Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Need to address the elephant in the room in introduction

I tried today to add "which may be deadlier than common cold outbreaks". I know it's a common point of view that we certainly can't sweep on the carpet anymore. Governments are closing schools and what not under the assumption that this is something else then a common flu. We should mention in the lead why this virus is notable. I'm fully aware that we have no solid evidence in a way or the other, but there are way to convey this in a succinct way in the lead. Iluvalar (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar, I agree with you, but we'll have to find the sources that support that assertion. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The 3-4% "mortality rate," while cited, is not accurate. No one has mentioned that the potential under-reporting of mild cases, or those who do not seek medical care, is inflating the rate. Should change this to crude mortality rate, because that's what it is currently. There is no official mortality rate/ratio yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.166.225 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Elephant in the Room" is the fact that China's numbers are pure fabrication. And any "reliable source" that bases their analysis on numbers coming out of China, which includes the WHO, the CDC and the Main Stream Media, is not reliable. I know why they are doing it, pure politics. Same goes for Iran. I've been analyzing this by excluding China and Iran, and it paints a totally different picture.DrHenley (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There are issues around correctly determining the mortality rate, which we should discuss in the text, but we should report what good citations are saying, as well as potential issues with the numbers. One issue is the possible under-reporting of mild cases. I would like to see much more on both that and the under-reporting of all cases.

To go off on a tangent, this article remains obsessed with giving the number of reported cases when we know these are not the actual number of cases (for a variety of reasons, many unavoidable). We need to make clear that these numbers are not some gospel truth and that reliable sources are certain they're under-reporting. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All the nonsense about "mortality rates" and ill defined "fatality rates" is a real shame. I have tried many times to have these problems corrected because I believe Wikipedia should have much better quality standards/control. First, it should be made VERY clear that mortality rates are one thing and fatality rates are another e.g. the "2%" of the 1918 Spanish Flu is a mortality rate and should not (can not) be compared to fatality rates. Second, if this wikipedia article wants to talk about fatality ratios with graphs and figues etc... it must CLEARLY STATE what it means by "crude" fatality ratio. I prefer to use the term "Confirmed Case Fatality Ratio" as opposed to the classic CFR e.g. the CFR for the seasonal flu is typically 0.1% but if you calculate the CONFIRMED case fatality ratio (as is obviously and inevitably done for covid-19) then you end up with 7-8% (using CDC data for this years flu in the US). TheRightKindOfDoctor (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@TheRightKindOfDoctor: I've made an attempt to distinguish between case fatality rate and mortality ratio. Feel free to correct further, but preferably such stuff should be linked to existing articles. If none exists, a section within the existing relevant article or a new standalone article can be created. Brandmeister^talk 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a fun bit of history : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2009-2010_flu_pandemic_table&oldid=315947664 . The H1N1 flu (which is now seasonal) CFR was over 1% using the same technique.

So we seem to agree here to add a mention of the death rate in the lead ? Iluvalar (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Main table all wrong

The table is presenting a false (and bleak) picture of the virus. You can't even correct it! For example, in New Zealand, there are 5 (five) cases, and most have recovered. The table shows no recoveries. The first person recovered on 1st Mar [1]. I mean, that's almost two weeks ago!! There are references for the others too, but I can't be bothered supplying them. I know they reported on the others, for example case 2 of the 5, a woman, is definitely recovered also. I'm sure that most if not all the other countries are wrong too. Please someone supplying this table - correct it, or remove it! It is wrong wrong wrong. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO reported yesterday no recoveries for New Zealand. Sun Creator^(talk) 10:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The source you gave said "on the mend" which does not mean fully recovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Been added anyway, without source so far. Sun Creator^(talk) 12:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of "New Zealand coronavirus patient recovers but concern about pandemic spreads" is unclear? The second case has been released and that is documented also. It is plain silly to give references to every single case. As stated, that is over 200,000 references. Wallie (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect of the table I find odd is the discrepancy between the number of countries listed at the top and the actual number by count. At the present moment the summary at the top says 132 countries/territories. An actual count comes to 125. Where are the other 7 countries or territories? If they are included in a mother country (e.g. French Guiana in France), then they should not be counted separately as a country. Or if they are counted then they should be listed separately. Lack of accuracy/clarity on this verifiable point leads to doubt about the other less readily verifiable figures. In addition, there is a disconnect between the table and the map. The map shows at least 3 countries affected which are not in the table: Guinea, Sudan, and Cayman Islands. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The table discrepancy continues. At this time the total countries at the top of table totals says 145 countries. An actual count of countries in the table is 136 plus 1 ship. Where are the missing 8? Ptilinopus (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Again. Actual count of countries on the table is 137. The total at the top summary has jumped to 150! The source seems to be the dubious Worldometer. How about some consistency?! Incidentally there are 3 countries on the list that were not there 4 hours ago (Rwanda, Namibia, Antigua & Barbuda) - and 3 that have disappeared (since the count remains 137). I notice that Aruba and Curaçao have been deleted - though they are separate countries, equal to the Netherlands. Even so, their details have not been included with the Netherlands. I see Puerto Rico is listed though it much more part of the US than Aruba etc are of the Netherlands! I note the disappearance of Jersey and Guernsey too - even though they are not part of the United Kingdom. Nor have their data been added to that of the UK. Can we have consistency please? Ptilinopus (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Before you go and denigrate Worldometer, maybe you should compare the countries and find out why there are more in Worldometer than in the main table. Cayman Islands, for example is reported in Worldometer, but not in the main table. It is an autonomous British Overseas Territory, which definitely makes it a "country or territory." And yes, Caymen Islands has a case, as reported in the Miami Herald.DrHenley (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I had gone and separated Puerto Rico because I thought I had seen it separated on this site but as of March 15, 2020 Puerto Rico has been deleted and re-included with the US count on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why a Wikipedian has done that. Check out the table... There must be a method to the wikipedians madness. Maybe it's okay for Puerto Rico to be included with the US count.Check this out... https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0jYwvytu-1e4jh6ujShnxAjxytKn8kgypxeW9s5eE5Ar88AjJlDGiJBmc#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential changes to the maps

No. of cases/Cases per capita or Deaths per capita?

The first map in the infobox, showing total cases per country

File:March14 cases per-capita-COVID-19.png

The second map in the infobox, showing cases per capita

As more European countries are running out of tests, and both the UK and especially the US have had low testing rates from the start — counting cases is likely to poorly reflect the state of the pandemic. However, deaths are likely to be much more accurate, both at the aggregate level and the per capita level. Should we shift at least one of these maps to cover deaths or deaths per capita? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a nice map to have but I don't see a need to replace either of the maps there now. Adding a third map to show deaths per-capita would be preferable to replacing one of the existing maps.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Both absolute (total deaths) and relative (deaths per capita) are useful in my opinion, and indeed better than "cases" for which the numbers are completely unreliable. The advantage of the relative map is that countries of different sizes can be compared more easily (and to judge which countries are proportionally more affected). I think it would be a good idea to show both maps (but perhaps not in the lead). Ideally, it would also be nice for the larger countries (US/China) to have the data displayed per province/state in this worldmap . Voorlandt (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any death calculations or per capita calculations as while these may seem simple, they are not obvious or correct in their interpretation. The reason for this is that there is a massive lag in this outbreak especially, and due to unreliability of reported figures (undue comparison will be made against disparate health care systems). Both will lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be. In terms of policy this violates WP:CALC specifically. --Almaty (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow."Due to unreliability of reported figures" we should only show the aggregate reported figures? That doesn't really follow especially when the reported figures are those currently listed on the page's chart, most sourced from the WHO. With regard to an alleged "massive lag" (in reported figures or virus symptom onset(?)) and that per-capita maps of deaths or rates of infected persons will "lead people to me more alarmed or reassured than they should be." I don't think it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide what facts from reliable sources Wikipedia readers should and should not be exposed to and certainly not on the grounds that it could makes some of them alarmed. The data here comes from the WHO and World Bank's population estimate figures for 2018.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We should only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO. I don't see them anywhere dividing it from the world bank population estimate from 2018, that is WP:OR. That doesn't hide anything, it just prevents us from doing a calculation that the reliable source is not doing. --Almaty (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Almaty's opinion is clear. Almaty would like to "only show the raw reported figures, from the WHO". Voorlandt and myself disagree with Almaty. Would anyone else like to share their thoughts?Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that per capita statistics should be published in addition to totals. The "per number of people" statistics is routinely published in Wikipedia for occurences of other diseases. The only argument I see provided by Almaty against it is that it would alarm people. I don't see anything wrong with people being alarmed by alarming statistics. Don't see any explanation for Almaty's argument regarding why "per capita statistics" is misleading. That somebody else such as WHO does not provide it does not mean that it is misleading.Roman (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but that isn't a clear summary of why. Its not because I only trust the WHO, or I'm a censor (far from it, the opposite), its because per WP:CALC there is not clear current consensus that dividing these figures is a meaningful interpretation of the source. The calculation is simple, but they don't do it, because the answer is misleading. --Almaty (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need per capita. I see no violation of WP:CALC ("Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. [...]"): the manner of calculation is super straightforward. (As an aside, I see no undue alarm; I only see undue complacency.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Which ever map is chosen, it's probably best they don't look like the player wiped out entire nations in Plague Inc. 73.155.111.138 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily new cases

The daily new cases of COVID-19 on March 13

I propose as a second map that we simply use this map, as it gives more relevant information, does not involve calculations, and it will be able to be updated very easily based on the link provided. --Almaty (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that that Almaty's map "gives more relevant information" than the per-capita infection rate. I think knowing how many people on average in a country are infected with a virus is very relevant information.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the per capita will be relevant information in a few weeks, but pertinently when they are published by reliable sources. Additionally the map of per capita has a caption that we cannot hope to keep current. --Almaty (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why will per capita be relevant information in a few weeks and not today?As for keeping the map current there are many maps on Wikipedia that regularly need to be updated and I have updated this one twice already over the past few days.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I rescind comments in relation to undue concern or alarm. I simply don't think that this map is verifiable. In order for it to remain verifiable we have three options IMO.

1. Only use raw figures from the WHO
2. Use another source that is making maps that we consider to be reliable.
3. Waiting until any WP:MEDRS compatible source at least publishes a table showing per capita case rates. --Almaty (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC) ALASKA with 500 is Strange, very !

Per capita data vs. totals by country

By and large, I much prefer the per capita map. Especially as the virus continues to spread, the totals map is increasingly becoming just a variation on a world population map. It makes no sense to display prominently a map where, if Exampleistan suddenly splits into two countries tomorrow, the outbreak would suddenly show up as half as bad there. The one redeeming factor of that map is that it appropriately shows how severe the outbreak has been in China, whereas the per capita map does not. Fortunately, there's a solution to that: splitting up the data for China by province. That way, Hubei will presumably show up as appropriately severe. The main downside of this approach is that some readers might ask why China gets more granular data than other countries, but I think most won't have a problem (and if the data does exist for generating a world map of prevalence by zip code or some other smaller unit and we could turn it into a map, that would of course be brilliant). Sdkb (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See also: commons:File_talk:March14_cases_per-capita-COVID-19.png#Colouring_seems_misleading_for_China. Sdkb (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Now there are 180 cases in brasil, but in the main table it dropped from 151 to 121 LGCR (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Data sources for maps

Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)I removed the aggregate new cases map which was included in this history section of the page so that we can discuss it first. There are two major issues with the map. The data does not come from the WHO but from a third-party charity website called "Our World In Data"..."a project of the Global Change Data Lab, a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1186433)." The map claims that there were 0 new cases on March 13th in Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, and a few dozen other countries and that's just inaccurate.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason is I have not seen it published in any reliable source with WHO data, to keep the dispute simple. --Almaty (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't claim that, it claims that there were between 0 and 10. --Almaty (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They claim the data does come from the WHO. Are you able to point to any specific inconsistency in the reliability of this source? --Almaty (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Also they aren't just a charity researchers at University of Oxford, who are the scientific editors of the website content. I strongly propose that unless anyone can point to how any of the data is inaccurate, that we use it. The main reason is because myself and other editors aren't able to easily verify the content of the maps. This will worsen as the outbreak progresses. --Almaty (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Those countries reported dozens if not hundreds of new cases between 12 march and 13 March. That's evident in the table's history page. Belgium for example went from 399 to 559. The map you added shows Belgium with 0-10 cases.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita is absolutely relevant today, as it was a week ago and a month ago. Bed capacity would usually exist per capita, so case totals per capita is very indicative of severity. Furthermore, per capita achieves coloring invariance upon region merge: it is not so badly sensitive to choice of granularity of regions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If it is a indicative of severity why can't I see it in a WP:MEDRS source using WHO data to date? Ive done quite a search to come up with this current opinion. --Almaty (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Per capita is at worldometers.info; search for "Tot Cases/1M pop". I don't know about WP:MEDRS; I am not really a Wikipedia editor. In any case, as long as WP:CALC applies, we should be fine. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User @Bondegezou: and myself concur that WP:CALC is not being fully interpreted and with divisions in particular these may not be "obvious and correct". --Almaty (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer fails WP:MEDRS so severely, that even its updaters have lost faith in it, it appears --Almaty (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the above original research or can you support the above claim with reliable sources? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes User:Dan Polansky I can support that claim with worldometers own website The live counters show the real-time estimate as computed by our proprietary algorithm, which processes the latest data and projections provided by the most reputable organizations and statistical offices in the world. This is not peer reviewed, is an estimate, is not a study, is not even thought to be verifiable or correct by its publisher. ---Almaty (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, your claim is an original observation gained by looking at worldometers.info and using your brain; the claim "worldometers.info is unreliable" is not traced to a reliable source. Of course, your reasoning is very plausible, and one has to take worldometers.info with grain of salt, but is the grain larger than that for WHO data? But my main point is on the meta-level and it stays: you require me to trace the obvious to a reliable source while you do not require yourself to trace the obvious to a reliable source. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dan Polansky I dont want to argue, but we all have to use reliable sources. I would love to insert things that were my original research and i've tried to before, but we cant. The pillars of wikipedia apply. --Almaty (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CALC, we can do certain calculation ourselves; Almaty claims we can't. Let the reader read this very discussion alone; I see not a single person agreeing with Almaty, who sets unreasonable high standards on what should be common sense but uncritically defers to WHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we can't trust the maps there, probably a data quirk if their tables are correct. But can we make maps like it - I want to use their "no data", and I truly think that a map with the number of new cases is more important at this stage, than per capita cases. My opinion of this will change, when anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS source that is showing charts with per capita cases. I can't find one --Almaty (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it obvious that per capita is super useful (total cases, active cases, daily new cases, daily deaths, all per capita), and to support the notion, I mentioned that bed capacities would usually be maintained per capita in a country. I do not have WP:MEDRS sources to support what I just said and what I consider to be obvious reasoning. Maybe someone knows where to find such sources. If WP:MEDRS sources do not report per capita, maybe they should wake up from their dogmatic dream and start reporting also per capita right now, before it is too late. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that the use of the current graphic is highly misleading. Some Europeans have remarked at the Danish government's shutdown when comparing it to the apparent inaction in France or the UK, whereas the reason becomes instantly clear if you consider that the size of population matters a great deal. The only truly objective measure that can be used is the per capita figure. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that the name of the game is bed capacities, respirators, breathing machines and such. If there were no risk of exhausting these, it would be kind of acceptable to give up all flatten-the-curve measures, maybe not entirely acceptable, but kind of. And these capacities, the name of the game, the resource nummero uno that you can run out of, is usually maintained on a per capita basis. And the resource does not increase exponentially at 20% per day rate, only the demand for that resource does so increase. Per capita is super meaningful; maybe some has the WP:MEDRS paperwork to support that claim; I supplied the substantive arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I expect that they are doing this in unpublished government data, of course. But that doesn't help our encyclopaedia. Can you even point to a table, let alone a graph or a chart or map that shows per capita? that isn't worldometer? I note that for the second time in 24 hours this has been removed due to errors, once due to the Mediawiki doing it. Its an exceedingly big job, and one I think we need to delegate to the likes of Our World In Data (where their data is verifiable). --Almaty (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are links to the data sources for the map. This is certainly not "unpublished government data." Many news websites have map and visualization pages up and running now. There are plenty of examples of per-capita maps out there and the data for making these is widely available at places like: FT[2] and John Hopkins [3]. The Hill even published a list of top map sites[4]Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Monopoly31121993 I dont trust you to be able to keep up with the volume of data that will be coming through in the next few weeks, to be frank. Its not like I dont think you've done a good job so far. Its just that maps will become completely unverifiable --Almaty (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Does Almaty concede now that there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita? That would be a start. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in this for the argument, trust me, just for verifiability. --Almaty (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) So does Almaty concede the point that has been demonstrated? There cannot be any rational argument if one party refutes to play the argument game fairly. Almaty, do you now agree that "there are reliable sources publishing cases per capita?" --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Guys, I wrote a program that can read a dataset and generate an svg map. [5]. It currently fetches data from John Hopkins University, but the dataset doesn't have every country/territory and is updated daily, not as frequent as the current map. I say we generate the maps using a community-maintained list. Ythlev (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, makes perfect sense. Let the script fetch data from locations in Wikipedia, and it is then the business of Wikipedia editors to update those locations to reflect reliable sources. Is Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data good for the purpose? It should be easy to extract the data from there using Python. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how though. I only know how to fetch from pages with data only. Ythlev (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'll have a look. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

no I’m afraid that I am still yet to see medrs sources showing per capita statistics. And it’s cos they can’t, so we can’t. —49.179.25.69 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is possible with Wikidata. Ythlev (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a very quickly written grabber that returns a dictionary where the countries are the keys and the values are list of column values as integers (no work of beauty, but it works and is here right now):

def grabFromTemplate():
   import urllib, re
   url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data"
   allLines = []
   for line in urllib.urlopen(url):
     allLines.append(line.rstrip())
   allLines = " ".join(allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("^.*jquery-tablesorter", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</table.*", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("<(th|td)[^>]*>", r"<td>", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</?(span|img|a|sup)[^>]*>", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</(th|td|tr)[^>]*>", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("&#91.*?&#93", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub(",", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("<small>.*?</small>;?", "", allLines)
   allLines = re.sub("</?i>", "", allLines)

   outData = {}
   rows = allLines.split("<tr> ")
   for row in rows:
     try:
       cols = row.split("<td>")
       cols.pop(0)
       cols.pop(0)
       country = cols.pop(0)
       cols = cols[0:3]
       cols = [int(col) for col in cols]
     except:
       continue
     outData[country] = cols
   #for key, value in outData.items():
   #  print key, value
   return outData

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, with a few modifications, it worked. I can incorporate it now. Ythlev (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of work is matching those country names to ISO country codes used to colour the map. Ythlev (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: It's done: [6]. Your code has some bugs though. It does not work for Netherlands for some reason. Ythlev (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: It fails for Netherlands since Netherlands has "–" in the 3rd column instead of zero. I don't know what "–" means, or else I could just tweak the script to replace it with zero or maybe place None in the list instead of int. Did you also create a per capita map on the world level? File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_Map.svg is not per capita. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Such a map is being question now. Ythlev (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, you may already know, but i would like to inform you that the data for the per capita map is wrong, it shows Australia as >0.1 but it is currently at >10 it has actually been >1 since the 1st march so the map is definitely not accurate as of 13th march as it states. I have not checked for other countries but there are probably more mistakes that need fixing. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cumulative cases vs peak active cases

If the first map is meant to be more directly sourced, the second should be more reflective of impact. Taking into account the health care systems and "flattening the curve", the second map should be peak active cases per capita. Ythlev (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop removing the map without consensus

Please stop removing the map without having consensus on the talk page. As you can see, one editor has voiced their desire to remove the map and replace it with a simple aggregate map of all cases (Almaty) and a second who has not contributed on the talk page here (Goszei) would like the same outcome. Everyone else (Dan Polansky,  Ohc , Voorlandt, Roman, Sdkb and myself) has opposed this. That means there is not consensus for removing it so please use the talk page to discuss any issues and don't just remove the map. Thank you.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've never removed it, only tagged with a disputed tag, once. And that is fair enough --Almaty (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

But whilst it is still under dispute, and has been removed 3x in 24 hours once by MediaWiki, the disputed tag should remain. --Almaty (talk)

Disputed tag back. I would respectfully ask that you dont remove that without consensus. --Almaty (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the policy where disputed tags are somehow allowed to be removed these days without consensus? Back when i edited a lot circa 2006 that was not the case. --Almaty (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, with an article as prominent as this, the WP:BURDEN shifts a little. Placing a tag is normally used to draw attention to an issue that might not otherwise get noticed, whereas there's no question everyone is paying attention here, and there's a downside to adding tags in that they clutter up the page (especially in an infobox). And from a brief skim of the convo above, I'm not sure I'm seeing consensus that the tag should be added from editors other than yourself. It looks like the per capita map was removed somewhere in the blizzard of edit history on this page (please use edit summaries, folks, c'mon!), so I'm going to restore the map as the WP:STATUSQUO while this discussion plays out. Sdkb (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the amount of edits that are being made without edit summaries, the ability to use the tag is necessary —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Where are we at with this now? The article needs the per capita map. Regardless of how accurate we judge the figures to be, there's no reason the per capita map would be less useful than the total cases map. But the caption should specify clearly that it's confirmed cases per capita, not an estimate of the actual numbers. GeoEvan (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is insanity. Please CTRL+F my username on this page and read my objection to the map on the grounds that China is colored 2 orders of magnitudes off (this is not a minor flaw). Also, plese read the talk page for the file on Commons, where I point out the same issue. — Goszei (talk)

We need to remove the one per capita map that is inaccurate, not because it is per capita, but because the coloring was done wrong, and so far as that, I agree with Goszei. But we need a correct per capita map. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing the map again, since the restorers (a.o. Monopoly31121993 and Sdkb) have in the past couple of days not given any argument with respect to the contents of the discussion that I am aware of; their arguments seem rather formal and on the line of: there is no consensus, therefore you may not remove the map. This argument could easily be used the other way around, by the way. I am in doubt about their underlying motivations since, well, I can see no discussion by them of the contents and arguments to the contra. As long as the quality of the map is not up to standard, it deserves to be and stay removed, or at the very least, tagged. As the map is now, it is of the same value as a statement that 1 is bigger than 0, and we all knew that already.Redav (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I would agree with including an accurate up-to-date map showing cases (of a well-defined(!) kind) per capita, since that would indeed give valuable information. According to me, that would mean: both lower and upper limits for the colouring, correct calculations that are not off by (more than) an order of magnitude, and - of course - correct colouring. Unfortunately, the per-capita map(s) that I found in the past couple of days did not meet those criteria. Unfortunately too, I lack any experience in creating digital maps with division(i.e. country, province)-wise colouring.Redav (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have published script to calculate per capita figures from Wikipedia pages (List of countries and dependencies by population and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data), in User talk:Dan Polansky#Covid cases per capita. What I do not have yet is the creation of the SVG and I am tired. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks interesting news to me, even if I do not know how to run a script. I can now better understand why one would like to have the list with the COVID-19 numbers correspond to the list of divisions (i.e. countries, dependencies, etc.). A problem I can see with this is that not always the sources of numbers (e.g. public health authorities) operate according to the list of divisions. E.g. the "Netherlands" in the list of divisions does not seem to correspond to (the country of) the Netherlands - for which the public health authority RIVM collects and publishes numbers - but to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which includes three more countries, namely Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, each with their own public health authority. A similar issue may hold for other divisions such as Guernsey and Jersey with respect to the United Kingdom. It might, however, in some sense be a minor issue. I will try and indicate in the list of divisions that the Kingdom (rather than the country) of the Netherlands is meant there. As soon as the list of COVID-19 pandemic data is fully organized in the same way, meaning that somehow the data are presented in there according to the same divisions, the outcome in a map created along these lines may actually be very helpful. I am not sure how the instances of non-correspondence of areas of control for public health authorities / sources that publish number data are going to be resolved, though. Furthermore I would welcome a clear indication of whether the number of cases corresponds to all current or the aggregate of all past and current cases.Redav (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dan Polansky, how about using the list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations) lather than the list in List of countries and dependencies by population? At least the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are treated separately there!Redav (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one not to see it? What consensus is there against the per capita map? Flawed though the latter map may be, it's infinitely less misleading than the current map in which the geographically expansive countries such as China and Iran are covered in dark red based on absolute figures, thus dramatically and misleadingly amplifying the infection rates of these countries. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

To me, accurate absolute numbers per country of a well-defined quantity and indicated according to a legend with both lower and upper boundaries per colour, are not misleading, although extra information would certainly be provided by an accurate map for a well-defined (relevant) quantity according to a legend with both lower and upper boundaries per colour. (I do seem to get little or no response on the issue of intervals with limits at both ends. I wonder why, since I think this is an essential point in the misleadingness discussion.)Redav (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I found the mistake!!! Turns out with so many shades of red you can really end up scratching your head for a while until to you see that somehow I forgot to use #c80200 so everything is one order of magnitude off. Please note the following: 1) The map is intended to reflect active cases (so yes, 8 in 1,000,000 in China is correct), 2) I have removed the old map from the map, 3) I will try to correct this as soon as possible.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the issue(s) as to the content, as you seem to be doing now, is very helpful. And if you succeed in creating and adding an accurate map for a well-defined (relevant) quantity according to a legend with both lower and upper boundaries per colour, that too would be helpful indeed. But I seem to have to object to the number of 8 active cases per 1,000,000 for China, on the basis of simple mathematics. From the table in the article (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data) I take the numbers indicated there for China: T(otal) = 80,880; D(eaths) = 3,213; R(ecovered) = 67,819. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China, considering the number of inhabitants for 2010 as 1,339,724,852 and the estimated number of inhabitants for 2018 as 1,427,647,786 - both given there - I estimate the current population in China as roughly I(nhabitants) = 1,445,000,000. Elementary arithmetic then gives as a result for the per capita number of active cases A(ctive cases per capita) = (T - D - R) / I ≈ 7 per million.Redav (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's is the new map updated with 16 March data.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Active Cases per-capita of COVID-19 16 March 2020

I very much appreciate your efforts to address several issues with the active cases per capita map for COVID-19! Could you mention both lower and upper limits with the colour legend? (Or do you prefer leaving that to me?) And the colouring for China now seems of in the opposite direction compared to previous versions: > 1 case per 100,000 inhabitants corresponds to > 10 cases per 1,000,000 inhabitants. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic is my estimate (and data) from my calculation for China which results in approximately 7 cases per 1,000,000. What causes the difference?Redav (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

With the map the definition indicates that it is about active cases. That part is clear. What is not clear from the definition is that / whether it is about confirmed cases only. Another issue, I am afraid, is with the accuracy for at least China (already mentioned above) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well. This kingdom has T = 1,417, D = 24, R = unknown, and I ≈ 17,700,000. (For the definitions of these symbols, see above.) That would result in A ≤ 78,8 per 1,000,000 i.e. between 1 per 100,000 and 1 per 10,000. Is there a bug in any software you have run to create the map, are the input data off, or what else could be the matter?Redav (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is Hong Kong listed separately to China?

Shouldn't Hong Kong be included in the figure for China, in the table? We don't list, for example, England, Scotland, etc. separtately (they are combined into United Kingdom). You could also argue that Taiwan shouldn't be listed separately either, because very few countries recognize it's "independence". Same goes for Palestine, as it isn't a real country.MisterZed (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@MisterZed: Because our articles separate the mainland from the other three territories; each of the NHC daily reports (since the case confirmation in the Tibet AR on 29 Jan) also cites 31个省（自治区、直辖市）, which is the number of provincial-level divisions in the mainland. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Because there is no freedom of movement between Hong Kong and the mainland China, they have very different healthcare systens, and the measures taken by the governmant of the PRC are not valid in Hong Kong and vice versa--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MisterZed, Hong Kong and Macau are Special Administrative Regions and while are technically part of China, are not part of the Mainland. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree

Hong Kong and Macao (SARs of the People's Republic of China) should be listed with data from the Chinese mainland. However, the Republic of China (currently in occupied Taiwan) should be listed as a separate nation as it is not, in reality, under the Chinese government's jurisdiction. Its de facto government also confirms a much lower number than the mainland. Palestine is actually recognised by most countries (it is just that most of the Western world doesn't) and is recognised as a non-UN member state by the UN (along with the Holy See). The Republic of China is no longer recognised by the UN as a member or non-member, and is recognised by only a handful of countries including Paraguay and the Holy See. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hong Kong and Macao have very high autonimy including having border control with the mainland so they are generally consider separate from the main land. With Taiwan most countries don't officially recognise it because of China but most do unofficially so it is listed as separate. — RealFakeKimT 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the SARs of Hong Kong and Macao have a high degree of autonomybut they are still a part of China. Maybe we can list them as

• China (mainland)
• China (Hong Kong)
• China (Macao)

And then also list other autonomous territories such as Gibraltar in a similar fashion.

• United Kingdom (Gibraltar)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. We follow Wikipedia-wide consensus and norms, which use "Hong Kong", and not "China (Hong Kong)" in tables and lists. Refer to examples such as List of countries by Human Development Index, List of countries by GDP (nominal), East Asia, Cantonese, Dollar, Ages of consent in Asia. Should you disagree with the current Wikipedia-wide consensus, feel free to raise a discussion at WP:Village Pump. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But then, we should at least separate other autonomous territories such as the Faroe Islands from their official nation. JMonkey2006 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China lists them separately :). 香港特别行政区148例，澳门特别行政区10例，台湾地区59例―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Map should be coloured | All Red is Distracted !

I am the Opinion it should have a contrast. For the Bad Regions like China, Iran and Italy can be remained Red, but second Yellow, Green and seas blue and the countries with less than 10 cases White. Then can be seen better. Now all red seems an apocaliptic Situation which is not, example

I would say this is harder to read with so many colours. It is ridiculous when even Antarctica is coloured. Hzh (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There are many Expeditions' Ships travelling Antarctica and Arctic. Ships are now domes of germs incubators, It has also stations, but as you read right, countries & territories with less than 10 cases White and seas blue For me ridiculous is put Alaska with equal cases to USA, just because Alaska is political there, but is a different territory with almost no one... for god sakes, just the beautiful wolves... or other interesting animals... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The infobox map should be replaced with File:COVID-19 outbreak global case count map scripted.svg. It is generated hence less prone to errors. It also complies with mapping conventions. Ythlev (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My only concerns are the colour scheme, it feels kinda odd to see everything in the shade of orange, don't get me wrong. The colour scheme has been discussed before, participated by several editors, so a sudden change won't be widely acceptable. And the second and last concern of mine is the file, why do we need to use multiple files for a single purpose map? These are just my opinions by the way. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 20:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Should go from blues to refs IMO. Florescent green, no thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

HueMan1 Agree, except that we should make the seas white and the countries with the least cases gray. Victionarier (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Greens to reds sounds fine to me, but I have no objection to the current color scheme, and the proposal does not look good at all — it's impossible to tell which colors represent what without looking at the key, so it's much less informative. Sdkb (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

For me a better Map Realistic continues to be so https://interaktiv.abendblatt.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Epidemiology Table

Autonomous territories such as the Faroe Islands, Gibraltar are included with their official country. This is inconsistent with the autonomous territories of Hong Kong and Macao which are included in separate rows.

We should either list all states, territories and regions under its official country, or list all autonomous territories (highest degree of autonomy in a country's system) as separate countries/territories.

JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Consistency isn't necessarily going to be possible: we depend on how sources are reporting the data. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But the issue is that many government and organisations such as the WHO report these countries and territories in a different manner. Wikipedia should list all of the territories in a consisten manner (such as listing them all separately). The WHO reports Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan cases with China, but reports Palestine cases separately from Israel. So, Wikipedia shouldn't be depending on how other sources report the data. JMonkey2006 (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see my user page as to my affiliation with the WHO Almaty (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Broadway

How should this be handled? I don't yet have a link other than this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Like everything else. If this aspect of the pandemic is receiving a large amount of coverage, then we should summarize what sources are saying about it, in proportion to everything else that is relevant to the situation. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, but where and how much in this article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per capita

In order to show the impact (or posible impact) of the virus on national levels, its important to add a list of how many cases are registered per capita in each country. This will give an excellent indication of how much pressure the health care systems are experiencing and may explain why some countries take certain measures before others. The pressure on the health care systems is by far the largest concern of this health crisis.

Example of how the list would order the countries at the moment: Countries with most registered cases per capita (total cases per 1 million):

• Italy (21.157) = 349.9
• Norway: (1077) = 198.7
• Switzerland (1375) = 158.9
• South Corea: (8086) = 157.7
• Iran: (12.729) = 151.5
• Denmark: (827) = 142.8
• Spain: (6315) = 135.1

Other coutnries:

• Germany:(4525) = 54
• France: (4469) = 68
• China: (80.824) = 56.2
• USA: (2499) = 7.5
• UK: (1140) = 16.8
• Chile (43) = 2.2

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

--Ednotis (discusión) 21:04 13 mar 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednotis (talk • contribs)

• I agree, I think this would be helpful to have in the table. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir , firstly thanks for paying attention to it , yes sir I imply that WHO has not yet said that ,also we must understand that rephrasing the statement from "can" to "could" just changes the person's point of view to read that whereas the overall intention of the statement is still the same . I would be thankfull to you if you send me the links of your additional sourcing from WHO Akshat Bhardwaj 2265 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir thanks for understanding my contention and working to the needful , but we must understand that rephrasing it from "can" to "could" cannot suffice as the overall intention of the statement is same. As per my research , WHO has not yet said those statements. Even if according to your additional sourcing they have said , than the proper link should be attached with that statement . Link 7 is of opening remarks of WHI Dic-Gen . Than the hyperlink of link 7 should be replaced and instead of those opening remarks , your credible additional sources should be attached Akshat Bhardwaj 2265 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir thanks for understanding my contention and working to the needful , but we must understand that rephrasing it from "can" to "could" cannot suffice as the overall intention of the statement is same. As per my research , WHO has not yet said those statements. Even if according to your additional sourcing they have said , than the proper link should be attached with that statement . Link 7 is of opening remarks of WHI Dic-Gen . Than the hyperlink of link 7 should be replaced and instead of those opening remarks , your credible additional sources should be attached Akshat Bhardwaj 2265 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO is not in the business of "declaring" pandemics

Whilst about half of the media ignored exactly what they said, declaring in common parlance means that a specific set of responses will occur and that there was a specific change in status that occurred on Wednesday.
We agree that that does not happen. This has been also confirmed by a WHO spokesman. They didn't declare the pandemic, they recognised that it can be "characterised as a pandemic". They also state that this is the first pandemic that can be controlled, nearly in the same breath. This is important content for the lead. --Almaty (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"recognized as"? "called"? The status did change, it's now called a pandemic (pretty universally, which was not true before). --mfb (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with "said", "called", "recognised", "defined", "characterised" just not "declared" because people take that to mean there was a status change. There was only a word change. --Almaty (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Recognized, called, or said would probably be fine. - MrX 🖋 23:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone removed the disputed tag without discussion so based on these and the main page comments I put it as recognised as I don't think this has been tried. --Almaty (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would say 'Recognized' as well. I prefer 'Recognized' over 'Called' as I find 'Recognized' a bit more formal--I'm sorry, I'm a terrible pedant, haha Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Should I go ahead and change now?

Yes thankyou, there appears clear consensus that it wasn't a declaration. Should we discuss whether it needs to be included that this is the first pandemic that can be controlled? --Almaty (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Almaty. The WHO declared (the current situation to be that of) a pandemic is under no means inaccurate. The parenthesized words are simply implied and such is the way we treat language. Declared is fully accurate. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The main page agreed it was a lot of consensus --Almaty (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add a proper summary when splitting

I see that a large chunk of the article has been split off into a separate, but please, when splitting, leave a proper summary behind. See WP:CORRECTSPLIT. This has been done a few times, and people just didn't bother to leave a summary or if a summary is left, it is inadequate. This made the article looks odd and unbalanced. Parts of the article get trimmed to the barest that it became uninformative, while other parts still have large sections. The last one removed is the criticism section, previously the praise for the Chinese actions was balanced by the criticism, but now, it is nothing but praise, which made this article non-neutral. Ditto for the other parts. Also why is the American subsection in Domestic responses much bigger than China? It simply doesn't make sense. So much has been stripped from the China subsection that no one reading it will have any idea how extraordinary the Chinese response was. The article as it is simply looks just a bit ridiculous. Hzh (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Hzh (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I support all splits by experienced contributors, not always a edit summary will be able to be provided as the outbreak progresses, this isn't to remove or censor content, its to keep this page readable --Almaty (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of being readable when the article is a mess, which is what it is now. I see problems everywhere, as I have already mentioned that there is nothing but praise for the Chinese government because the criticism has been ripped out, and the only mention of Li Wenliang is one that says he was censored for "scare-mongering" and "factual-inaccuracies" in his "controversial" post. The Chinese President Xi Jinping is not mentioned apart from being praised by foreign governments. The article now resembles something written by the propaganda arm of the Chinese Communist Party. There are guidelines for splitting, if you don't want to abide by the guidelines, then don't do it. Don't leave the article violating all kinds of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that the Li Wenliang part was added by Mopswade - [7]. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality rates

This has been an ongoing discussion throughout the course of the article. The current CFR quoted, whilst high, sourced, and attributed, does not provide any necessary context to the general reader. Estimates vary widely based on numerous factors (please do a search of "death rate" or "mortality rate" or CFR in the talk). I think that any CFR quoted needs a detailed amount of context, context that not even experts are able to provide at this stage. Therefore, until a review on CFR is done, CFRs should not be quoted per WP:MEDRS --Almaty (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"CFRs should not be quoted per WP:MEDRS": Aha. I am at a loss of words. Shame on you and on WHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lets be WP:CIVIL please User:Dan Polansky --Almaty (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Which passage of WP:MEDRS prohibits publishing of CFR, publishing with appropriate warning about uncertainty? Are you in any way affiliated with WHO? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the kind reader can find out about CFR e.g. in Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), ourworldindata.org; search for "How do case fatality rates from COVID-19 compare to those of the seasonal flu?" and find that the CFR for covid-19 is "12 to 24-times higher than common flu" when all ages are considered together. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dan Polansky that is precisely my point, we need to include a lot of clear communication of uncertainty if and when we decide to publish CFRs. --Almaty (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That is easy to do yet Almaty claims above even experts cannot do it. Let's try: "The best estimates of CFR range from X to Y, but the calculation is fraught with difficulties, including difficultyA, difficultyB, and difficultyC(trace to multiple sources)". How hard can it be? Are you in any way affiliated with WHO? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

case by nation table too narrow

Can someone please widen that table with the 120 coutries in it to make the horizontal scrolling go away? Vertical scrolling I get, but horizontal should be unnecessary.... 70.27.169.176 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

that is a technical issue--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Views lost

17:23, 11 March 2020‎ Amakuru moved page "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" to "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic." Hence the page started counting views from zero. Where can I find the lost views? --Maxaxax (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett In source code I can see that you put a link there, but I can't make it work. In view mode it's invisible (at least on my device) Robertpedley (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maxaxax: try this:

(I get empty boxes for both on preview). Boud (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

thank god it’s less than a million daily there, I thought for a second we might become authoritative on the subject!! —Almaty (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate per-capita map in infobox

Please do not add the following map until its factual errors have been corrected: File:March14 cases per-capita-COVID-19.png. I have currently commented it out from the infobox; please read the Commons talk page discussion for details. Most notably, China is two shades too light (colored as >0.1 active cases per million when it really should be >50 active cases per million). There may be other errors, but they are also not correctable because it is a PNG file instead of an SVG. The editor who created it seems to have simply colored in the countries using raster tools (closer inspection finds a lot of uncolored islands), so I don't think it should really be used in any case. Maybe another editor could produce an SVG alternative? — Goszei (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to call attention to this again; the same editor has again added the map, which still has the same glaring inaccuracy. — Goszei (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993(2): Can you comment on the above, and correct the map as applicable? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "Cases per capita" map as advocated by Goszei until its flaws have been resolved. I already discussed the map itself on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About, removed it once; Monopoly31121993 reverted it ... without addressing the issue first. Why?Redav (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lockdowns vs quarantines

There is a difference. If Israel is on "lockdown", that means New Zealand is on "lockdown". Neither are on quarantine. --Almaty (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

generally agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine = practicing social distancing, closing schools, cancelling events, etc, but you can still go out, i.e. what the U.S. is doing now. On the other hand, lockdown = staying at home no matter what, except in extreme circumstances, i.e. what Italy is doing now. Victionarier (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It was wrong that it can’t be reinserted without numerous verifiable sources. It was removed 6 times at last count, no fault of the author, it’s that the data is impossible to do. Almaty (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Convalescent plasma

The WHO summary of research documents investigations of the use of convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID-19. Should this be mentioned in the Management section? Lavateraguy (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's theoretical at the moment, not even experimental so it could possibly fall under a research heading. But there are about 35 other possible treatments working their way thru the system, we can't list them all. Wait until there is more progress, clinical trials take a long time. Robertpedley (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Robertpedley. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of the virus - editing dispute

@User:Almaty, the officially endorsed name of the virus per the WHO: "For that reason and others, WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public. Neither of these designations are intended as replacements for the official name of the virus as agreed by the ICTV." — Goszei (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I very readily concede that the WHO doesn't have precedence over the name of the virus. However, I think that its a bit of common sense to recognize that most national governments, most health care systems, and even the WHO uses the more "natural" name as the virus name. --Almaty (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And trust me, this has been debated ad infinitum amongst experts I know. Its boring, but we can do better than experts, we can use our policy of WP:COMMONNAME --Almaty (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in isolation the use of the term could be justified, but I find it a little ridiculous to construct a sentence that says "the COVID-19 outbreak is caused by the COVID-19 virus". It is akin to saying that "the swine flu outbreak was caused by the swine influenza virus". The statement is true, and the term "swine influenza virus" was used by the WHO and official health sources, but it is redundant and colloquial at best in comparison to the officail name "H1N1".

To address WP:COMMONNAME, the page prescribes using Google search result numbers: "covid-19 virus" returns 35.6 million results and "sars-cov-2" returns 77.6 million. Personally, this is first time I have seen the "COVID-19 virus" term, I think it should at least gain a mention on the main article for the virus before it is used here in the lead. Also, I don't think that "COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2)" is an acceptable construction because it begs the question as to what the acronym stands for. — Goszei (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to think about. As always I attempt to pre-empt controversial discussions about this virus but please see the related move discussion. --Almaty (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a factual inaccuracy in first paragraph

I the first paragraph, statements from WHO are mentioned wrongly . This blog is ineditable so as to prevent vandilism but the authority incharge of this page should take note of that and don't spread wrong information . The statement written is "Simultaneously, the WHO stated that this is the first known pandemic that can be controlled" whereas WHO has nowheren said in there statements whereas what they meant was "And we have never before seen a pandemic that can be controlled, at the same time." If we look at that , there is a difference and thus leading to spread of wrong information. Therefore proper steps need to taken it should be changed as soon as possible Akshat Bhardwaj 2265 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you imply that the WHO has not said that? --Almaty (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have used additional sourcing from the WHO and changed "can" to "could" for clarity --Almaty (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Total cases outside China exceed total cases in China

Almost certainly the world counter will exceed 162,000 cases either today or tomorrow -- at which point there will have been more cases outside China than there were inside China. That probably deserves a line in the Epidemiology section, and probably in the lede. This not crystal-balling. Since the pattern of new cases inside and outside China indicates that it is only a matter of a day or two, I simply heads-up here on the talk page, so it can be added when appropriate. (For deaths, the relevant total number would be ~6400.) - User:Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant without sources. If it is inevitable we can state it tomorrow, when there will be sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP policy, basic math (in this case a sum total) is not OR and does not require separate referencing. And it did end up being today. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Why no photos from China at the top of the page?

At the top of the article, there are some photos:

Hospitalised patients in Tehran, IranItalian government outbreak task forceDisinfection vehicles in TaipeiHealth checks at Milan Linate AirportEmpty shelves in an Australian supermarket due to panic buying

Why no photos from China, where this virus originated? Surely that should be noteworthy? 77.241.137.181 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

b/c its worldwide, not just China--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that it started in China, it is bizarre that it is not reflected in the photos. I see this as no more than part of an effort by some editors to push the narrative propagated by China so to minimise its role in the outbreak and blaming other people to deflect blame. Another example is a recent edit saying the origin is unknown (it matches the latest Chinese narrative) when it is clear it started in China. The article is now non-neutral and UNDUE (e.g. there is now more content on criticisms of US than China, not to mention a whole subsection praising China), and also a far larger section on the United States than China in the domestic response section. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: Rather than sprouting conspiracy theories, why don't you find an image from Commons:Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in China or otherwise that we can use that and then come back here and tell us about it, and tell us where you feel we should add the image (e.g. if you want to replace one of the existing ones)? Bear in mind that all of the images we are using at the top of the page except for the empty shelves one seem to be coming from government sources, and of course they are often the ones able to provide quality images under difficult conditions. So naturally there is going to be a bias towards governments who actually release their content under free licences or into the public domain, as well as governments willing to provide images that seem to be illustrative rather than pure propaganda. Of course there may be suitable images that don't come from government sources, as with the empty shelves one, but ultimately we're limited by what's available under a suitable licence, as we always are. P.S. As for the US criticism thing, welcome to Wikipedia. Where our strong US editor base means a US bias in a large percentage of articles, often in a way that annoys most of us who don't live in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care for the images, if pushed, I'd say delete them. Nice theory about more American editors, but that isn't what happened, otherwise why would you have a whole section praising China? There was a great deal more content about China (probably around a third of the article), but all that was trimmed away, so that now you have a lopsided article. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

School closures - outdated references and information

The section Impact on Education needs better and more up-to-date sources. The claim "As of 14 March, more than 420 million children and youth are not attending school" is supported only by references from 4-9 March, since which time additional school closures have been implemented. The 420 million/14 March figures may be correct but this needs a reference to be a reliable claim - it is higher than the figures that I have seen for example from UNESCO.

Also, it is unclear to what level of education the figure of 420 million extends - universities are also schools, and these are widely being closed in affected areas, but university students are not being considered in this section (cf. "children and youth").

The statements "Thirteen countries have shut schools nationwide"/"Nine more countries including India have implemented localised school closures" is again supported only by a reference to an article from 4 March. It is unclear to readers which is out of date: the reference or the information on Wikipedia. Both statements are clearly out-of-date if one does additional research. At this point, using numbers on the page (without listing the countries, for example in a footnote) introduces the risk that countries implementing school closures will be accidentally missed or double-counted, since these numbers are rapidly changing.

Are worldwide statistics on school closures and impacted students being compiled that could be cited? The most reliable site that I have found is UNESCO, where the following is stated:

"An unprecedented number of children, youth and adults are not attending schools or universities because of COVID-19. Governments in 49 countries have announced or implemented the closure of educational institutions in an attempt to slow the spread of the disease (link is external). UNESCO is providing immediate support to countries as they work to minimize the educational disruption and facilitate the continuity of learning, especially for the most vulnerable."

"According to UNESCO monitoring, 29 countries have closed schools nationwide, impacting almost 391.5 million children and youth. A further 20 countries have implemented localized school closures and, should these closures become nationwide, hundreds of millions of additional learners will experience education disruption."

Source: COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response Last update 13 March 2020 https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures

Also, the infographic "Learners affected by school closures caused by COVID-19 as of 13 March 2020" cites only a reference from 4 March, but it shows (for example) school closures in Denmark and Norway that were only announced this week.

Note that country-wide school closures take effect in Iceland as of 16 March (not sure if the Wikipedia graphic will be automatically updated at midnight tonight to reflect that). Source: Samkomubann vegna COVID-19 tekur gildi 16. mars 2020, Published 13. mars 2020 12:09, https://www.almannavarnir.is/frettir/samkomubann-vegna-covid-19-tekur-gildi-16-mars-2020/

Thanks! --Sylgja (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Colouring seems misleading for China

The colour for China and the legend indicate that in China there would be over 0.1 cases per million inhabitants. Assuming there are about 1,450,000,000 inhabitants in China, and taking either the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases (i.e. 80,824) or the number of confirmed cases minus the confirmed recoveries and deaths (i.e. 80,824 - 65,569 - 3,189), this would lead to approximately 55.7 or 8.3 cases per million. So, while strictly speaking the colouring is not wrong (since both numbers are indeed over 0.1 cases per million), the colouring is misleading. Who is technically knowledgeable enough to change the colouring of the map for (at least) China?Redav (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Meaninglessness of map of cases per capita

• No definition of "cases per capita" is indicated, so it remains unclear whether total number of infected, current number of infected, deaths, or anything else is meant.
• The boundaries in the legend are open in one direction, so in principle all the world could rightfully be coloured with the lightest colour, and it would strictly speaking still be correct.
• But such colouring would make the map meaningless.
• The remark by Monopoly31121993 saying editor with China objection states "strictly speaking the colouring is not wrong" so removing image is unwarranted at his/her re-introduction of the map does not include a discussion of the above.
• I propose removal of this particular map until:
  • a clear definition is stated by the author;
  • upper boundaries are added in the legend, in the form of: between 0.1 and 1.0 cases per million inhabitants.Redav (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the map is actually helpful, since a ratio of cases to population is a better representation of the coronavirus’ impact on a country than numbers (such as those indicated on a map) without context. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree as soon as the definitions and colouring legend are clear and leave no room for misleading. As the situation is now, the map can - and seems to - be used to misrepresent and downplay the state of the COVID-19 outbreak. What would you say to this?Redav (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the map for now. Victionarier (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The map had issues, but it was also very helpful. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We need another editor to make an alternative, as the one who made the incorrect one is being rather evasive. — Goszei (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is somewhat of a duplicate of the discussion at Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Potential_changes_to_the_maps; can we try to centralize, please? There seems to be no major desire there to remove the per capita map, so I'm going to restore it for now. I'll leave the data parsing to those with more expertise, but the impression I'm getting is that there are improvements that could be made to the per capita map, but we need something and there's no so egregiously wrong as to make the current map unusable. Sdkb (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases per capita map is very wrong

The map uses 5 colors (excepting grey) but the legend contains 6. The bright red is missing from the map. I think that the beige in the map actually corresponds to >0.1 cases per million, the bright pink is >1 case per million and the dark pink is >10 cases per million. As it is now, lots of major countries are off by a factor 10; Russia, China, Finland and so on. Even if the legend was fixed, Iran has 165 cases per million and should be darkest red. As it is now, it is very misleading, and I'm removing it from the articles it is used in until this issue is fixed. See discussion on the image page –St.nerol (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic starting date

Date of the disease originated is seemingly disputes. The previous edit said it started from November 17 before December 1. An earlier edits stated that the date is pushed toward December 12. This causes editing conflict, or misinformation through Wikipedia project. I recommend that editors must use the true independent reliable sources that is stable and they till can search from Google and find best sources largely informs about the virus. Secondly, do not change the origin date periodically that causes less trust for Wikipedia readers. The Supermind (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The disease starting date is November 17 2019, according to China. The pandemic starting date would be officially when the WHO declared a pandemic, so 11 March 2020. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No. When something is identified as a pandemic is not when it began. The pandemic started 17 Nov 2019. Lots of people started calling it a pandemic later, certainly by Feb/early Mar. WHO started calling it a pandemic on 11 Mar. The latter is not when the pandemic started. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the 17 November date is that it is a claim based on an undisclosed government document reported by a newspaper. We don't know how reliable that information is. The 1 December date on the other hand is given in a published paper on the study of the disease. Hzh (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This site here suggests that at the very least it would have been November something: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally Idiacanthus 14:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is implied by the 1 December date (the infection would have been earlier before the patient went to a hospital), but it also could have been October 2019 or earlier as indicated by the qualifier if not earlier, therefore it's not of much use. The 17 November date would also pushed the date of first infection even earlier. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"If not earlier" doesnt seem to be in the article right now Idiacanthus 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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) 16:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Task Force would probably been more appropriate but whats done is done I'll help out as much as I can. — RealFakeKimT 17:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

agree Task Force would have been better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Adjusted number of cases

Dear all,

I would like to share an idea to have a more precise understanding of the number of cases of COVID-19. A more precise current number of cases could be approximated by computing the square of cases today divided by the cases one week ago.

The concept behind this assumes that people with the infection get tested after the symptoms occur. Since the incubation period is most commonly 5 days, the number of current cases would be at least 5 days old. In fact, if requesting and processing the test took 2 more days, the number of cases would be around 7 days old.

My suggestion is to use the growth of the previous days. Let us imagine that a region had the following cases:

date	cases	daily growth
$n$ days ago	$a_{n}$
$(n-1)$ days ago	$a_{n-1}$	${\frac {a_{n-1}}{a_{n}}}$
$\cdots$
1 day ago	$a_{1}$	${\frac {a_{1}}{a_{2}}}$
today	$a_{0}$	${\frac {a_{0}}{a_{1}}}$

We can approximate the future growth by the past, and say that an adjusted number of cases can be approximated with:

$a_{0}\cdot {\frac {a_{0}}{a_{1}}}\cdot {\frac {a_{1}}{a_{2}}}\cdot \ldots \cdot {\frac {a_{n-2}}{a_{n-1}}}\cdot {\frac {a_{n-1}}{a_{n}}}$

which is the same as ${\frac {a_{0}^{2}}{a_{n}}}$

As an example, these are the values for the first 10 countries in the list on 2020-03-14:

country	cases today	cases one week ago	adjusted cases today (approx.)
China	80844	80695	80993
Italy	21157	5883	76087
Iran	12729	5823	27825
South Korea	8162	7134	9338
Spain	6391	430	94988
Germany	3795	684	21056
France	4499	949	21329
United States	2794	352	22177
Switzerland	1359	254	7271
United Kingdom	1140	206	6309

These adjusted values may fluctuate with sudden high values, like in the case of Spain.

I hope someone can find this idea useful.

Regards, Julian (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our policies do not allow for original research. - MrX 🖋 20:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikiversity permits original research per Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Original research. I never did much of anything there, but it could be interesting for the purpose. The above is very interesting. I saw other methods of estimation of actual cases, and those methods also suggest for multiple countries that the actual cases are 10x as many as the reported ones, or even 100x; for countries with comprehensive testing such as South Korea, the factor would not be so bad. One heuristic I saw is this: take the number of deaths and, if the country's healthcare is not overwhelmed, multiply it by 100 and then by 10, thus, by 1000; the 100 is for death rate of 1%, and the factor of 10 accounts for delay in time. It is very approximate, but we need to be clear that the actual cases hugely exceed the reported cases for most countries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, having those maps front and center is wildly misleading. The maps are pretty and it is fun to make them, but they leave the reader dumber than if he hadn't seen the article in the first place. Bury them deep down, with appropriate warnings not to try to draw any conclusions from them. (Better still, remove them - but that would be an uphill battle.) 85.76.71.208 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how things work in Wikiversity, but one way they could work is this: there would be a page for research subject and subpages per participant who has anything to publish. There would be e.g. Wikiversity:COVID-19/Julian Mendez, and Wikiversity:COVID-19/Dan Polansky. Each participant would publish their original research on their subpage, and others could comment on the talk page, and the subpage owner would decide which of the comments to incorporate. Maybe someone familiar with Wikiversity could comment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have created the subpage at Wikiversity:COVID-19/Julian_Mendez.

I hope this idea helps understanding the number of cases. The long incubation phase and the exponential growth combined could be misleading. People could overlook that the number of cases is considerably greater than the number of reported cases. --Julian (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

medium.com/@tomaspueyo draws a similar conclusion; you may find the article, its analysis and graphs interesting; they seem very plausible to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Illogical sentence.

The article reads:

• Owing to the effective quarantine of public transport in Wuhan and Hubei, several countries have planned to (...)"

Maybe the author meant something like this:

• To make the quarantine of public transport in Wuhan and Hubei effective, several countries have planned to (...)

Of course those countries don't care too much about China. They care about their own citizens who are in danger, which will matter in the next elections ;-) But what is the quarantine of public transport ? Quarantine of empty vehicles makes no sense. So, how about:

• Because of the situation in Wuhan and Hubei, several countries have planned to (...)" ?

85.193.242.185 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Next time, create the message as an edit request, or add the edit request template to the top. The template looks like this:

{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|answered=no}}

. I have added it for you. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@CoronavirusPlagueDoctor Oh, excuse my ignorance. It was a great lesson to me. Thank you so much :-) 85.193.242.185 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@85.193.242.185: Don't worry, it's not a mandatory thing. It's just that you're more likely to get a response, so it should be added. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Display problems of the article suddenly

Some recent edit must have change the main page. Suddenly I see side-panel scrollbars, which I did not see a few hours ago, or the days before today. So someone has changed something, which is a bit annoying because now I have to use these scrollbars. Could the main table, which I am most interested, simply be made in the middle of the page instead? I don't want to have to use a scrollbar to see new infections per country. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F: The template is not part of the article. The actual template is at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. If you want a scroll-bar less version of it, go ask so in the template's talk page. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We do not give advice

A well-intentioned editor added a hatnote ("Follow the advice of the World Health Organisation on how to help you and others from preventing the spread of the Coronavirus: here") to the top of the article directing readers to WHO. Such notes do not fit the purpose of an encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We can include what the WHO advice is, but yes, we can't advocate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We cannot include what the WHO advice is, because it is too long. We should provide the information that WHO (among other) give vital advice(s) in many pandemic topic, because it is encyclopedic, and we should do it right, because it is vital.

The way to write it to make it "encyclopedic" is up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.254.81 (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A link to World Health Organization is sufficient for anyone who wants to know more about WHO, and whether their advice might be useful to a particular reader. Our job is to create an article that contains concise information about the pandemic. Although it is undoubtedly a worthy endeavor for someone, we are not in the business of advising readers on how to deal with the pandemic, the disease, or their health. - MrX 🖋 21:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We can include a note in See also along the phrase of The World Health Organization has published advice on how to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The advice can be found[<link> on their website]. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 21:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We can include a neutrally and concisely phrased link in the External links section (not the see also section). Something like "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak information from World Health Organization" - MrX 🖋 21:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include a link to the article about the WHO? Or is that not needed due to the fact that everyone knows who the WHO is? CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move moratorium

These requested moves on here are getting disruptive so I formally propose a moratorium. I am neutral on how long it should be. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - We need to focus on the content, not the title. What the final title will be hinges on what the end-point of this pandemic ends up being: we should be wary about trying to title the current incident while living through it. doktorb _words^deeds 20:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Support The last move was pretty disruptive, taking the usual editors to move all other related pages and updating them to conform to the new page name of this main article. Let's wait for the pandemic to stabilise first (be it for good or bad). robertsky (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
3. Support a 30 day move moratorium, unless and new consensus to lift this moratorium occurs before then. - MrX 🖋 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. The renamings 3 time a day is ridiculous. Iluvalar (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
5. Support. This is clearly a long-running distraction that has been affecting this page and its related subpages. Carrots have stopped working, so it's time for the stick. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I notice there was some WP:RM recently, but most of them seems to too focus on "wanting to close" despite some merit on the RM starter side. I want to restrict users from attempting to enforce additional rules that would censor voices in RM and prevent users from using vote "Speedy Close" or having it closed for WP:SNOW. Wants them to keep RM open for 7 days no matter how much were started after another. Regice2020 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter what they mean by controlled, We’re just stating that the WHO recognised it as a pandemic, and as a pandemic that for the first time can be controlled. Almaty (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s a reliable reflection of what the WHO said and says, if we want to expand upon control measures, we have the prevention section for that Almaty (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m at work and tried to reply to this but went to wrong section Almaty (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment

We have proven that we are able to deal with multiple move requests, and we cannot predict the future. So let’s just be the encyclopaedia that we are, and just deal with them when they arise. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Instead of a formal move request that puts a notice on top of the page, start an informal discussion on this page first to float the ideas. I think almost all of these move requests are wasting effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

countries/locations

TRNC

Can we include Northern Cyprus somewhere else? There are reported 6 cases. Perhaps another section for partially and non recognized states? Beshogur (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Extra countries

For UK can there be extra countries like Wales,Scotland,England and Northern Ireland. Hi poland (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template

I have created a new easy-to-edit version of the template at User:Rich Farmbrough/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Please feel free to implement it, or not, as I am off to bed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: How does your template differ from the existing version? CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For changes to the template, talk about it here: Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. It is changed very frequently, so it is unlikely to be easily replaced by a sandbox version, although good ideas could be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Northshore, Meridian and Snohomish public school districts have closed, leaving 36,000 children out of school. These closures are happening from direct contact with the Corona Virus or as preventative care. Seattle Public School's are being closed for short amounts of time to engage a deep cleaning.

Bazzaz, D. (2020, March 10). Two Seattle public schools join throng of 115-plus Washington schools that have closed over coronavirus concerns. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/two-seattle-public-schools-join-throng-of-115-plus-washington-schools-that-have-closed-over-coronavirus-concerns/ WednesdeyMoore (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@WednesdeyMoore: Specific schools/school districts are not significant to be mentioned in the main article. Maybe you can add it to the education section for the coronavirus pandemic article in the state of Washington. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is happening all over the world. I don't think we need to highlight three specific school districts. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Active Cases

Please add active cases in the table. Possibly also rank the countries by active cases. China is no longer an area of high risk. Germany has a much larger active case density than China for example. Robads (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldmap of percentage increase

Please add a worldmap with the daily percentage increase in different colors. This shows better which areas are strongly growing and which parts of the world have a low growth. For example the daily increase in Germany is very high, while in China it is very low now. China has mastered to suppress the spread of the virus. Robads (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Expected cases next week (Extrapolation)

Please add the total number of expected cases for one week after the current day based on the latest percentage increase. For example Germany had 4838 cases on 2020-03-15 with a percentage increase of 27%. That means in 7 days on 2020-03-22 it will have 1.27^7*4838 cases that is 25780 cases. This is a better value for showing the actual number of infected people than the current case numbers due to the incubation period delay. Robads (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This would be very hard to do and maintain without a spreadsheet of some kind. Also, extrapolations are very unreliable, and they depend on a constant rate of increase, which changes anytime a government enacts new rules to stop the coronavirus, and is also affected by testing capacity. See Wikipedia:BALL. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 01:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Impact

• 40 countries with 100+ cases. In most countries it took 19 days to reach 100
• 11 countries with 1000+ cases. From 100 to 1000 it took 7 days in most countries
• 3 countries with 10000+ cases. From 1000 to 10000 it took 9 days in most countries

Next time, create the message as an edit request, or add the edit request template to the top. The template looks like this:

{{edit semi-protected|2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|answered=no}}

. I have added it for you. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk _{about the coronavirus}/Contributions _{about the coronavirus}) 01:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources? Speaking of which, I have noticed that the number of cases, number of deaths, and number of recoveries counts are being periodically incremented, but no new citations are being added. If the same sources are being used and they are being updated on-the-fly, at least change the |access-date=. As it is, several of these changes appears to be unsourced but masquerading as sourced, having replaced figures that were sourced a day or so ago without updating the sourcing. That is, with the present sources cited, some of these would likely fail verification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

JHMap source missing; other citation cleanup

There's a source cited multiple times as "JHMap" that is not actually in the article. I've looked back a ways in the diffs and am not finding it, so my guess is someone copy-pasted material with citations from another article and forgot to bring the source with them. Someone fix it, please. I did several hours of citation and other clean-up, and this was the only thing outright broken that I didn't fix. BTW, imposed a consistent citation style as instructed at WP:CITEVAR; among other cleanup, I reverted a half-finished attempt to convert this to a mixture of at least two forms of Vancouver-style citations, since the article is already predominantly in "vanilla" WP:CS1 style, and it's a completely lost cause trying to use something as fiddly as Vanc. in an article like this that is seeing dozens or more editors per day working on it, some of them using old cite tools that lack such options anyway, and most of whom would not know Vanc. style if it bit them in the rump. Anything that requires consistently adding special parameters over and over again is a poor idea in such an article since most editors simply will not do it, meanwhile in an article this large and growing, it's a bad idea for code-bloat reasons, too. In the course of this I fixed over 100 cases of people using the wrong parameters (putting publisher in the |work= field and vice versa), doing deprecated things like |year= instead of |date=, fake "placeholder" author names, misusing author-related parameters for fragments of publisher names, mis-identified publications, unlinked notable publications, missing information that helps identify publications and their reputability, bare-URL "citations", etc., etc., etc. I'm sure I missed a few spots, but I think I nailed about 97% of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for bring the above to our attention--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

cases/numbers

First confirmed death in Mexico

https://www.debate.com.mx/politica/Muere-el-empresario-Jose-Kuri-primera-victima-de-coronavirus-en-Mexico-20200315-0210.html https://www.radioformula.com.mx/noticias/20200315/quien-era-jose-kuri-harfush-la-primera-victima-de-coronavirus-en-mexico/ https://turquesanews.mx/mexico/primer-victima-mortal-de-coronavirus-en-mexico-el-empresario-jose-kuri-harfush/

Please confirm if the news outlets are true. If they are, modify the numbers on Mexico death toll to 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.1.26 (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

76 years old man Goodbye in Hamburg

First one in Germany North, now 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.149.192 (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

First case in Yemen

First Coronavirus case has been reported in the country of Yemen. But due to ongoing civil war in that country it's hard to confirm or verify that.claim. [[8]]

Neither side of the conflict has confirmed it either. But I think it's fair enough to include that in the official list.

Also Coronavirus Asia list includes Yemen. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cases in Brazil

Brazil has 221 confirmed cases so far.

https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/03/16/governador-de-roraima-pede-fechamento-de-fronteira-por-causa-de-pandemia-do-coronavirus.ghtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatheusGamezi (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Year in title

This is the only time that there's been a coronavirus pandemic. Now that pandemic is in the title, the years no longer need be. Jim Michael (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not quite true, there was also SARS and MERS, both coronaviruses and pandemic causing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's only been a pandemic in 2020, though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 07:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC).

Graeme Bartlett Jim has a point; this is the first coronavirus to be labeled a pandemic by the WHO. Victionarier (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor locations in Hubei

@Ikon21: Here's an example of how we handle minor locations in Hubei [9] [10] [11] [12] Everybody in the English speaking world knows where Brooklyn is, but to write 'Jianghan' without writing 'Wuhan' is to obscure the location of Jianghan. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Is what is found on Wikitionary a guideline? I don't think so. For the sake of the infobox, it should be concise as possible. Anyone can rollover the Jianghan link and see that it is a district of Wuhan, so it is not necessary to list Wuhan repeatedly as the information is more elaborated in the actual article. -Ikon21 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Global personal registration of disease

This website was recently created to enable individuals to register their status, providing global information about the condition and spread, and minimizing "dark numbers". It was reported by this technical media. I don't know where to add it in the article, if any. TGCP (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In English TGCP (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly object to this being added to the article. - MrX 🖋 11:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, we'll wait until it becomes a recognized tool for researchers and authorities. TGCP (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The first known pandemic that can be controlled

Each time added over the last 5 days, have had thanks, and each time removed without discussion? That’s exactly what the WHO said and says. Pls explain removal and discuss —Almaty (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The spread of Spanish flu was controlled to some extent: some placed managed much better by practicing social distancing. What does WHO mean by "controlled"? Each pandemic can be subjected to control, that is, a combination of measurement and intervention measures in part based on the measurement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The content in the lead should be removed if only on the grounds that it is not summarizing content in the body. GMG^talk 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is old news already. It was controversial when they said it. And it is becoming less and less possible as time goes on. Undue weight for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Transmission

The last paragraph of the 'Transmission section that refers to cites unpublished papers. As far as I can tell, this does comply with WP:MEDRS. Can someone more familiar with this guideline comment? - MrX 🖋 12:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

The first death in Gulf occurred on 16 March 2020 in the Bahrain,[59] 89.211.241.204 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - You didn't provide a source and the information in the article is being updated with information from aggregating sources like https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support the new edit on wp:boldavoid and wp:redundancy

The article now reads like a breath of fresh air —Almaty (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Almaty There is no such policy as wp:boldavoid. Victionarier (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Change Jordan from 12 to 17 Nasser anssari (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cite web parameters with more than one value

• Warning: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "title" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)
• Warning: 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "publisher" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)

I cannot find them. T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Old news and controversial

This can be discussed in the body "as the first known pandemic that may be controlled"

This level of details is too much for the lead "Coronavirus cases with twice as many active cases of any other country including China and Iran combined at 20,603 active" Plus WorldOMeter does not say this and we are doing original research.

Plus the number of cases in Iran is controversial.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

agree with editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James: See "The first known pandemic that can be controlled" section above. GMG^talk 17:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO.int mashup: "MAP : Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) situation"

• https://www.who.int/redirect-pages/page/novel-coronavirus-(covid-19)-situation-dashboard

redirects to:

• https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd

The GIS data which builds this map could be useful or a

{{external media}}

infobox could point to the map. T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The data on that map appears dated and doesn't seem to show how old each data point is. The U.S. cases shown are only half the current total, for instance, and Russia closer to one-third. Rmhermen (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ton of US Gov videos and photos here

in case anyone wants to help importing them: https://www.dvidshub.net/search/?q=coronavirus&filter%5Btype%5D=video&view=grid Victor Grigas (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we need someone who has the software/knowledge to batch convert these to a different format. Commons does not accept MP4's which is what pretty much every video put out by the DOD is stored in. Umm... maybe @Fæ: can, or knows someone who can? GMG^talk 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence - editing dispute

It seems that myself and User:ABigBeast05 disagree as to the proper formatting in the lead; I thought I should put a few of the options up for discussion.

1. The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is an ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
2. The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is an ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
3. The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Personally, I disfavor #1 on the grounds of MOS:AVOIDBOLD and redundant wording, and I don't think #2 is a valid styling. Comments or suggestions? — Goszei (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think that option 2 is the most suitable, it suits the article in terms of the layout and looks more encyclopedic-like. It sounds more right to say option 2

Support #3 I agree that #1 and #2 are redundant. #2 is particularly bad for the lack of bolding. As an example that supports #3, the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak article's lead doesn't say "The 2002-2004 SARS outbreak was an outbreak..."

Greenland

Given that Greenland now has a confirmed case in Nuuk, I think the main map should be updated so that it is no longer a grayed-out "No Data". --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 17:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)