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 01:37, 9 March 2020 (→‎Infected & Deceased Notable Individuals?: vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Former featured article candidateCOVID-19 pandemic is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    February 11, 2020Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
    February 28, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
    Current status: Former featured article candidate

    Semi-protected anti-vandalism request on 3 March 2020

    • NOTE from author of plots: Boud and others. I spend an hour each day updating the semi-log plots. The Chinese data are easy. I only need to translate http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml And their errors are few. Even they sometimes correct the previous days numbers! The world data are a nightmare. My only way of matching daily BNO news counts (https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/) is to track each country and check that the totals match the BNO numbers. BNO updates in real time - they don't give a daily total - and sometimes BNO correct numbers reported a day or two in the past. It's a nightmare! Trends in real time data comparing Hubei, rest-of-China and ROW matter. For example, they already show daily cases in ROW dominate those in China. They will soon show daily deaths in ROW dominate China. In late March they are likely to show TOTAL cases and deaths in ROW dominate China. The detailed country comparisons, which I have but don't plot, are useful to see the regional spread of disease. In the real world I am a biostatistician analysing coronavirus survival and recovery and offering advice about policy to save peoples lives - lots of people. I CANNOT afford the time to undo repeated vandalism of the semi-log plots. I'll repeat this in other parts of the discussion section so it's clear. This "hobby" takes time away from saving lives.Galerita (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Galerita what is the ask here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Doc James. The semi-log graphs have been edited out on two occasions and I have had to manually restore them. I'm not a proficient Wikipedia editor so restoring what I see as vandalism is is painstaking. Undo doesn't work because other changes have been made in the mean time. The semi-log plots are time consuming to prepare, well at least the data collection is, taking a bit over an hour a day. This is because the Rest-of-the-World data comes in piecemeal and has to be carefully checked and rechecked by country to identify discrepancies. So I'm asking that it not be so easy to edit out the work I have contributed. Is there some setting that forces a discussion before a single editor arbitrarily removes something.Galerita (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Galerita there is no simple way. Will keep an eye on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James Thanks Galerita (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Galerita once again thanks for the graphs. The beauty of wikipedia is that anyone, anywhere can question any content, ever. Editors often, and should be encouraged to follow WP:BRD. When they do that, it doesn't mean they're vandalising, at all. There are vandals, but many removing your graphs including myself previously, aren't, they just want the content to be questioned again. Rest assured many editors such as Doc James and myself will continue to ensure that appropriate graphs that follow the policies particularly around consensus are included - at the moment, the consensus is your graphs, which is great. --Almaty (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we have better data on children and maybe a section?

    At the end of the Epidemiology section. "As of 26 February 2020, very few cases have been reported in children." I looked at the source of this. Children is a large area of confusion, with some news outlets saying that children are immune (like the Indian Medical Council head), of that there are "few" cases. Can we put something more precise here?

    Also There is clearly something different about children. Can we add a section ? The joint WHO study says this: "Data on individuals aged 18 years old and under suggest that there is a relatively low attack rate in this age group (2.4% of all reported cases). Within Wuhan, among testing of ILI samples, no children were positive in November and December of 2019 and in the first two weeks of January 2020. From available data, and in the absence of results from serologic studies, it is not possible to determine the extent of infection among children, what role children play in transmission, whether children are less susceptible or if they present differently clinically (i.e. generally milder presentations). The Joint Mission learned that infected children have largely been identified through contact tracing in households of adults. Of note, people interviewed by the Joint Mission Team could not recall episodes in which transmission occurred from a child to an adult." <https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf> Gegu0284 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there not two groups of children - those under 2-3 who will have limited acquired immunities, and those who are older who have been exposed (vaccination or 'ordinary colds etc').
    A key point is - whether actual immunity or 'very limited symptoms' ('a sniffle or similar') - it appears to be present across various geographical regions, so not the (beneficial) side-effect of a particular country's immunisation program. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to add to the section it needs to have WP:MEDRS compatible sources - reviews such as the one cited are a good starting point. --Almaty (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I am very happy for anyone to expand the content in relation to children, and think it should be done. Would be very happy to proof and support or oppose anyone else's draft in relation to this, recommend posting here first --Almaty (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I will post something here tomorrow. Have gathered research on it today Gegu0284 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Coronamapper.com

    I find it problematic that Special:Contributions/John_tibbs72 and Special:Contributions/Montetennis persistently add links to the top page of Coronamapper.com. The problem is that they do so at country-specific subpages of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak such as 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Japan, even though the external website provides no breakdown within a country other than Switzerland and Italy. What do you think? --2001:240:2415:9967:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this is inappropriate. Is it possible to link to a more specific page in Coronamapper.com? Can a note be inserted into the reference that will help the reader navigate to the right section? Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The website seems to have country specific pages for Switzerland and Italy only, swiss.coronamapper.com and italy.coronamapper.com. There is no counterparts for countries other than the two as far as I can see. In the meantime, two users have joined what I'm inclined to describe as spamming: Special:Contributions/MightyMask and Special:Contributions/PearMilk22. --2001:240:2413:CF0B:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montetennis and MightyMask: Please don't just remove this thread. [1][2] Given the unfavarable response here, do you agree that the links should go? --2001:240:2413:CF0B:2974:C4D5:7169:81EC (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Montetennis (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)I believe coronamapper.com adds relevant, reliable and up to date numbers. This information that can't be found in other sources (see infected growth per day), and it's relevant country by country. However, I agree with Special:Contributions/Bondegezou that the page would be better if points directly to the relevant nation.[reply]


    The about page says that it is a student project, so not WP:MEDRS? Sources are Johns Hopkins CSSE and Statistic department of China. John Hopkins cites its sources as WHO, CDC, ECDC, NHC and DXY. So the data has been through several portals before it gets here. Robertpedley (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. That website is just repeating the information from the Johns Hopkins website which has more information, a better interface, is refreshed more frequently and is RS. --McSly (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'd direct the link to Johns Hopkins CSSE, if anywhere. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the links to Coronamapper.com and added the Johns Hopkins CSSE link where applicable.--McSly (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More cases and wrong origin of first case

    More cases are in Poland and now 5 people are affected by the virus and when Poland got the virus did not start in Zielona Górą because The county lubeskie had the origin of the virus and the person who caught it was transported to Zielona Górą later. Hi poland (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    link?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite clear what's being proposed. See 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Poland for the main article on Poland. Boud (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Brazil has 13 cases confirmed

    Brazil has nine confirmed cases, not ten as mentioned in the table. The outbreak map should be changed too.

    Sources: https://g1.globo.com/ba/bahia/noticia/2020/03/06/secretaria-de-saude-confirma-1o-caso-de-coronavirus-na-bahia.ghtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2020/03/bahia-confirma-primeiro-caso-de-coronavirus-no-estado-pais-agora-tem-9.shtml https://saude.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,bahia-registra-primeiro-caso-de-coronavirus-numero-de-casos-no-pais-sobre-para-9,70003222291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F1:E100:67EF:9F5:E577:5E89:6BF0 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1313 https://g1.globo.com/bemestar/coronavirus/noticia/2020/03/06/brasil-tem-13-casos-confirmados-de-novo-coronavirus.ghtml

    checkY Done — RealFakeKimT 07:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    it's called convalescent plasma. There are articles, China has been using and four patients have recovered using them . Here's a link to a page that mentions it. Source is cited also, but not sure if it is [WP:MEDRS] <http://covidindia.org/biology-and-treatment/> Gegu0284 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Treatment from people who have recovered

    I don't see anything here about it, but antibodies or something like that from people who have recovered are being considered as a method of treatment.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    source?50.111.9.62 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to figure out where I heard that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See the section here on this talk page, just one above this one: there's a comment referring to "convalescent plasma". Boud (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Plasma. That's what I remember hearing about.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And nothing has been said in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add a chart indicating cases per million

    It might be useful to add to the chart titled "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory" a column which indicates the number of total cases per million of the population or the number of current (unrecovered) cases per million. This would, at a glance, give a sense of how severe the burden is on the medical infrastructure in that location. Instead of a column, this could also be a separate chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8002:CE60:3C81:856:5141:9642 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    would not a 'separate chart' add to confusion (instead of clarity of current numbers) to our readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I support adding this chart. Listing by country is a rather arbitrary method that could result in the most populous countries being given more prominence, even if smaller countries are worse affected in per population terms. I believe Italy has surpassed or is close to surpassing China as the most affected country by population. Switzerland and the UK have a similar number of cases but Switzerland is 8 times smaller. All very interesting and gives a true reflection of at risk areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.31.32 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No domestic response addition for Israel?

    Why no addition of Israel who is taking one of the harshes actions against the virus? The only ones topping it are Singapore and China. Information regarding Israels actions alongside the palestinian government can be found online. Thanks, Allan Tracy 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Knish (talk • contribs)

    should you submit links it would be helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Corona

    one case is said to be confirmed in Lagos, Nigeria. Mxscot (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Source? and the table already shows one case in Nigeria. — RealFakeKimT 07:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

    The number of patients with COVID-19 in Austria is only 55, as per official government communication: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:951:48B1:8FC8:E286 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ☒N Not Done: The source provided says 74, the template says 66 and your saying it's 55. I will be updating it to 74 as per the source. 08:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

    The correct reference for the 66 cases in Austria in the table of number of infected cases: https://www.apa.at/Site/News.de.html?id=6253571046 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:951:48B1:8FC8:E286 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ☒N Not Done: The government source provided in your other comment says 74. — RealFakeKimT 08:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cases per 100,000 inhabitants

    Would it not be good to have cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.37.81 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it might be interesting, updating would be very difficult. I suggest you write your own javascript to pull up the population of the territory from wikidata and use the figure in the column. Divide and time 1000000. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

    UNAMBIGUOUSLY A problem is in the animated map showing 1-9 people but the key only shows 1-4 people affected. Hi poland (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Hi poland (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That legend is for the still map, and there is a line before you get to the animated map. Do you think we should have a key for the animated map? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    cases/new numbers

    Brasil first death

    It is not putting the carriage a front the horses, but you cancount this is the first case of death in brasil, be sure if i know how brasil is... https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2020/03/07/paciente-que-testou-positivo-para-coronavirus-no-df-esta-em-estado-grave-e-respira-com-ajuda-de-aparelhos.ghtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New cases in Spain

    Spain has reported 50 new cases and 1 death. Numbers should now read 480 cases and 10 deaths XmeggiewX (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Russia's numbers

    Should be 17 confirmed and 3 recovered. https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3246238 https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3246209&tid=108446 2.93.146.199 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

    In subsection "Mainland China" of section "Domestic Responses", in the caption of the 5th image, change "early report" to "early reporting". 2601:401:C680:4240:7843:B7B2:CEF1:2617 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated, that sounds better! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What happened with the infection chart?

    Bring back the total number of countries affected. It just says total. StickyKeys (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We are up to 102 User:Dannelsluc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses section check list

    I understand that this outbreak is evolving quickly, but I thought I'd list here where I see some deficiencies in the article as it relates to the responses to the outbreak. For example, I didn't see a section on Germany's or France's responses to the outbreak even though they have more cases than the United States or Japan. I'm not sure what criteria is being utilized as inclusion for a response section, but presuming it is 250 cases (of which Switzerland presently has it's own "starter" section and has the least amount of cases of those that have their own section), below is a list of areas where a section could be added for specific responses to the outbreak:

    • China 80,000+ cases  Done
    • South Korea 7,000+ cases  Done
    • Iran 5,000+ cases  Done
    • Italy 4,000+ cases  Done
    • Germany 700+ cases  Done
    • France 700+ cases  Done
    • Diamond Princess 600+ cases  Not done
    • Spain 500+ cases  Done
    • Japan 400+ cases  Done
    • United States 300+ cases  Done
    • Switzerland 200+ cases  Done
    • United Kingdom 200+ cases  Not done

    Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated by linking to Switzerland page and added Germany, France, and Spain section as they all have significant outbreaks. Didn't link United Kingdom at this time as they presently have < 250 cases. That will likely change soon. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Former Diamond princess member confirmed dead

    The seventh diamond princess member has been confirmed dead according to this news article

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/mar/07/coronavirus-live-updates-australia-sick-doctor-us-cruise-ship-cases-mike-pence?page=with:block-5e63a11f8f085f0b8d943f2b#block-5e63a11f8f085f0b8d943f2b XmeggiewX (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious

    "100 countries and territories have been affected". This claim is unsourced, plus it's untrue. It is over 100 unless you do some combining of territories that is not currently done within the article. Sun Creator(talk) 21:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From the Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases [3], I'm counting 102 countries listed. So the value in the article seems correct. --McSly (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So 100 is equal to 102? Sun Creator(talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread your comment. We can update the article with that source to "over 100". What do you think? --McSly (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an improvement. Sun Creator(talk) 21:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

    Change Egypt to 48 cases 156.213.210.249 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Had a search around, but was unable to establish that figure. A reliable source would be required. Sun Creator(talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an Intrigant Question : Why Cuba has no Case ?

    Thanks for a plausible answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cuba is populated exclusively by cyborgs, yw. Captainllama (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should either be out of the infobox and be larger , maybe in the Epidemiolgy section. Or then not at all. The Epidemiology section has a big gap. reducing the infobox and placing the map in column A might give the map more prominence, giving it actually more value, while not taking space because mostly it would be in the gap Gegu0284 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

    Pleaae change the statement from Italian Prime Minister when the statement was added by user named Activist from:

    • On the morning of March 8, 2020, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that much of Italy's northern territories, including Milan and Venice would be quarantined within their region. Conte said the country was locking down all of the populous Lombardy region, with movement restrictions applying to about 16 million people. This will be the most aggressive response taken in any region beyond China, and will paralyze the wealthiest parts of the country as Italy attempts to constrain the rapid spread of the disease.

    to

    • On the morning of 8 March 2020, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that much of Italy's northern territories, including Milan and Venice would be quarantined within their region. Conte said the country was locking down all of the populous Lombardy region, with movement restrictions applying to about 16 million people. This will be the most aggressive response taken in any region beyond China, and will paralyse the wealthiest parts of the country as Italy attempts to constrain the rapid spread of the disease. 110.137.162.190 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-isolation and quarantine

    Under self-isolation, I've previously linked to the CDC's instructions for sick individuals, which are the clearest I've found to date. It seems harmless to include but the link has been twice removed so I don't want to add it back without consensus. I think the public health benefit of providing this link outweighs any MOS guideline but I may well be wrong.

    On a related note, there's some confusion about self-isolation vs. self-quarantine. Not sure that the distinction is too important but we should try to get it right. The 14 day recommendation applies to those in quarantine. There's still no standard guidance on when to end self-isolation.

    - Wikmoz (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored the link for the moment pending further discussion. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood and in any other context, I'd agree. In this case though, given the value of this information and reach of this article (500,000 PVs/day), could the public health benefit of providing easy access to credible instructions take precedence? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The same link is right there in the reference at the end of the sentence. Readers will look to a reference for further info and not for a link in text which they will assume is an internal link. I really don't see the benefit in doing this. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The animated map graphic

    I think it doesn't add much personally, for several reasons, please discuss --Almaty (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Im of the opinion that it does 'add' a lot to the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    British English?

    Considering most of the medical literature is written in standard american english, wouldn't this article make more sense in that dialect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article was started in British English, but agree it should be standardised either way, good luck with that --Almaty (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem doing it. I do need consus as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Jakesyl (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Was already discussed here, my reading is consensus for British. No strong feelings either way but I think the article needs standardisation so I'll add the tag --Almaty (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Quarantine vs lockdown

    For wiki purposes, are these words effectively the same thing? And if so, should we standardise to quarantine? --Almaty (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [4]looking at definition #2 , that is what is occurring in North Italy[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Animated map is too old

    Animated map of confirmed COVID-19 cases has not been updated since the beginning of March! 93.85.72.25 (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Yeah it is not up to date. Hi poland (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very time-consuming to update the animated graph every day. If you would like to update it, by all means go for it. We have a limited amount of time to spend here as we are all volunteers and have real jobs IRL. Mgasparin (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And is wrong anyway, example: French Guiana, this distort the reality, I don't see than Greenland be coloring because of the cases in Denmark--181.29.125.114 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-Isolation and self-quarantine

    In the U.S. , CDC regards these as two different things https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/quarantineisolation.html In the UK, only the term self-isolation is being used https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/02/20/what-is-self-isolation-and-why-is-it-important/ Robertpedley (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    different countries, different usage of terms--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

    The number of cases in Austria is actually 99: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html 2A02:8388:6583:CD00:9C5F:5A67:5B68:A9D3 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done We update the article when the government authorities update the numbers. Besides the reference you provided does not say 99 cases. Mgasparin (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My Opinion : Ships Diamond & Grand Princess - Split from USA

    If one of Princess Cruises is alone in table, the other should be. Both are from same cruise company of USA, but they are not the country USA, floating offshore. USA country must be seen apart the ships, because are travels inside country with airplanes or bus or other vehicle. USA is distracted with a ship included in it. In the case of Egypt, it is ok a Nile River Cruise be considered as part of country because the ships there never goes out the Nile. We made two Nile Cruise Ships in far past Nile Supreme & Carmen and we know how they are fix to country or very bounded to it and never goes offshore waters worldwide. My opinion how should be ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC) The flags of Both Princess Ships are Nassau Bahamas, not USA.[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

    In the table, the cases in Latvia should be increased to two with one recovery (2-0-1) Adomasv (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 23:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Overseas Territories and Conveyance

    1. I do not understand why Diamond Princess is under Overseas Territories and Conveyance, yet the other two ships that were listed separately yesterday are now listed under the country where the ship is docked. Consistency is important.

    Yesterday was ok the ships in table separated of countries but listed together. Now I do not understand also why Grand Princess is USA ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

    I see no reason why they shouldn't be listed separately as they are separate entities to a country. Listing them together with the unfortunate country that just happens to get lumbered with them is punitive at best and misleading at worst.

    2. If you are going to list "Overseas Territories" in a separate list, then ALL territories should be listed there. French Guiana is an overseas territory of France but is currently included in the main list of countries.

    3. St. Barthelamy and St. Martin are also overseas territories and currently have 1 and 2 cases of COVID-19 respectively, yet they are not included. Martinique is also a French overseas territory and I believe they have 2 cases. It too is not listed separately.Liane-Windsor (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dubious diagram

    I see that someone has made a diagram on the effect of protective measures based on a diagram here - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm . This seems to be a case of WP:OR, first, the diagram suggests that the timescale has become doubled, when the original suggests that the peak only shifted with no appreciable increase in timescale, just the start and end points getting shifted. Second, unless I missed it, I see nothing about the peak the curve with protective measures will be below the health care capacity in the original, merely that it will reduce the demand on health care system. It should be removed until it is fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah – I made the diagram based on the CDC page linked, and originally as an multi-language public domain infographic after following this twitter thread. The timescale stretch was honestly mostly to improve text placement readability, and there are no units of measurements on either axis. Both curves should start at the zero-point of the axis "Days since first case" in the original too, though, by definition, the delayed curve is just flatter.
    The health care capacity issue is taken from the "Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance" text that the original "FIGURE 1. Goals of community mitigation for pandemic influenza" is taken from. Can't make direct links in that source since it's a PDF, but the difference on the stress on the health care system is from statements such as "A severe pandemic could overwhelm acute care services in the United States and challenge our nation’s healthcare system. [...] Delaying a rapid upswing of cases and lowering the epidemic peak to the extent possible would allow a better match between the number of ill persons requiring hospitalization and the nation’s capacity to provide medical care for such people"
    I don't have the ability to make an improved diagram at the moment, so unless someone else wants to go for it it will have to stay off the page for now, I guess. Amphis (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean this - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425 . It's still OR to infer that the peak would be below health care system capacity from the wording of "a better match". Anyway, once you draw a graph using the same axis without any other indications, you do imply they share the same units and scale, therefore you have doubled the timescale when protective measures are employed, which is not supported by the text of the link. The graph you drew also has other implications that don't make sense (e.g. on the number of total cases), so it cannot be used. Hzh (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I think this diagram is not relevant to the "outbreak" page. The "prevention" section outlines the principal methods of prevention but doesn't contain much detail - there are other pages for this. The diagram illustrates the desired impact of delaying measures so it would probably find a home under epidemiology or a related page. Robertpedley (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A further comment; at peak demand, the capacity of the healthcare system is reduced because many health workers are themselves unwell.Robertpedley (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Preparation time, in contrast, increases the effective capacity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Add data time to the cases number by country

    Hi there

    Can someone who has the right to edit the data add an extra column for data date/time to give a more accurate description of the situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loophalo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for your suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rename article from "outbreak" to "pandemic"

    Regardless of the fact that the WHO no longer declares pandemics, this clearly meets the definition of pandemic as having widespread community transmission on multiple continents. We should change the title to "2019-20 coronavirus pandemic". 38.124.35.11 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's definition is that? Where did you find it? What's the metric used to determine if transmission is widespread? Both sources you linked, neither authoritative, use the word pandemic only in a hypothetical sense. The use of the word is clearly quite contentious at the moment, and whether or not you personally feel that the current situation clearly meets the (unsourced) definition, I don't see any reason to move away from the completely accurate and uncontested term "outbreak" (which includes pandemics anyway) until there's a consensus among medical organizations that "pandemic" is more accurate. 2601:180:8380:25F0:850F:7910:73AC:AA6E (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    your not being accurate, as the first link(BBC) quotes the WHO....The WHO said it was too early to call the outbreak a pandemic but countries should be "in a phase of preparedness".....A pandemic is when an infectious disease spreads easily from person to person in many parts of the world....it should be noted this article was published on Feb. 25, today's March 8 and many, many cases have occurred since then(in more than 100 territories)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The first German died in Hurghada

    Can someone put Hurghada Egypt Map Red ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/coronavirus-ausbruch-im-news-ticker-erstmals-deutscher-nachweislich-an-virus-gestorben_id_11576018.html that man was the first german national who died from COVID 19 and the first deadly case in Africa. Seems he was double counted since there is now one death counted for both Egypt and Germany in the table.

    Infected & Deceased Notable Individuals?

    What does the wiki community thinking of either embedding or creating + linking a list of Notable Individuals infected and/or deceased by this disease?

    The only downside I could imagine is that it could create prejudicial and/or potentially harmful treatment towards the individuals so maybe limit it to just those deceased? But if that's not a concern, I think it would be an interesting/fascinating list to for public consumption but I would want consensus before commencing... Jccali1214 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be a category I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Domestic response

    While this is a summary section anyway, it is perhaps time to hive it off into it's own article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    11 Cases in Poland

    Please edit it, Poland has 11 confirmed cases of the coronavirus. Loocyfair (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Denied, a source is required. Sun Creator(talk) 20:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please include this somewhere

    See — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.156.84 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    interesting graph--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Table Epidemiology

    Is it possible to add to the table number of registered cases per capita for each country? It would help to realize the actual development of the epidemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.52.173 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1st death in Germany

    I dont know how to add and dont want to disturb.

    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/coronavirus-deutschland-toter-1.4828033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammadeusy (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=944640339"