Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:601:9800:2f2e:b518:e771:2171:a9e7 (talk) at 15:52, 16 March 2020 (→‎color coding: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50

postponed DNI report, add?

The Trump administration, without explanation, postponed the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI) annual US World Wide Threat Assessment intelligence report that warns that the U.S. remains unprepared for a global pandemic. The office of the DNI was scheduled to deliver the Assessment report to the House Intelligence Committee on February 12.

X1\ (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds relevant, probably something to add here #Charges of mismanagement or #Preparedness feel free to add. --hroest 04:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done X1\ (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove worldometers.info numbers off the main box?

Recently the Johns Hopkins CSSE number was removed from the main box and the https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries number was used instead. This worldmeters.info numbers is completely unofficial. At least with Johns Hopkins data, we know that legit experts are trying to have correct numbers and their data is open-source. The worldmeters data is proprietary and we have no way to know where it really comes from and why it might disagree with official CDC or state health department numbers.

  • I would like to remove it from the main box and use Johns Hopkins plus the official CDC numbers OR only CDC. Italy and Germany pages only use their country's official numbers. The graph could also be changed to CDC numbers if we wanted it to reflect that instead of the state numbers. Seatto23 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with CDC though is that they say the states have the most up to date numbers. This is from their website. "In the event of a discrepancy between CDC cases and cases reported by state and local public health officials, data reported by states should be considered the most up to date." "Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative of all testing being done nationwide." That takes us back to the Timeline Table where we are keeping track of the numbers reported by the states. Seatto23 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial? You do realize that on their coronavirus counter page, they actually list sources to confirmed cases and deaths for nearly every county right? It's literally at the bottom. Not to mention, this isn't the only Wikipedia page to use the site. As such, I don't think it's a problem to include Worldometer along with the Johns Hopkins tracker. There's also another tracker where the numbers match up with Worldometer as well as cites their sources. 2601:409:8500:CD50:2403:3F15:CD81:CD5C (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is unofficial. Those "sources" cannot be matched up to specific state official numbers (released by state government) on specific days. Go back to say March 2nd and show me what "sources" the March 2nd number is on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. You can't. It is not there. But in any case, this isn't an official (government) set of numbers. The sources are a mix of news sources (of unknown quality) and actual press releases from state officials. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/ sources are easier to match up to specific days, but again the sources are a mix of news and and state government updates. For the US, the CDC says that the state health officials are the official numbers. Seatto23 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with these non-verifiable trackers has come up multiple times in the talk pages. See here. As hroest notes "this [coronavirus.1point3acres] is a self-published source by non-experts and should not be used in Wikipedia." If you go to, say, WA for March 11, you see that what they say is the official numbers for WA (showing even a link to the WA Dept of Health website) does not match what is on the WA Dept of Health website. Wrong # deaths and # of cases. Seatto23 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all numbers except WHO and government numbers are unofficial. However John Hopkins published their tool and methodology in a peer reviewed journal (Lancet) and they list their sources and keep up to date. The right place for the reliability discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where we did discuss the 1point3acres source in detail and we could discuss worldometers, I dont know exactly how they operate and whether they have experts for this task. Overall the agreement is that in terms of reliability WHO > CDC > John Hopkins > everything else while in terms of up-to-dateness its probably John Hopkins > CDC / WHO (WHO relies on reports from individual countries). I am already hesitant to use John Hopkins but we almost have to since CDC / WHO are so much behind -- but I am much more hesitant to use less reliable sources than JH. --hroest 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hroest Re JH. How do we archive the daily number? That's not rhetorical; I mean that as a logistical question. And when should the day end? I'm fine with using JH in the graph/box but we should decide these 2 questions. Seatto23 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JH publishes time series: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_19-covid-Confirmed.csv however I am not sure what they use as cutoff time to end the day, but its relatively straight forward to use these to aggregate on a state level. So that would be one option, but of course I would prefer official sources. --hroest 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GyozaDumpling See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard discussions about what are official and reliable sources. I'll keep changing sources back to either CDC, JH or state numbers until there is some consensus about whether using a mix of news sources and government sources (which Worldmeters does) is considered a reliable source for this page. Seatto23 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To mitigate the amount of cooks in the kitchen, i’ll just refrain from any edits from now on. Thanks for the brief on sources, and ill make sure to catch up on it. GyozaDumpling (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should settle on one source (BNO, worldofmeters, CNN whatever) and use that number with a (est.) behind it to indicate that this is a best-guess estimate. They will all have bias but probably on average be not far off. --hroest 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distrust between Trump Administration and national health agencies, add ?

The White House and national health agencies have reportedly grown distrustful of one another over the mixed messaging on coronavirus. While Trump has called his administration’s response a “perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan,” the top infectious disease doctor at the National Institutes of Health and Surgeon General of the United States told the public to be prepared for more cases and deaths, warning the elderly and medically vulnerable to avoid large crowds and long trips or cruises. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said the Trump administration considers severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-2, the coronavirus) “a very serious public health threat” and that “Nobody is trying to minimize this.” Six minutes later, Trump downplayed the severity of coronavirus, comparing it to the “common Flu,” tweeting: “Think about that!” Meanwhile, during a tour at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Trump mused that he had a “natural ability” to understand the coronavirus outbreak, saying “People are really surprised I understand this stuff. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’”

Quotes: U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams: “We now are seeing community spread and we’re trying to help people understand how to mitigate the impact of disease spread,”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health: “There comes a time, when you have containment which […] you’re trying to find out who’s infected and put them in isolation. And if and when that happens — and I hope it’s if and not when — that you get so many people who are infected that the best thing you need to do is what we call mitigation in addition to containment.”

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration: “We’re past the point of containment. We have to implement broad mitigation strategies. The next two weeks are really going to change the complexion in this country. We’ll get through this, but it’s going to be a hard period. We’re looking at two months, probably, of difficulty.”

X1\ (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add related Veracity of statements by Donald Trump wlink to article. X1\ (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Speech video

President Trump's speech on March 11, 2020.

Video is here if anyone could use it.

Victor Grigas (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wrong that I am ashamed of that president? What a mockery, a slapstick policy.

I think we should ensure that opinions are not included on this.SunDawn (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on President Trump's "pointless" travel ban and why America isn't ready for the coronavirus → 'America's not safe' → His travel bans is incoherent. Counting cases rather than seeing COVID19 spreading widely in most countries. Travel from highly functioning health systems like Switzerland or Germany banned, but not weak systems like Romania or Albania. "Shocking disregard for science and evidence" --87.170.197.61 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

1. By my count there are 8 images of Trump on this article. Can we not?

2. Also, I'll ask again, should this page be added to WikiProject Donald Trump? Searching "Trump" on the page currently yields 70 returns.

Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus is not about Trump, it is about the country. Yes, his actions shape US responses, but so are other leaders of the world. SunDawn (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead improvements

I've done some changes to the lead to emphasize recent developments. Per WP:LEAD the lead must summarize all key points across the entire article, hence I would like to request the addition of content relating to

  • Other economic impacts of the pandemic within the United States
  • Criticism over the handling of the pandemic by the Trump administration.

ViperSnake151  Talk  15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article is already over-saturated with criticism of the Trump administration in a number of sections, with much of the detail and cites in them outdated. So I'd suggest against using the article for that purpose any more. This is a new disease which has become pandemic, with no treatment or vaccine yet. Nothing could be simpler than criticizing any of the 100+ countries that now are trying to fight it, as opposed to what many are doing properly and logically. Just my opinion. --Light show (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with criticism to Trump, but overloading this article should not be done. If we see other nation leader's responses we would easily see things we could criticize anyway. This article alone has more criticism to Trump than similar articles criticizing their other leaders.SunDawn (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is leaning toward bias, add Criticism sections per wiki best practices

There are a lot of sections that are starting to bias toward heavy criticism of the US Executive Administration response, without any attempt to balance the section by calling out critical responses which may be biased. Typically, articles include sections along the pattern of "Administrative Response" followed by a "Criticism" section. As of now, the criticism citations are not being called out separately. This detracts from the wiki goal of factual and unbiased content. 70.231.77.227 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the article will soon begin to report positive news as the CDC begins to deliver more of the tests that it has been promising and the president begins to quit quit saying so many things that don't match what the medical experts are saying. Also, he did present an excellent package of plans to help us all get through this emergency and that should go in the article now while it awaits confirmation by the Senate, and that will help to even things out. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article could benefit from extending the description of the response of the administration and the CDC and moving criticism to designated sections, such as "charges of mismanagement". However, it is difficult to extend the description of what the government has done when it has done so little. --hroest 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's all relative. China waited nearly 8 weeks after its first case before imposing any local travel restrictions or quarantines, while it took the U.S. just 9 days from its first case to limit international travel. China then criticized the U.S. for doing too much, not too little. --Light show (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the medical institutions in the US are nowhere close to start wide testing for the virus. In fact, there is a catastrophic failure with this [1], unlike in South Korea. This is one of reasons US will pay an enormously high price for this pandemic in terms of wide closures of everything and people get sick and fired from the jobjs, instead of acting in the same way as the South Korea did. Only 6 to 8 thousand people were tested in US so far. "It's insanity" doctors say [2]. True. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
South Korea is seen as the "best" practice, but US is not performing too badly either. France and Germany, both with higher infection rate than US (in terms of numbers and in terms of infection/million) also didn't follow South Korean standard. Despite performing worse, I don't see much criticism on French articles. SunDawn (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue adding California updates on the 2020 coronavirus US page

The Wikipedia updates are the best on the web for 2020 coronavirus updates. Thank you. However, the California Wikipedia page is not being updated in a timely manner, with very little added for the past 2 days (March 11 and 12). Please continue to update California along with the states that do not have individual pages. This is important an necessary. Thank you again. HeJF (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeJF, Er, no, I'd encourage editors to update 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California directly. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment, Another Believer, and at first I considered proceeding in the way you suggest. But after thinking about it, I realized that I don't think the problem with the California page is a lack encouragement. I think there is a lack of organized response. Meanwhile on the US site the information is being updated in a highly useful manner. When the California site first went up, and overlapped with the US page, the updates were fine. My guess is that initially the information on the US page was moved over to the California page. Now that the US page is no longer updating California--aside from numbers of new cases, deaths, and recovered cases--the California page has dwindled a great deal. I am open to contacting anyone who might be able to help update. I think once per day for the California page would be a minimum. If you know how to get more action please let me know. I am personally unable to take on the task, or I would happily do so. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. The updated information is vital and whatever is available should be put somewhere. I am suggesting the US page until California manages to stay current. If this can't happen, then California should be treated like the many states that don't have their own page, and updates should be on the US page. Thank you for any thoughts and suggestions. HeJF (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeJF, I think one solution is to have more links to the state articles throughout the article. But, we must also avoid overlinking. @Valereee: Curious if you have any thoughts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, maybe the answer would be to merge the CA page back into the US page? I suspect that all of these pages are going to be considered redundant and merged back in once the crisis is past, as well as probably shortened considerably as once it's no longer breaking news, much of this information will be trivia. --valereee (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, Oh, I disagree, I have a feeling we're going to see more U.S. state articles created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I get your point, the splits were originally made because the article was becoming ridiculously long. But don't you think a year from now a lot of this day-by-day stuff is going to be considered unimportant? I think its marginally useful (since we have plenty of people willing to do minute-by-minute updates) to keep track of it in the moment, as if we have every single thing reported IRT, it makes it easier once we're looking back to pick out the stuff that actually ended up being important, and right now we don't know which of these things are going to end up being important developments. But a year from now, are we really going to still think knowing it was a 40-year-old woman from Santa Clara who was the 4th case and a 50-year-old from San Diego who was the second, or are we just going to be saying there were six cases in CA in February and 600 in March? If we were creating this article 10 years from now or 50 years from now, we'd never include the level of detail we have in it right now. We wouldn't have separate articles for each state. We might not even have separate articles for each country. That's my feeling, anyway. --valereee (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I understand. For now, I'm working to move claims to their respective U.S. state articles and eliminate redundancies. Longterm, the state articles will be much easier to mold into appropriate summaries. Even for states with few confirmed cases, millions of people are being impacted by school closures, economic downturns, etc, so I'm starting to encourage fleshing out of state articles in an effort to keep the U.S. page more general. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but not Trump's properties, add?

Trump’s European travel restrictions exempt nations where his three golf courses are located. Trump has two properties in the United Kingdom: Trump Turnberry and Trump International Golf Links, Scotland; plus another Trump International Golf Links and Hotel Ireland in Doonbeg, Ireland.

X1\ (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable inclusion. --valereee (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Past tense now: On 14 March, Trump administration extended the ban to include United Kingdom and Ireland.[1]
So,  Not done. X1\ (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shaw, Adam (2020-03-14). "Trump administration to extend European travel ban to include UK and Ireland". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-03-14.

Ohio reports 100,000 + have COVID-19

Ohio's department of health has estimated that the state alone has over 100,000 cases of COVID-19, based off of mathematical calculations. This has been reported on in the following linked article: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487329-ohio-health-official-estimates-100000-people-in-state-have-coronavirus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.71.28 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While they are probably right, "The Hill" would not be the preferred reference, since it is a politics-focused publication, not a medical one, and also not broad-based media. Get that same quote off (eg.) the NYT, or Times, or CNN, or Fox, and I would see no problem. Note to subsequent commenters - this calculation is not predicting the future but an extrapolation to try to see a fuller-picture now. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know the "The Hill" but if they are simply quoting the health department then it seems reasonable to use it. The question is whether this is an official communication from the health department, the article says "A top health official in Ohio estimated" which seems to me that it is not the official stance of the department but just an off-hand comment that one person made. --hroest 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHU is experiencing a bug that is preventing cases from being counted correctly BluePurr (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States

Time to fork out Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports in the United States, as a subpage of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports?

@ViperSnake151: Curious for your thoughts, and thanks so much for your work here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template for collapsing the split/attribution templates at the top of this page?

Is there a template for collapsing the split/attribution templates at the top of this page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federal response section needs tightening

That section can be tightened quite a bit at this point, which would allow adding more current information without it being buried within the current 3,500 words of text in that section, some with dated material. I'll try to trim off some redundant material and excess citations. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JHU estimate lower now?

I'm seeing 1,268 US confirmed cases on the JHU site right now. The article says 1,668, which is more like what the JHU site said last night. Anyone know what's going on? --Amcbride (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a typo on their site. Useight (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some very odd behavior on the JHU site, with some countries completely missing at times and the total varying by 30k or more. I expect they're having issues due to high traffic and/or volume of updates. I don't think the 1268 is correct. GoPats (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they switched to the official WHO numbers, see for comparison (most numbers seem to match up). --hroest 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust JHU as the source of numbers. I think we need to make changes for the sources of the numbers of the cases, recovered and deaths. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JHU has admitted on Twitter that there's currently issues with the data on the dashboard and they're working to fix it. See [3] GoPats (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they solved the issues. We need a better source with the numbers of the cases, recovered and deaths because we're getting too much conflicting info and JHU isn't helping either. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About 7 hours ago they said that they updated it and it's available now. I'm going to revert back to including it as it has been the best and most accurate so far, despite this one hiccup. --ZombieZombi (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust JHU to provide that information. I think we should find a better information of the numbers of this. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

Resolved

March 13

Florida: Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has tested positive for coronavirus, his spokesperson said. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-03-13-20-intl-hnk/h_f3ec1b6648458a35e2b9ebd4138e8966 Ethjbush13 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethjbush13, This should be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Florida ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, just moved it thank you! Ethjbush13 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethjbush13, Thanks. Please be sure to add sources when updates pages. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to keep case details on U.S. state articles

Please, I could use help keeping case updates to U.S. state (+Washington, D.C.) articles when applicable:

I keep having to trim redundancies between the U.S. article and subpages, but hopefully the recent page protection will help. Thanks for any help moving claims to appropriate subpages. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer I was thinking it might be helpful if we noted the state article we're working on keeping updated; that way if a change is made here that needs to be made in the Ohio article, someone knows who to ping. --valereee (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map in infobox (number or rate)?

The map in the infobox shows the number of cases in each state. Would it be more informative to show the number of cases per capita, i.e. the rate? Knowing that there are over 100 cases in California and nine or fewer in North Dakota doesn't tell me too much. The population of California is much larger, but I can't control for that off the top of my head. Fcrary (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been frustrated by this. I made my own spreadsheet to get percentages, but it's VERY hard to get good case counts. CDC is deferring to states, and states vary widely as to what exactly they are counting as a case. Here's my spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L3oo-npuTeyuBGiyxCWHM2oC1_iSQv6-vo7sbGIQtxk/edit?usp=sharing 2601:2C4:C780:8420:4151:B7:9255:2B9B (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also report presumed positive cases?

Do we need a category for presumed positive (along with the JHU and the cdc confirmed categories)? Wrecksie (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Company that benefits

Is it possible to list companies that is making money from this crisis? SWP13 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, but it would require reliable sources. My bet is on Netflix, since people in self-isolation are going to get cabin fever and download any sort of entertainment they can. But that is speculation, and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Fcrary (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely candidates benefiting from this crisis would include grocery stores, Purell, toilet paper manufacturers. & Thermo-Fisher Scientific. -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of companies could be making money. Even Pornhub could get increased subscription because people are locked in their homes. However, I think we can make a special section if there are companies/entities that are going out of their way to get extra profit: such as those boys from TN who hoarded hand sanitizers and sold them at crazy markup.SunDawn (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding splitting of content

I believe that there has been too many articles created when they do not need to be split off from the article. Normally, the guidelines are GNG which can easily be passed, but also the potential size of an article. However, I am noticing that articles are being split too early. The D.C. article was created when there were 10 cases and Maryland for 12 cases. The first three articles created were reasonable, if delayed a bit too long; Washington with 70, New York with 89, and California with 109.

I propose waiting until a the number of cases has reached 40 within a state/territory or, more importantly, has 40 sources since that would show evidence of needing an article. Otherwise we will ended up with a bunch of articles that need managing. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I guess some threshold is appropriate before splitting off a separate article. But I'd prefer a ratio rather than a number. In California, which you consider worth a separate article, 109 cases is 2.75 per million people living there. In Colorado, 2.75 per million would mean 16 cases, but the severity of the situation there would be the same. Fcrary (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the California article could have been made likely sooner. I just want to make sure that there is a likelihood of the articles being able to support being split, especially given the D.C. article already being in 4 maintenance categories and with only one sentences dated from today. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Please respond here before you split off another article. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Goku V, I am watching this discussion. There are currently pages for states with 20+ cases, most of which (if not all) I forked. The ones for less than 20 were created by others. I've been moving details over the state articles, regardless of author. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also keep in mind, even in some states with low case numbers there may be millions affected by economic downturns, cancelled events, school closures, etc. There may be plenty of coverage about the pandemic in specific U.S. states even with lesser confirmed cases. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is kinda why I am saying this now, though I only just realized how much of it was from one person. According to my stats, you have forked 12 of the 16 articles and have removed over 80,000 bytes from this article in the last 24 hours. Can I please ask you to consider waiting a bit longer? It helps make sure that they can stand on their own and helps reduce maintenance categories of which there are 22 in the 14 that have hidden categories. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Goku V, Sure, but I'd like to think most of the state articles demonstrate their value, especially now that editors have learned to update them instead of just this U.S. page. The way this whole thing's unfolding, I'm sure more state pages will be created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, maybe I am too worried and this article is shifting to the non-state government response and reaction to the government response. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NCHSAA

North Carolina High School Athletic association postponed all spring sporting events per their Twitter on March 12th N8cwhite (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Declarations of the State of emergency" table

Thoughts on collapsing the table of dates in the "Declarations of the State of emergency" section? Seems like doing so would save some space, and I doubt too many readers are interested in the exact date in which an emergency was declared. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each day could have multiple states. That would condense many rows into one. Or wrap it in "collapse" so it can be hidden by default? Seatto23 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long quote from TV hearing

The following paragraphs, totaling 250 words excluding the sources, seem very long-winded and should be summarized briefly. I removed them, but if someone feels like summarizing this, go ahead. As it was, it reads like a courtroom testimony, not an encyclopedic summary, and the article is already excessive and over 5,000 words long. --Light show (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On March 12 during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Trump administration's preparedness and response, Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, asked Fauci why health-care workers and others were being denied tests by their local health officials, who have been citing CDC protocol. Fauci explained a complicated distribution system and said, “The system is not geared toward what we need right now, what you are asking for. That is a failing. Let’s admit it. The idea of anybody getting it easily the way people in other countries are doing it? We’re not set up for that. Should we be? Yes, but we’re not.”

<ref>{{cite web |title=Fauci says U.S. system ‘not geared’ for widespread access to coronavirus testing |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/12/coronavirus-live-updates/ |website=The Washington Post |accessdate=March 12, 2020}}</ref>
Speaking on the PBS NewsHour, Ashish Jha commented on Fauci's statements:

"Well, of course, Dr. Tony Fauci is right. It has been a failing. And what your viewers need to understand is, if you get sick tomorrow with coronavirus, and you reach out to your doctor or you talk to your doctor, and your doctor wants to test you for coronavirus, he or she can't. Most doctors today cannot test people for coronavirus, because we just don't have the tests. Every other major country has figured out how to do it. South Korea is testing 15,000 people a day. Across the European Union, people are getting tests. Even Iran and Vietnam are testing more regularly than we are. We have just managed to bungle this so incredibly badly that most Americans cannot get the test they need. And, as Dr. Fauci said, it's a failing."
<ref>{{cite web |last1=transcript |title=U.S. federal response to coronavirus a ‘fiasco,’ says global health expert |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-federal-response-to-coronavirus-a-fiasco-says-global-health-expert |website=PBS News Hour |accessdate=March 12, 2020}}</ref>

--Light show (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kushner directly involved

Where did Trump get his corona strategy anyway? Where he got his Middle East strategy. Jared Kushner. And where does Jared Kushner get his corona strategy? He got it from a Facebook group:

nascar

they were going to race with no fans then cancelledthis week and next week — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayguy (talkcontribs) 19:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pro wrestling

ring of honor cancelled their pay-per-view that was to be Friday march 13th and Saturday march 14th 2020 Anayguy (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)User:AnayguyAnayguy (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

minimal presidential leadership: Trump as Bystander; add?

School superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors, and business owners have taken it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from Trump.

A former homeland security adviser repeatedly tried to be patched through to Trump or Mike Pence to warn them how dire the pandemic really is, but was blocked by White House officials.

and

The White House knew of coronavirus’ “major threat,” but infighting at the Department of Health and Human Services and the need to flatter Trump impeded the response to the coronavirus.

X1\ (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think closing schools and restaurants are the responsibilities of the federal government.SunDawn (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But having a coordinated response to the pandemic is. If one school is open with students potentially sharing the virus (while the next is being more responsible in cutting classes ) defeats the collective effort. So yes, it makes sense to have leadership and direction. Just that creating such a different section is not necessary. There are sections already mentioning this poor leadership. Slot the contribution there. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump blocks Medicaid usage by states, add?

The Trump administration blocked states from using Medicaid to expand medical services as part the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During major disasters, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has traditionally loosened Medicaid rules, allowing states to quickly sign up poor patients for coverage so they can get necessary testing or treatment. Until now, Trump has been reluctant to declare a national emergency, as previous administrations did after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the H1N1 flu, because it would contradict with his repeated efforts to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic. X1\ (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration moving ahead with food stamp requirement to work in spite of need for social distancing to slow pandemic spread, add?

The Trump administration plans to move ahead with enacting strict work requirements on people who use food stamps (SNAP). Starting April 1, people without a disability or children are required to work 20 hours per week to qualify for SNAP. The White House projects 700,000 people would lose SNAP eligibility as a result.

X1\ (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Clarification on School District

CCSD could mean either Clark County School District or Carson City School District. Could we not use the abbreviated version, just to clarify things? SharkFinnedGirl (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New info about testing locations, test quantities, and the first drive-through location

At the end of the "Testing" section, it can say:

In a press conference on Friday, March 13, the Trump administration stated that there will be tests conducted in retail store parking lots across the country, with participating franchises including Walmart, Target, CVS, and Walgreens, and that the results would be sent to labs to complete testing in partnership with local health departments and diagnostic labs.[1] President Trump said: "We therefore expect up to a half a million additional tests will be available early next week. We’ll be announcing locations probably on Sunday night. [...] The FDA’s goal is to hopefully authorize their application within 24 hours [...] which will bring, additionally, 1.4 million tests on board next week and 5 million within a month."[2] On March 13, drive-through testing in the U.S. began in New Rochelle, Westchester County, as New Rochelle was the U.S. town with the most cases at that time.[3]

74.101.202.221 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rcul4u998 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sanders, Chris (March 13, 2020). "Google, Walmart join U.S. effort to speed up coronavirus testing". Reuters. New York, NY. Retrieved March 15, 2020.
  2. ^ "Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Conference". WhiteHouse.gov. Washington, D.C. March 13, 2020. Retrieved March 15, 2020.
  3. ^ Booker, Christopher (March 14, 2020). "New York launches drive-thru testing site for COVID-19". PBS. New York, NY. Retrieved March 15, 2020.

Ohio closes bars and restaurants, speculation for Il/NJ/NY to follow suit: 03/15/2020 2:17MST

REF: https://www.wxyz.com/news/ohio-governor-orders-all-bars-restaurants-closed-in-the-state-due-to-covid-19

Seeing as this page is locked. 67.174.117.131 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Add a local section about NYS (sourced from main article):

  • March 7 - State of Emergency declared by Governor Andrew Cuomo.[1]
  • March 12 - Gatherings with over 500 people will be banned and only medically necessary visits would be allowed at nursing homes. [2] Broadway theatres have been closed until April 14. [3] Cuomo waived the requirement that schools be open for 180 days that year in order to be eligible for state aid. [4]
  • March 13 - drive-through testing began in New Rochelle, Westchester County.[5]
  • March 15 - Public schools in Westchester, Suffolk, Nassau and New York City have been closed. [6]

CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk about the coronavirus/Contributions about the coronavirus) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by the Federal Reserve

As the Federal Reserve is also responding to the coronavirus crisis, should their response have their own section? Preferably in the federal government sections? Right now their responses are buried in Economic Impact section.SunDawn (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a good idea given their notability and the actions they have taken over the course of the outbreak/pandemic. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

color coding

several of the charts on this pandemic have shades on some content, green, for example in the number of reported recoveries. i could not find a definition of these codes. i'd recommend adding one on each page which uses a color coded chart.

thanks

jb 2601:601:9800:2F2E:B518:E771:2171:A9E7 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]