious title. It is consistent with the disease page, but cumbersome.
  • 2019-20 Coronavirus disease outbreak is a more minimal change. It is more readable but less precise.
  • 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak is my favorite. It is less verbose, easier to find, and concise. It suffers only from the consistency issue, as it uses the acronym for the disease instead of the fully spelled out name. As the acronym is as official as the disease name, and it's mentioned prominently in the disease page, I do not see a major issue here.

This page has never been named properly. Part of the reason is that the cause was known before the disease was named. Another issue is a lack of guidance on how to name an article on an outbreak in this case.

The reasons for this article having it's current name have become moot. I know that this will be a quick second move, but I really think that pieces for doing this move are now in place. EMS | Talk 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page has never been named properly. I don’t know about that. On some level there’s no such thing as a “proper” name. It’s whatever the COMMONNAME is, determined to the best of our ability and within the consensus-finding process. I don’t think there is any problem with this title, given it’s at least properly descriptive when we don’t have an agreement on what a COMMONNAME might be: “2019–20 coronavirus outbreak” it’s an outbreak caused by a coronavirus (yes even if the disease is the outbreak, the virus itself is the cause of the disease) that occurred in 2019 and 2020. That’s fine. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to cordially suggest to ALL parties interested in once again re-naming this highly-visible and increasingly popular article to please hit the pause button, take a deep breath, and wait at least one full week (uninterrupted from new re-naming attempts) and then go ahead and re-visit the issue. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Justification WP:NCMED says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." The current name for this article is a lay term as much concocted by the politics of Wikipedia itself as anything else, and the quoted guideline above makes the use of WP:COMMONNAME dubious. For this disease, the full scientific name put forward by WHO and Wikipedia article name is Coronavirus disease 2019 with an acronym of COVID-19. Furthermore, COVID-19 is now being regularly used in scientific sources like Nature magazine (see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00154-w ) and lay sources like the Washington Post (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-china-live-updates/2020/02/21/81d2aa50-543e-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html ). Waiting a week before doing another formal RM I approve of. But part of my reason for wanting to do a discussion now is in part to set the stage for doing (or possibly no doing) said RM. EMS | Talk 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NCMED says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." The current name for this article is a lay term as much concocted by the politics of Wikipedia itself as anything else, and the quoted guideline above makes the use of WP:COMMONNAME dubious. NCMED is a guideline, COMMONNAME is policy. Where they disagree COMMONNAME takes precedence. You’ve effectively torpedoed your own argument. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Latest update by the Ministry of Health (Vietnam): 15/16 cases recovered Source: ncov.moh.gov.vn Thank you! Casper1220kkz (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is clear

In Mexico, there are no longer suspected and confirmed cases of the Wuhan coronavirus. All were negative. Any questions? --МОДОКАУ 06:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im guessing you may mean this[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese virus from Wuhan in Korea

Over two hundred cases in Korea all of the sudden and no narrative at all in the article? Needs expansion. XavierItzm (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, South Korea has seen an increase in cases[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

Assessment

The article has inline "citation needed" tags. The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
Needing expansion is one thing but one sentence sections ("Environmental impacts") or those that call into question if the article "reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies", such as the incomplete "List of interprovincial medical aid teams that went into Hubei", is a concern per #2. The shut down casinos (Macau section) have been opened meaning the information is outdated. Otr500 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
should you feel the article needs to be re-assessed then it can be done via several editors, not just one, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 deaths and suspected 750 cases in iran

news in italian--Dwalin (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge need for more sources on "silent countries" and also more coverage on sinophobia

After epidemy outbreak in Iran, it is clear that the countries with less medical advanced medical equipment have the epidemy going on uncovered which is very disturbing. I believe the public needs to know more about it as it looks like we lost the window of opprtunity to curb the epidemy and it is going viral. I'm asking all the editors who know other languages to watch and follow reliable sources in their countires (Africa, Asia,Middle East) and share it here on the Talk page, so the other editors can double check their authencity.

Also, there is number of reports on rising sinophobia and general phobia of people who are afraid of those infected with coronovirus. I think it should be also covered in neutral tone. Here is the first alarming signal from Ukriane:

MichaelGrossmanjr (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=941977720"