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 50.111.9.62 (talk) at 18:12, 26 February 2020 (→‎Title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Copied multi

Proposed move to SARS 2 outbreak

OPPOSE MOVE FOR NOW
There is a clear consensus that SARS 2 is not yet the common name. There needs to be a clear shift in circumstances before this discussion can be reopened Benica11 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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 [1], 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]
  • oppose we normally talk about an outbreak of a disease, such as flu or common cold. So the article should echo the name of the disease, not the virus--robertpedley (talk)09:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons listed above --Balag12 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close No more WP:CON. Use regular WP:MOVEREQ to have page possibly move.

All you have to do is add this template at the bottom of the talk page of the page that you want to be moved. Regice2020 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outbreak vs epidemic

For the second time, I have found the lead calling this an "epidemic" instead of an outbreak. The title and the lead need to be consistent on whether this is one or the other. At this time, I have changed the lead back to saying "oubreak" again, and am starting to watch this page to see who (if anyone) changes it back. Please let's keep an eye on this, and seek justification for changing it to read "epidemic". If the use of "epidemic" can be justified, then let's move the page to 2019-20 Coronavirus epidemic. If the case is that strong, the move will be easy. (BTW - I still want other parts of the title changed, but that is a separate issue.) EMS | Talk 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ems57fcva: What sources would you like to consult from to say "epidemic"? I've got some articles that use the word in their headlines:
In fact, the last one ponders if or when it will classified as a pandemic. I remember seeing someone saying in an edit summary if there's sufficient evidence to submit a move request, so I might open one if I find a few more different news sources. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: I would not call those sources authoritative. But trying to nail down the case against you instead led me to The WHO Disease outbreaks page which lists "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" in the "Pandemic, epidemic diseases" section. So this is an outbreak that is classified as epidemic. As best I can now tell, using the word "epidemic" in the lead and keeping "outbreak" in the title makes sense. That way, the lead can be updated if and when the outbreak becomes a pandemic while the title can stay the same. So I withdraw my objections. You may revert my edit whenever you like. EMS | Talk 05:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ems56fcva: How would you suggest wording it? It's categorized under that section but is still referred to as an outbreak. "The WHO considers it to be epidemic-level"? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Doc James just said in the section immediately above this, this is both an outbreak and an epidemic. It's not inconsistent to use both words, though we should use them appropriately. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@199.66.69.88: From what I understand "epidemic" is classified under "outbreak". I think for precision's sake an argument can be made to call it an "epidemic" over "outbreak". --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A preference for sources from the Asia-Pacific, scientific journals and WHO

Due to language barriers and geopolitics, health authorities and general media in the Asia-Pacific region tend to be more updated and thorough than media from the West. Generally, other than scientific sources such as The Lancet, media and health authorities in the East should be preferred to ones in the West (especially NHS, CDC...). Tsukide (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a dubious assertion. It really depends on what the information is, as far as general media goes, I would in no way prefer the ones in the Asia-Pacific region to those in the West, given that "general media in the Asia-Pacific region" would include those in China which tend to be highly deferential to the Chinese government, and often are no more than government mouthpiece. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would never use the NHS as a source for health information. The US attracts a lot of talent from across the world so it's a good place to find research data, but the Asia-Pacific has some of the best healthcare systems in the world, far better than those in Europe for example. Tsukide (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are talking about NHS, if there is a specific issue with using an NHS source with regard to this case, then discuss that specific case. Trying to make a blanket comment about NHS, CDC, and other European health authorities is inadvisable. If you think China has a better health care system or medical research or health authority, then say so (but I doubt you can make the assertion stick), trying to use a blanket term like Asia-Pacific is extremely misleading (the difference between Japan and China is vast, even within China, there are huge differences between the top tier cities and other parts of the country). We could in fact argue that this outbreak has happened precisely because of the deficiency of Chinese health and political authorities. Hzh (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsukide: I agree with @Hzh:. I would exercise extreme caution and take any Mainland Chinese source with a heap of salt as they are heavily biased and downplay how serious the situation is. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the others. This isn’t the dark ages. There’s no cause to discount the work of researchers or journalists in other advanced nations simply because the outbreak is farther away. Yes, if we were a newspaper and the subject required up-to-the-second tracking of developments I could see distance and language barrier being an obstacle. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should wait for new developments to become established and have enduring relevance in the overall story of a topic before including them.
    That said, I do think there’s cause to ensure our focus in the article reflects the reality that the overwhelming majority of cases and deaths are in East Asia, and particularly in Hubei—that’s a basic matter of understanding how WP:DUE works. But since we have a subarticle on the outbreak within particular geographic areas, we’re probably doing fine in this article. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I should also note, contrary to the suggestions above that we should actually discount regional sources because of known biases, I would advise caution with that as well. The rule for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And while guidelines like WP:MEDRS provide guidance for determining whether something is verifiable for medical topics, that does not change the fact that we don’t usually second-guess sources on our own. Fortunately, there are plenty of sources to question PRC government-affiliated sources (and those linked to regimes friendly to the PRC regime), but this matter should be kept in mind when working on this article. We are not a public health information service, we are an encyclopedia. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Asia-Pacific covers about half of humanity (including the West: North America, Chile and Australia) with a vast variety of socio-political-economic situations and qualities of health agencies; I'm not convinced that any generalisation is useful here. It seems to me that we are generally favouring the sources that seem the most reliable, which in most cases are the local health authorities. As an example, Singapore detailed and untraced counts are almost all from the Singaporean Ministry of Health and are reported in great detail, including which case is linked to which other case. The fact that the untraced count is increasing very slowly and the overall total count seems to be slowing are consistent with the Singapore MOH being well in control of the situation, despite the number of untraceable cases being, in principle, a sign of loss of control. Iran is in the opposite situation right now, with the naive case-fatality rate dropping, very unrealistically, from 100% on day 1 = 19 Feb to 20% today = 23 Feb, just before and after the parliamentary election. Unless Iranians are much more easily killed by SARS-CoV-2 than non-Iranians (virus designed by the MEK?), the more standard rate of 2% would give the total count to about 400, so it's obvious that there should be about 400, give or take a few hundred, lab-confirmed cases. In this case non-Iranian-official sources could in principle be better, except that that would require Iranian hospital staff to be well-coordinated and to leak the information in a way that is reported by a Wikipedia reliable source. For the moment, we seem only to be using Iranian official sources, as reported either from Iran or via mainstream Western news media. Boud (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NONENG, while we can use non-English language sources, English-language sources are preferred. Bondegezou (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's a guideline, not an absolute rule; the word "preferred" is itself non-absolute. There are some topics where the non-English-language sources are clearly more reliable and in-depth for a lot of encyclopedic type knowledge. Boud (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An Asia-Pacific deputy health minister just appeared at a press conference yesterday coughing and sweating. Today he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. His main public critic was requested to self-quarantine today after a temperature reading rather than participate in a closed parliamentary session with the Health Minister. He and two others with suspicious body temperature readings participated in the session anyway. (At least, that's what the sources say.) Generalisations about the Asia-Pacific are rather difficult. Boud (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

The Diamond Princess is not a 'British' ship it is 'a British registered ship' owned by a joint American\British Corporation based in Florida, USA. Thus it is, more correctly, an American ship registered in London. It was also built in Japan. 2A00:23C5:1285:2301:D9CB:3380:CB80:232F (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)   Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Benica11 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details about registration of the ship belong in the article about the ship. So have trimmed again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Statistics by country should include a separate total for all cases outside of PR China, same as here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome#Epidemiology (see the line close to the bottom that says 'Total excluding China'). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree with this suggestion because a ROTW sub-total is very informative, gives a useful additional perspective, and there is a clear precedent in the original 2002-04 SARS page (as mentioned by OP). History DMZ (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to display and update cases by country? — Preceding unsigned comment

Scary map

The map at the top of this page is scary. Is this what we are supposed to be showing to readers as the very first thing they see when they come to Wikipedia looking for information about this disease? I get that the map is "just reporting facts", but even so... In my opinion, this is not a neutral point of view.

  • A country gets colored if there is a single case. This means that when the first two cases in Russia (population nearly 150,000,000) appear, a significant part of the entire map is colored pink.
  • A country is colored bright red (DANGER!) if there are 10 cases. Anyone from the US coming here (population 330,000,000) can easily get the impression that their whole country is in danger, just because 1 in every 10,000,000 people has become infected. Not necessarily died, mind you, just infected - a fact that you might easily miss if you come here and just start staring at the changing map.

Wouldn't it be a much better representation of the facts if we used a scale like the following? Also the color doesn't really have to be shades of red, it can for instance be yellow.

  • 0: default, gray or white
  • 1-9: very light shade, almost indistinguishable from 0
  • 10-99: slightly darker
  • 100-999: next level

Etc. KarlFrei (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KarlFrei: That's actually the scale that Metropolitan used for the map. 1-4 cases is shaded a light pink, and the color gets progressively darker, based on the amount of confirmed cases. It's a bit hard to tell in the infobox alone, unless you click on the map to get a full view of it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The color shades of the scale categories are adjusted according to the ongoing situation to offer the best contrast (which is also required for an optimized accessibility). There's been already an adjustment in the past (bright red used to be for 4-9 cases and now it is for 10-49 cases). Probably at this stage we should indeed group 1-4 and 5-9 as a single category and create an additional 10,000+ category. This kind of adjustment are long though as the animated gif consists of 40 different SVG files added frame by frame. As such, I need to update 40 maps each time I adjust the scale.
NB: For discussion on the animated GIF, it's probably better to group all discussions on its Wikimedia talk page. Thanks to post additional comments on the topic there. Metropolitan (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not change the colour of countries with 1-4 cases to anything lighter. That would mean Egypt and Lebanon would be hard to spot, and considering the terrible medical apparatus in those countries, it would be incredibly deceiving.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue the discussion here if you don't mind. The reason is that I strongly believe that Wikipedia should not be showing an animated gif AT ALL to (probably worried) people who are looking for reliable information on this topic. It creates the illusion of unstoppability, even apart from the colors that are screaming "Danger!"... I apologize for not making this clearer in my first post. @Metropolitan: I do of course appreciate the work that you have put into this graph, I just think it may unfortunately make people needlessly upset. KarlFrei (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could switch colour palette, but the disease is spreading around the world, it may be unstoppable, and it is a very dangerous situation. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have started a section on the map being scary at its commons page :P. I have to both agree and disagree here - yes it is scary, because yes, its very, very likely it is (going to be) a pandemic / unstoppable. However, on the other hand, the disease is not SARS or Ebola, where every third case or more dies (with plenty of otherwise healthy young people in the mix).
From what is currently known, it's more comparable to influenza - mostly old people, especially those that already have health issues, are likely to die (which is bad as well of course, but on a different scale). The big difference to the regular seasonal influenza is that you will be seeing far larger sections of the population infected - so likely far more hospitalisations (and deaths). The biggest problem (from the disease itself) at first is likely to be the strain to health systems. Of course, you also have pretty severe issues already that are caused by government reactions to the outbreak (lockdowns and travel restrictions...). So I can't guage what the impact on the economy (and general global stability) will be :( ....
Regards Sean Heron (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, on the other hand, the disease is not SARS or Ebola, where every third case or more dies (with plenty of otherwise healthy young people in the mix). Going a bit further off-topic here, but the relatively low lethality is part of why it’s so scary—it can more easily infect vulnerable people because those who get it aren’t dropping dead, and so the number of dead in absolute terms could easily become much higher. This is why influenza is so bad. The Atlantic ran a good article about this the other day. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess its pretty seldom to see users (ie you and me) that were so fiercely adversarial on a topic (that is - on the move discussion here) having jovial (hmm - not quite the fitting term, friendly/polite, whatever) discussions just a couple days later. I guess that's owed to the circumstances... (anyway, makes for a nice change, and so I definitely welcome that :D ! )
Back on "off"-topic - if I can be understand as saying that the outbreak/pandemic is not going to be pretty harsh, then I didn't communicate well :/. I'm very certain there are going to be hundreds of thousands of deaths (at least!). The point I was trying to make is that I don't think there's good reasons to be scared of infection itself [though if you are old / have immune deficiencies, I'm afraid there is :( ] - but the outbreak itself as a whole definitely is very, very worrying, and is going to effect people around the world in a manner that's not be seen in a hundred years, I'm very certain... Sean Heron (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be generally surprised if this disease comes even close to causing 100 000 deaths. Even the massive ebola epidimic of 2014 which had a mortality rate of around 39,5% stayed well below that number with around 11 000 deaths. And to give some perspective to the numbers, the common influenza causes 300 000 to 600 000 deaths worldwide every year. Also the individual 2009 flu pandemic was much worse. So at this time COVID-19 is not all causing an impact to humanity that's "not been seen in a hundred years".Tvx1 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if your feeling was right, but I'm afraid thats not the case. I'll try to connect the dots (while keeping it semi-brief - the place for a more comprehensive answer is elsewhere):
The point you make is somewhat self-contradictory. You point to the West-African-Ebola outbreak as "massive" - but that was an outbreak restricted to a region of one continent. The coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak is (going to be) a pandemic, so essentially you have 8 billion people that can potentially be infected... So even with a lethality say of only 1/30 of that of Ebola (that would be around 1% of all infected), your actually not going to have just 100s of thousands, but millions of deaths, I'm afraid :(. There are some scenarios where that number might be lower (eg. very, very rapid development and widespread deployment of vaccines, or a substantial evolution towards more rapid spread but linked to lower lethality of the virus). But there are other factors that could lead to a lot more deaths as well - the most relevant in my view being: health systems being overwhelmed, or in poorer countries, underresourced; and shortages due to the economic disruption that is likely (due to absenteeism because of infection or family-care requirements, but also continued imposition of harsh quarantine and isolation measures through governments.). Sean Heron (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that - the fact that its going to be a pandemic has been obvious for a while now - if you listened to the experts. That is, epidemiologists, rather than the virologists that were often presented in the media here in germany for some reason (of course the public institutes such as rki also seem to have been more concerned at keeping things calm then informing sincerly... well, what do you expect of governments I guess). Here's a german article in a major paper (by a molecular-biologist) pointing out pandemic spread: "Containment was yesterday". Sean Heron (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pandemic"

If this word does get added to the lead in the future based on WP:MEDRS (it should not now, IMO), I would suggest that it be along the lines of "has spread across several world regions" with a wikilink to pandemic. As opposed to saying "has been declared a pandemic" or the like. This is due to the fear that this world evokes in common parlance. and the word refers to the disease's spread rather than its virulence, "potency" or other measures. --Almaty (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is officially declared to be a pandemic, then we should say so plainly. Wikipedia would not be the first to announce it, as it would await other sources reporting the announcement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course wiki wouldnt report it first, but if it is, then it should follow WP:MEDMOS You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words
Also of note that the CDC's website However, it’s important to note that current global circumstances suggest it is likely that this virus will cause a pandemic. In that case, the risk assessment would be different. This hyperlinks to influenza pandemic. This is very intentional I suspect. We need to consider this carefully. --Almaty (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Almaty (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Wikipeida should not be a judge here. A rapid response brought by the term can indeed help contain transmission, especially for countries with weaker healthcare infrastructures. The WHO itself will state if it feels that the term 'pandemic' is too fear-mongering as well, as it has already done with the SARS-CoV-2 name. Tsukide (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the outbreak becomes a pandemic we may need to reassure readers that a pandemic is less extreme than a global pandemic. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If (when) WHO calls it a pandemic, we should call it a pandemic. I don't think we should be avoiding the word: it's not overly technical, it will be used by a range of reliable sources (judging by what happened in the last pandemic). Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure readers understand it's not a global pandemic unless it becomes one. Casual readers will frequently not know the difference between a pandemic and a global pandemic and not everybody will click onto the link explaining it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced you're making a meaningful distinction there that matches how WHO or the scientific literature use the terms. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By global pandemic I meant a pandemic that seriously affects virtually every nation and every continent except Antarctica. If scientists use the term differently that just illustrates how much ignorance there is among ordinary people. If the outbreak becomes a pandemic we need a brief explanation of what that means. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly provide a wikilink to pandemic. We should have additional text and figures, as we do now, describing the spread of the virus. That will contextualise the nature of the outbreak.
However, there isn't really much of a distinction between "pandemic" and "global pandemic". A pandemic is a global phenomenon. For example, WHO has a page on 'what is a pandemic' (in the context of swine flu) that says, "A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease. An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges and spreads around the world". Or here's another WHO page: "A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”". This JAMA article defines a pandemic as "A health condition that has spread globally". Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When WHO calls it a pandemic, sure we can too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Yes I'm not saying that it should be censored or anything remotely like that. Just that the general reader has more or less entirely different definitions of the word in mind when understanding that word. Experts clearly also vary as to their opinion as to what defines that word. So for clarity we need to define it perhaps something like "has sustained transmission in multiple world regions, known as a pandemic." --Almaty (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I like that wording User:Almaty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of note the organisation has moved to a different “phasing system” to measure such outbreaks, meaning pandemic is no longer a designation triggering a formal response., These definitions may seem straightforward, but applying them in evolving, real-world situations is complicated.. They may change their working definition "on the fly" as it were. Althemore reason to be completely clear in the text what they may or may not be referring to. --Almaty (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A pandemic is a disease that is spreading in multiple countries around the world at the same time." The above definition is from the BBC, see here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support having something along the lines of Almaty's has sustained transmission in multiple world regions, known as a pandemic example phrasing, when we get there. We call it a "pandemic" (when it is) and we explain what is meant by that. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a confusion around airborne and droplet transmissionn

Doc James and I agree I think, I just asked him advice about this on his talk page. Please review this diff 

and achieve consensus. Good night --Almaty (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basis is that the EU health advisory uses an additional term "exhale", rather than simply stating "cough" and "sneeze". I found a semi-unrelated article in Nature which uses the term "exhale" to describe viruses in droplets. China Daily also uses the term "exhale" (for a source closer to the epidemic). Furthermore, read the paragraphs below from BMC by Chinese researchers:

"‘Aerosols’ would also include ‘droplet nuclei’ which are small particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less, typically produced through the process of rapid desiccation of exhaled respiratory droplets [5, 6]. However, in some situations, such as where there are strong ambient air cross-flows, for example, larger droplets can behave like aerosols with the potential to transmit infection via this route (see next section below)... the infected patients produce infectious droplets of varying sizes by breathing, coughing or sneezing, transmission between individuals by both short-range large droplets and airborne small droplet nuclei are both possible, depending on the distance from the patient source." http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-019-3707-y


Tsukide (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the argument. However this is “possible” in your sources even. Your wording conveys no uncertainty. it may be misinderstood as the world needs to use airborne precautions which is a different thing. This virus is not proven to be airborne, and this is impossible to do. And not recommended. But for here we have to stick to WP:MEDRS and we have really not in your wording. And partially WP:SYNTH Third comment please? —49.195.120.46 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have adjusted to "The virus is primarily spread between people by respiratory droplets produced during coughing or breaths.

WHO says Quote "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales"

CDC says Quote = The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Via respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

Both agree on respiratory droplets. CDC says coughing more well WHO also says breathing... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC does not outweigh the EU. Only the WHO can be considered more authoritative. And "breathe" is a even worse word. Not sure if your intentions are well meaning anymore. Tsukide (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tsukide: we all have well intentioned meanings. All three sources agree that these are respiratory droplets, and all three of us editors agree that these are respiratory droplets but for a concise lead it shouldn't say "exhale" or "breathe" - because that isn't 100% clear in a precise, small amount of words required for the lead. if you like I would suggest that you edit and expand the wiki linked respiratory droplets, or later in the article. Otherwise this may confuse the general reader as an overview. --Almaty (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Tsukide I am not sure why you keep removing the references. Both the CDC and WHO are perfectly reasonable sources.
    • With respect to being spread during breathing, the WHO supports this so I know think it is reasonable for us to say it as well.
    • The authoritativeness of WHO and the CDC are equal in my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC receives virtually no data on the matter in comparison to WHO. The latter is more updated and in-contact with health authorities in the Asia-Pacific region. While various universities in the US attract a large number of researchers, the Asia-Pacific has by far some of the best healthcare systems in the world. I've seen sources here for the NHS which is beyond laughable considering they have no need to care about the coronavirus as they are not directly affected with sustained community spread. The CDC is merely a government agency without access to private sector researchers - do you trust the standards placed by the FDA on milk and other US drugs? Or the EU? There are many reasons why the CDC should be avoided in preference for the WHO or sources from the Asia-Pacific. Tsukide (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tsukide:. Its not so much about what is the most reliable source of the three, its is about the wording. Happy with the current wording. --Almaty (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Latest update from the Vietnamese newspaper: 16/16 cases recovered Source (a Vietnamese reliable newspaper): https://news.zing.vn/benh-nhan-thu-16-mac-covid-19-o-viet-nam-khoi-benh-post1051299.html The Ministry of Health (Vietnam) web: ncov.moh.gov.vn Casper1220kkz (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please follow the semi-protected edit request format of "Replace *X* with *Y*". RayDeeUx (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of the Cruise ship

The nationality of a cruise ship Diamond Princess is not something that belongs in the lead of this article IMO. Can go in the article about the ship.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed earlier on by some other users who objected to the nationality being removed. It's part of the parcel if you allow a ship to be registered to your country. Tsukide (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also supported by this IP.[2] Were is the link to other users? We have three supporting not including it here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable content

The last sentence of the "Overview" section states, "Evidence shows that the transmissibility of the coronavirus is sufficient for sustained community transmission and locally acquired cases have been reported across the world, along with several deaths." The last four words seem strange considering the next section shows 2,593 deaths and the words follow "reported across the world". Otr500 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you replace it with? Tsukide (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran - WHO team to visit 25 Feb

Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran#WHO visit 25 Feb. If Iranian authorities follow WHO's advice, the lab-confirmed cases should quickly get up to 600-5000 or so in a few days as testing capacity and full reporting is improved, and to higher values for growth beyond the present naive-case-fatality-rate implied number of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Boud (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for page link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I am proposing that we split out the economic and social impact into a separate article called "Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak". Today has given a good indication that the economic impacts have only started with the virus impacting more countries outside China. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree : With many Chinese-oriented events being cancelled almost from the beginning of the outbreak plus with Italy's regional lockdown I think there's enough material to warrant a page of its own. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 00:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree : It is better due to the high volume of information that may (or is) be clogging the article. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree: Financial is a side-effect.  — master sonT - C 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page should focus on the overall impact of the coronavirus outbreak, and not have multiple sub headers on its side effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree: While the article is quite lengthy in its current state, there is no need to completely erase the sections of the economic and social impact of COVID-19 from this article and move them into another one. Rather, if the effects do become quite lengthy, then we can always use the existing section to briefly summarize aforementioned effects and elaborate upon them by leaving a "main article" link in the section in the future. Only time will tell if these actions will be necessary. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree: The page isn't too long as of now. But that doesn't mean another page shouldn't be created. I'm supportive of creating a new page AND keeping the section. Tsukide (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page is too long now, according to normal standards. WP:SIZERULE says articles with over 100kB of prose "almost certainly should be divided" and articles with over 60kB of prose "probably should be divided". This article currently has 98kB of prose. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree: Hold off on blanket transplant of the section for the moment. The section merits retainment at the moment so long as the subsections are on prominent events of impact and follow stringent WP:SUMMARY to keep the section concise. Essentially all the impacted countries have their own domestic pages at this point point. Sleath56 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree with the proposal to the extent that when a section needs to be split out, this is the most likely area for splitting. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Please also note that I tried my best to reorganise it just a little... its mainly section headings. theres so much content IMO there should be several spin outs. --Almaty (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has already been created, which renders a proposal for a simple split moot, rather it's split and merge. Some here seem to think that this means removing this section from the article, which is not true, since per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, a summary should be left in the section of this article. The article is getting too big, and the content of this section should go into the new article, therefore move the content to the new article and focus on creating a good summary in the section. Hzh (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World map of closed borders

Hello! I think that a world map with the indication of all closed borders would be a good idea... what do you think?
Is it there already any map like that? Thanks! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention

Two items for discussion.

@Tsukide and Doc James: Last month, I expanded the Prevention section to relay critical recommendations from the CDC and WHO. Today, I cleaned up the section and removed some duplicate content. It looks like Doc James made a few constructive edits and then everyone's edits were reverted by Tsukide. Can we discuss? I think this is one of the most important sections in the whole topic as it can literally save lives so I'm hoping it can clearly communicate key information.

Also, I was thinking of adding one more section below Respiratory hygiene and above Vaccines as follows. It could be important information as the virus spreads but let me know if you think it's too much though. I'm content that we got the two major bases covered with Respiratory hygiene and Hand washing.

Self-quarantine

In addition to the aforementioned guidance on hand washing and respiratory hygiene, the CDC advises that sick individuals who suspect they may have COVID-19 should restrict activities outside the home, except for getting medical care: (citing CDC and NHS)

  • Do not go to work, school, or public areas. Avoid using public transportation, ride-sharing, or taxis.
  • Call ahead before visiting a doctor
  • Separate yourself from other people and animals in your home; use a separate bathroom if available
  • Use a household cleaner to clean all frequently-touched surfaces (counters, toilets, doorknobs, tablets, etc.) every day

- Wikmoz (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical information from the Ministry of Health in Singapore and Hong Kong should be retained. The CDC is not an authoritative source here, only WHO. Singapore and Hong Kong have among the best healthcare systems in the world and have far more data on SARS and COV-2 than the CDC. The layout of your edits is also harder to read. Tsukide (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC is not an authoritative source, nor is there any ongoing community transmission in the US. The CDC does not receive medical data from global health authorities as the WHO does. Furthermore, the Asia-Pacific has some of the best healthcare systems in the world and are more likely to provide the best information on how to deal with an ongoing outbreak in their regions. I don't want to hear about what the CDC (or NHS) thinks without first knowing what to do in places where there is a real risk of transmission (for example, most health authorities in East Asia state that one should wear a face mask which is had a significant impact in slowing transmission in places such as Hong Kong, yet the CDC doesn't provide said advice). Hand washing alone is bad advice. Tsukide (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t doubt the authority of Singapore or Hong Kong health agencies. Very fair points that additional details should be provided for individuals in high risk areas. However, the CDC is a very authoritative source as well. I included important details regarding the utility and purpose of surgical masks vs. N95 respirators, including the public health benefits of the former. I’ve also been careful to indicate that the CDCs guidance on mask usage applies to the American public and those in low risk areas. Having the opening paragraph directing readers to avoid wet markets and informing them that dogs and cats are ok seems like a missed opportunity. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information provided by health authorities in areas with ongoing community transmission should be prioritized over other countries, because the CDC isn't going to cause panic by publishing information that Americans don't need to hear, nor is it supposed to publish that information. The EU, health authorities in East Asia and the WHO should have more weight, unless there's a genuine reason that makes their authoritativeness questionable (e.g. North Korea or Iran). The health advisory by Singapore is more all-encompassing the paragraphs that were there before, but furthermore it's also useful from the viewpoint of someone in East Asia.
I've moved the animal information to the bottom of that section as you suggested and moved the Singapore advisory up. Singapore's probably the best example of what health authorities in East Asia (and other areas of ongoing community transmission) are saying. The CDC and especially the NHS are no where near to providing high quality information. Tsukide (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix on that! Only other suggestion would be to move that first bullet regarding meat consumption to the bottom. In the risk spectrum, almost all of the other bullets are more important. In the paragraph that follows the bulleted list, you reattributed the CDC's recommendations to Singapore's Ministry of Health. If they're recommending the same, that's fine and perhaps cite both but right now the reference link is broken. If not, please revise back to CDC. In general, I hear you loud and clear regarding English editors giving perhaps undue weight to Western health agencies. I think agencies in both regions are authoritative. However, keep in mind that rightly or wrongly, recommendations from the CDC and WHO will carry more weight with most English readers than the Ministry of Health in Singapore. I'd keep both. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wholly opposed to the CDC (though using NHS is questionable), but people need to remember that it has far less information and data on SARS-CoV-2 than the WHO and various Asia-Pacific health authorities. It's also primarily a NATIONAL health authority aimed at helping Americans. You're supposed to wear face masks in parts of South Korea and Mainland China due to ongoing community transmission, but it's unlikely that the Antarctic Health Authority is going to alarm anyone living there that they should wear masks and be on the alert for the virus. (Singapore is probably widely recognized as a high quality healthcare system, that speaks English and Chinese, by the Asia-Pacific region and much of the world.) The CDC should only be preferred to WHO (and many Asia-Pacific authorities) when it has new information or special information, or it specifically mentions travel to areas with ongoing community transmission.
I have done what you said. I would prefer to keep the more descriptive (and bullet pointed) advisory from Singapore, but I am okay with you including your paragraph, especially if it is second sourced from an Asia-Pacific/EU/international source. In my opinion, if the CDC is contradicting an authoritative source based in an area of ongoing community transmission, the latter should be preferred.
Tsukide (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks better with these edits. In the case of a contradiction between two highly-authoritative sources, I think both should be represented and the issue raised on the Talk page. I don't think one source automatically wins over the other. However, from what I've seen and corrected several times, at least with respect to face mask guidance, the contradictions are mostly a product of WP:OR or WP:SYN and not the actual recommendations. It can be stated as something like: Those in high risk areas are advised to wear face masks in public [cite Singapore, South Korea, and China authorities]. Healthy individuals in low-risk areas are not advised to wear face masks [cite CDC]. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the earlier version of the Prevention section. Tsukide's version has been rejected before and, as per WP:BRD, should not be re-added unless consensus for it is shown here. Tsukide's contention that we should favour east Asian sources over the CDC etc. was rejected above (Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#A_preference_for_sources_from_the_Asia-Pacific,_scientific_journals_and_WHO) and is not based on standard Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Tsukide's desire to de-emphasise hand-washing appears to be a personal view that is not supported by reliable sources from across the globe. Bondegezou (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per "The CDC is not an authoritative" ah yes it is. It is the best funded public health organization in the World. It has a higher level of funding than the WHO. It plays a major role in outbreaks including those which are not occurring in the United States.
User:Wikmoz I support your adding these recommendations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western national health authorities should not be considered authoritative

  • The WHO receives a lot of data directly from various national health agencies and also employs an army of translators. It has access to as much research tools, if not more, than any major national government agency. I accept that the WHO is an authoritative source.
  • The US attracts a lot of researchers and healthcare funding, so obviously a lot of new research is likely to be published there, but a similar amount of research is published in the Asia-Pacific region and furthermore research in the Asia-Pacific region is more likely to be relevant to Asian problems.
  • The CDC/NHS/etc... should not be considered authoritative sources outside their respective regions. They do not receive data directly and rely on second hand data from published news/reports by WHO or Asia-Pacific authorities. There are language and geopolitical barriers (as opposed to places such as South Korea or Singapore for example). The CDC has repeatedly made assertions on the basis that "they do not have any evidence to suggest x" whenever other authorities have published information, such as asymptomatic human-to-human transmission being confirmed by authorities in China. East Asia also generally has a higher standard of healthcare and some of the best healthcare systems in the world. It's silly to have "CDC says" or "NHS says" in this article, especially when sources from East Asia exist. (Do you think that the CDC has a better idea of what's going on in Italy than the EU? Similarly, the CDC should not be given any more weight than East Asian authorities.). Tsukide (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the CDC the WHO and the ECDC generally align because they're working on the same set of data. In terms of recommendations from that data, they should be considered authoritative within their jurisdictions. --Almaty (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsukide, no. You do not get to re-write WP:MEDRS and WP:RS unilaterally. This is not how Wikipedia works. Moreover, your frequent repetition of this argument is becoming disruptive.
We follow MEDRS/RS. If there are disagreements between sources, we discuss them here and reach a resolution through discussion and consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsukide: I strongly recommend that you take a step back and listen to the advice of Bondegezou and follow the WP:BRD cycle and established consensus on this talk page. Not doing so could result in you being blocked and/or topic banned from editing Coronavirus articles for tendentious editing. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should put the point bluntly: all of us are biased by our geographic/demographic profiles and experience, i.e. the possibility that we're racist (in the broad sense of the word), without intending to be so. Given the geographical distribution of native English speakers, it's a real risk that many of us are biased in favour of US/UK/EU medical agencies and that we assume that they're more reliable than Singapore, HK, S.Korean and Japanese medical agencies. It's less than a century since maximising the number of Japanese civilian deaths was a criterion for choosing a target city for nuclear annihilation by US military/political authorities, a decision that the International Criminal Court would almost certainly classify as a crime against humanity in the hypothetical situation that the US accepted that it didn't have the right to carry out such crimes. Nobody is objecting to the need to try to avoid this bias, which we should assume is unintentional. @Tsukide: you're right to point to this bias, and I think your points here are useful as general context. However, in terms of editing, we need to work in terms of specific proposals, and work step by step. I haven't tried to analyse this specific editing conflict, but it looks like you most likely need to work step by step, showing why specific parts of the text are biased against the best sources and how you propose to change them. It's also possible to consider clarifying/modifying/improving WP:MEDRS, but this talk page is not the place to do that, and modifying a guideline like that would not be fast. Boud (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're doing an OK job at avoiding geographic bias, personally. This will be harder as the outbreak spreads. First section on epidemiology primarily cites a chinese paper, use the China CDC or WHO when referring to Chinese figures, from a brief double check. --Almaty (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boud is right that we should avoid geographical biases. However, Tsukide is repeatedly pushing for something much more than that, arguing that Western national health authorities should not be considered authoritative, which is how s/he titled this section. That is against WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and against consensus, as per prior discussion here. Tsukide also keeps de-emphasising the value of hand-washing, against sources and consensus. This is not constructive.
I also concur with Boud that we need to work in terms of specific proposals, and work step by step. By and large, bodies in Singapore and Hong Kong are saying the same as in the US and UK, but there are specific issues where details vary. We have generally tackled these well through discussion here on Talk. Those discussions work best when we discuss specific proposals and text rather than these broad, sweeping statements. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Bondegezou and User:OhKayeSierra. Further steps may be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone OK with my reorganisation

Ended up being a pretty big one in the end. There's not very much deleted content. Can discuss individual new sections or combined sections. --Almaty (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

More than 21 people recovered in Iran SharvHosein (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stats are updated daily--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline usability

About timelines such Timeline_of_the_2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak: I think it's good to have country updates one/two lines long. It would be supernice if they are alphabetically sorted (with the country name as the first word of the line) Sinucep (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those timeline activities have major WP:NOTNEWS issues, but I'm uncertain how to improve them quickly. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates is out of date

IMO could almost be deleted or spun out to the timeline. --Almaty (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, tis good content, can always get it back. Just think its not WP:SUMMARY --Almaty (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation

This preprint is cited, "One study found that the usual incubation time was three days but may be as long as 24 days" while they refer to the range as 0.0 - 24.0 (what is that ".0" doing?) their sample of around 1000 cases comes from over 500 hospitals. I am reluctant to place much authority on the long tail here, because the potential for outliers due to poor methodology is huge, 522 institutions are likely to have widely varying isolation protocols, and indeed there is no discussion on how the incubation period is measured. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

agree...."(different) institutions are likely to have widely varying isolation protocols"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all who recommendations

@Doc James: Why remove the WHO recommendations? to prevent transmission? ANd just have one of them? Thats odd, there are those simple things that they say now clearly. Also removed the ref of the WHO, to the CDC. --Almaty (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry It's my error i think. Apologies I really cant do referencing outside visual and that sometimes stuffs up all the wikicodes. --Almaty (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Almaty were did I remove the WHO recommendations? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't, it was my mistake. Thanks for the restructure of my restructure too. --Almaty (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to spin out "Public health responses to the 2019-2020 Coronavirus outbreak

I think that makes the page most clearest. --Almaty (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but yes. To explain(!)... The public health response is core material for an article on an outbreak. This article needs to retain a public health response section and it doesn't make sense to me to have an article called "Public health responses to the 2019-2020 Coronavirus outbreak". However, the article currently has a large amount of material under a subheading of "Public health responses" and I think that could be very significantly cut back. I think a lot of the detail there is covered in the country articles (Mainland China during the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak etc.) or the Timeline articles, or it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree @Bondegezou: it was very unordered 24 hours ago. Now much better. Can you or other editors do the significant cutbacks? Full support --Almaty (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

broken references

Several refs in red due to being incorrectly formatted.50.111.9.62 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes those errors happen, bots can come by and fix or we can fix manually--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
of course they happen - the point is they have not been addressed for seven days now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.9.62 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cases and deaths in Iran

So far 95 cases and 15 deaths.

50 deaths in iran for the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.209.244 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And 900 suspected cases: 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran. Boud (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical masks and respiratory hygiene

Quote from the paragraph on respiratory hygiene: "Those who suspect they are infected should wear a surgical mask ...". Reading the WP-article on surgical mask(s), the following can be read: "They [surgical masks] are not designed to protect the wearer from inhaling airborne bacteria or virus particles and are less effective than respirators, such as N95 or FFP masks, which provide better protection due to their material, shape and tight seal". Perhaps it is not a WP-task to convey ill informed informations on health issues? 94.191.152.23 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The availability of the 'better' masks may be an issue, and the public health spokespersons want people to have some protection than none at all.50.111.9.62 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true, but then it should be added to the text (quoting reliable sources), so it is clear to the reader, that the information is not to be relied on as health advise. 94.191.152.23 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea here is that surgical masks are better than nothing, which is typically the only other alternative because of the limited availability of better masks. The aim is to reduce r0 using simple resources which are easily available, not to attempt to eliminate infection completely with resources which are not generally available in sufficient quantity to be useful. I would also imagine that is why no advice has been given for the general population to wear masks; this would rapidly become ineffective as the mask supply would run out almost immediately, and, worse, as a result make masks unavailable to the infected for whom masks would actually be most effective at preventing them infecting others. -- The Anome (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is true, but I can't find this mentioned in the three sources quoted. It needs to be sourced for inclusion to an article. And Wikipedia does not give advise on health matters - WP:MEDRS. 94.191.152.23 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two quotes are not contradictory. Surgical masks are very useful in preventing sick people from transmitting the disease to others. They're not particularly useful when worn by healthy people except to the extent that a percentage of those healthy people are actually sick but still asymptomatic and to the extent that it prevents healthy people from touching their face with unwashed hands. Healthy people in high risk situations should wear an N95 respirator. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great information to the article, with reliable sources. 94.191.152.23 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those details are in the article. Just spread out a bit in the respiratory hygiene section. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I had not read the whole paragraph, but was intrigued by the use of the term "surgical mask", since it is not used by the sources quoted. They only mention a mask. It doesn't have to be a "surgical mask", you can make one yourself. I am an idiot when it comes to medicine, so I need it to be very concise to avoid misunderstandings when I look for something related to this topic. I can image other people are inept as well when it comes to this topic. 94.191.152.23 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not you. The subject is new and legitimately confusing to most people. It could perhaps be clarified. The guidelines for sick individuals generally refer to or illustrate use of a face mask/surgical mask/medical mask. That is in contrast to healthcare worker guidance for respirators. N95 respirators usually have air dampers that allow release of unfiltered exhaled air so they're probably not much better than surgical masks for sick people but I'm not certain. Not aware of any studies. I think this infographic does a good job of explaining the difference. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a study: "Surgical masks as good as respirators for flu and respiratory virus protection". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2020-02-26. -- The Anome (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge '2020 Hubei lockdowns' into 'Mainland China: Hubei lockdowns'?

I've proposed merging 2020 Hubei lockdowns into Mainland China during the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak § Hubei lockdowns per WP:ATD-M. The content is mostly duplicated and actually covered better in the Mainland China topic. The data there is also outdated.

Haven't received much feedback in the last two days so thought I'd post a notification here before moving forward with the merge.

Proposal here: Talk:2020 Hubei lockdowns § Delete 2020 Hubei lockdowns? - Wikmoz (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section was removed about official Chinese statistics being questionable

Pretty sure it was there in the main article 24 or 48 hours ago, gone now. It was short but seemed backed up by references and seemed relevant, so why was it removed? I can't find where it was removed in the 'view history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.212.152 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar in the 1st infobox

Can someone replace “Recoveries Cases” with “Recoveries” or something that is grammatically correct? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing this out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Pic

Propose for main pic to differentiate sustained local transmission and confirmed cases. Using two different colours. Asked on the commons, but think enwiki needs its own consensus. --Almaty (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan: would that be difficult? Similar to "pandemic" above attempting to achieve consensus before it is an issue --Almaty (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Almaty:If we talk about the animated GIF showing the spreading of confirmed cases, WHO daily situation reports differenciated transmissions from China and outside China on 3 February. Local transmissions were then separated in its own category on 19 February. As I'm no expert, I would need a more educated advice about which figures to take into account in said categories. The major problem with the colour solution is that it is hardly visible for smaller countries and regions pictured as circles. Another solution would be the use of icons (local transmission, at least on death, all confirmed cases recovered), I'm a bit cautious though as the map is already getting pretty cramped, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, so maybe it's better to keep it simple. A last solution may be then to differenciate data in separated animated GIFs. I need more advices on this. Metropolitan (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Metropolitan:. Maybe have a play with it and post some options? Other option would be two maps side by side which would be clearer, with a single colour such as yellow showing clearly which ones have community transmission. I would use the warnings of the CDC here as my best data source at the moment - as of today, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, South Korea. --Almaty (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of cases in Kuwait update

because of political reasons

Number of cases in Kuwait has risen from 18 to 25 according to the Ministry of Health. Source:https://twitter.com/KUWAIT_MOH/status/1232616676157464576 TheSkele27 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When will it be called a pandemic on Wikipedia?

The virus has spread to all continents except Antarctica and there is local transmission in at least four countries (Mainland China, South Korea, Italy and Iran). So when will it be called a pandemic? What if the WHO permanently refuses to call it a pandemic because of political reasons? Metron (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussion of this --Almaty (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian government

@Almaty: I believe in that the section titled "Iranian government" doesn't provide important and specific information for this article, just make it longer. You know, most of the material is the claim of unnatural sources and denied by Iranian officials. Do you agree to move them into 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Iran?Saff V. (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been following that part of the article. --Almaty (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note my username doesn't refer to my location or ethnicity. I am Australian, in Sydney. --Almaty (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just pinged you as an active user in TP of the article. How can I follow my idea (in your opinin)?Saff V. (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misunderstood. I just read it, if I were you I would just be WP:BOLD and remove it and then follow WP:BRD. I don't think it adds much. --Almaty (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco

has issued an 'emergency declaration'[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sport events

Not sure which of the articles the cancellation of international rugby match comes under, but a small example of the wide effect https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51641149. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Shouldn't this article be titled 2019–20 coronavirus disease outbreak ? Usually an outbreak is linked to the disease and not the virus/bacteria. Like we say "a plague outbreak" and not "a yersinia pestis outbreak". --François Calvaresi (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is. You must have come across a moment of vandalism that was reverted.50.111.9.62 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=942765122"