Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data

RfC on countries/dependencies

I think we need to have the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all.
Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not?
As of now, two dependent territories (namely Hong Kong and Macau, so that China is referred to as "China (mainland)"), along with scarcely or not universally recognised countries are listes separately from their respective countries, others are not. The count is made more complicate by the fact that most sources (notably including Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by Johns Hopkins CSSE and Coronavirus Update - Worldometer) list all dependencies separately.
Please, have your say! --Checco (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• My guess is that we should be completely consistent with List of countries and dependencies by population and several other articles. In fact, in Wikipedia it is customary to list and/or consider territories and/or dependencies separately from respective countries for statistical purposes. Dependent territories are never included in their respective countries' counts. As a consequence, in our template mainland China should be referred simply as China. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the territories and remote parts of countries should be considered separately. Unfortunately that means more lines in the table. But at least we can follow sources that we use. China has to have the "(mainland)" on it to prevent confusion, and this was heavily discussed in earlier weeks. Though I do not support use of "small" for it. We certainly need a consensus on it as there are many reversals on these entries, and confusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that earlier discussion Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 3#Guernsey clearly supported Guernsey (and possibly Jersey) as having its own entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree on China, on both respects. Why should we add "mainland" here? In no other list, in which Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately, there is such thing as "mainland China". If "mainland" has to stay, let's have it smaller, at least. --Checco (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • The reason is that we avoid excessively small text as it is too hard to read for some. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I would remove "mainland" or, at least, make it less evident. --Checco (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Removing "mainland" while listing it as such and parallel to HK and Macau would violate WP:NPOV.Rethliopuks (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Not at all. Hong Kong and Macau have a different status and, by the way, are on the mainland! It is "mainland" which is hardly NPOV and, indeed, it virtually never mentioned in lists in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
              • You're mistaken, my friend. "Mainland", perhaps confusingly, refers to the area claimed by PRC that excludes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. So, Macau is geographically part of the continent but it's not part of "Mainland", and Hainan which is a real island is. The reason? It's because "Mainland China" is a term propelled into existence by political needs rather than geographic. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                • Again, this template is a strange exception in Wikipedia. Differently from here: 1) dependent territories are usually listed separately. 2) China is usually listed as "China" also in tables and lists where Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately. Big inconsistency! Again, just take a look to List of countries and dependencies by population --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
                  • I think the issue here is that we're counting. It's clearly ridiculous to say that there's a "mainland China" as a country, as much as it is to state that there exists "the British Islands" or "Contiguous United States" as a country; at the very least, such a claim would definitely violate WP:NPOV. Even listing them as territories instead of their respective countries would violate WP:NPOV. However, it's a different matter when we need to actually count numbers on parts of land. Imagine using "United States" to only include the lower 48 or "France" to exclude Corsica -- that would be an unexpected thing to do. But our statistics is so, then we must make a note that we do not refer to the entire PRC (or US or France) but which parts of it, one way or another -- it's either going to be "China" with a note or "mainland China". I prefer the latter. Rethliopuks (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
                    • You are probably not aware of what dependent territories are. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need to discuss few criteria, independantly otherwise democracy is a MESS.
  Populations: Every political area with population >1~5 million should be included. Micro states (Andorra, Vatican, etc) shouldn't.
  Status / Dependencies: territories should be attached to the de facto highest authority, judged by tax flow, police, army. Thereby: most dependencies will be attached to their upper authority as a 'province/region/...'.
  Scarcely or not universally recognized countries if population is notable >1~5 millions, fiscally, militarily independent : Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia.
  Core idea => We don't do politics, a reporting authority is included ; We reduce to highest reporting autority (Island of Man => UK, etc) ; we push away micro-micro-state. Yug (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably a bad idea to exclude any state for its population, because this is supposed to be a global count. Rethliopuks (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• The problem I see is when a territory whose de facto sovereignty is widely disputed and when the territory has yet been added. Thus Taiwan is not an issue because the scheme is mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan -- listing four regions thus circumventing the sovereignty issue. One present problem is Northern Cyprus: the territory has now seen confirmed cases, so as a global count the cases should be included. Do we have a WP:NPOV solution that allows listing the cases in the territory one way or another? Rethliopuks (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus should be included as a separate line… Cyprus is not including the Northern Cyprus cases in its reports, and it makes no sense to completely exclude Northern Cyprus from the table (the cases still exist). The issue with dependencies is unrelated as they are not independent (recognised or unrecognised) and (most?) are not claiming to be so their totals are generally included in the main country’s reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.220.109 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Northern Cyprus should be listed separately, it can be put in italics or something, but we can't just exclude its cases Extended Cut (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since the numbers are patients under health authority's control, what should be showed is which health authority is actually overall responsible for that patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.47.172 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• List of countries by population (United Nations) is another list.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Not all countries are recognised by the UN and/or are members of it. And, by the way, also in that list dependent territories are listed separately from their respective countries and China is listed as just "China" (even though Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately). Thanks, User:Selfstudier for your point! --Checco (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

193 UN member states (+2 non member observer states) and 233 in that list (you can reconcile it with the other one, some are in, some are not).Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Are numbers from Puerto Rico counted twice? It says that US cases include Puerto Rico's, yet it's still listed separately.Extended Cut (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Philosophical reflections

• Purpose: The main purpose of Wikipedia in general, and the current article in particular, would - in my opinion - be to share information with one another. That said, any message involves choices, as to sending it, its subject, its content, its wording, its degree of clarity / vagueness, etc.
• Neutrality: Already in those choices, neutrality is / can be lost. In the particular case under discussion here, ceases to exits at the latest as soon as at least one person disputes the borders and/or naming of an area on the globe.
• Information: I would define information as any both well-defined and true (part of the) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, or else any well-defined and well-documented (i.e. by a clearly described and available source) contents of a message about facts and circumstances, possibly with an assessment of the accuracy.
• Availability: We can only send / share messages about information that is available. It appears to me that for numbers of infected (total and/or current), recovered, succumbed for sizable parts of the world, we depend on numbers made available / published by the sources / authorities that have access to (qualitatively) good measurements thereof.
• Division: As long as for a well-defined division of the world (country, province, etc.) one authority reports in a well-defined and clear way and is not (substantially) contradicted by another authority with at least an equal level of trustworthiness (and in assessing substantiality and trustworthiness, neutrality may be (partially) lost), using messages (here: numbers of infected, recovered, succumbed) published by that authority seems to be the best possible way of showing such numbers for this well-defined division in a table. Things get more complicated when several authorities / sources claim to be leading, but I doubt whether that is a major issue at this point in time for most of the divisions. I would say that the (kind of) divisions are ultimately dictated by the authorities / sources that execute and report about measurements, whatever the divisions are that they choose to report on, and whatever the levels of quality and neutrality underlying these divisions and numbers. Of course, we are free to discuss the quality of the numbers, but I see no point in choosing any other divisions of the world than are chosen by the (reporting) authorities / sources as long as we do not have data about different divisions at our disposal.
• I would therefore suggest that the one(s) who are willing and prepared to share messages about case numbers in a table use the numbers published by authorities for the well-defined division(s) they report for in a clear way. The resolution (e.g. country, province, state, municipality) is a matter of choice, as long as a credible (again: risk of loosing neutrality) source reports on a division of a particular resolution.

Practical implications for the countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are proposed to be as follows. The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four separate countries, namely:

• (the country of) the Netherlands;
• Aruba;
• Curaçao;
• Sint Maarten.

In turn, (the country of) the Netherlands consist(s) of:

• the European Netherlands;
• the Caribbean Netherlands,

and the Caribbean Netherlands in their turn consist of three public bodies somewhat similar to municipalities, namely:

• Bonaire;
• Sint Eustatius;
• Saba.

For (the country of) the Netherlands, the (main; again: neutrality may be lost in interpreting this adjective) reporting authority is the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). It reports for the well-defined division (the country of) the Netherlands, therefore excluding Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. I cannot find any (clear) indication that its scope would be different from this, nor have I seen it provided by the one(s) who have/has added a text saying that the numbers for Aruba and Curaçao would be included in those for the Netherlands.

Furthermore:

• Aruba has its own Directie Volksgezondheid. Please refer to e.g. https://www.overheid.aw/home-ned/departementen_46763/letter/D/ and https://www.facebook.com/pg/desparuba/posts/.
• Curaçao has its own Volksgezondheid Instituut Curaçao. Please refer to e.g. https://vic.cw/pap.
• Sint Maarten has its own Department of Public Health. Please refer to e.g. http://www.sintmaartengov.org/GOVERNMENT/VSA/PUBLIC-HEALTH/Pages/default.aspx.

For these reasons I propose using the RIVM-numbers with respect to (the country of) the Netherlands - including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba - only (and excluding the three other kingdom partners Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten besides (the country of) the Netherlands), and separate entries and numbers for any cases in these three other countries as soon as they are reported by the appropriate (another judgment case) authorities. I am not aware of any parties disputing the de facto control and authority of the four governmental organizations mentioned.

The Netherlands do not count recoveries.Redav (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan should stay separate as they have a different government have carried out very different actions, etc. I think this is a case by case issue. Not something that can be solved by some overall rule. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I may actually have to retrace my steps a bit. I have come to an understanding of how practically helpful a COVID-19 cases data table could be that corresponds to a standard list of divisions (i.e. countries, territories, etc.) that may not fully correspond to areas of responsibility of certain (public health) authorities. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic. There seem to be several options. One is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population, but that list seems to be in need of changes to its handling or and handling of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its four constituent countries in a consistent way. (The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the four constituent countries Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and (the country of) the Netherlands.) Another option is using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations), where these four constituent countries seem to be treated in a consistent way. The need for a clear reference to the sources, and - if appropriate - data numbers that are aggregates of e.g. the numbers for the four constituent countries in the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Redav (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Several times some(one) has/have reverted input concerning both essential and accurate information with respect to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its four constituent countries and data for it, that I supplied together with explanations. Can s/he please indicate why this input would be unnecessary content?Redav (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Half collapsing this template

Am asking around

To see if any one has solutions to half collapsing or adding scrolling that would work... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay this works well on desktop, mobile, and in the app User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid One can swipe left and right to see the edges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It works on desktop and tiny screen. But if we have scrollable, I suggest no default collapsed bits like notes. If you click on a note nothing happens if it is collapsed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that User:Graeme Bartlett. You want to make the change? I am unable to figure out how. By the way it opens for me on desktop. And I see it open by default on mobile. I also see it as open by default in the app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

While it seems to work well enough in the sandbox, on all of my Mac, Windows, and Android OS the entire left side of the box is cut off, icons and all scrolling left and right does not work. Perhaps looking to the past can provide a solution for today. During the 2009 flu pandemic the Template:2009 flu pandemic data was used and that template then provided the link to the data by country. Given the fluid nature of this event and the constant editing, perhaps a top 10 could be used in a condensed version, with the link provided to all the countries and territories a la the 2009 pandemic data box. Krazytea(talk) 05:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krazytea What browser are you on and can you provide screen shots? It works fine on a windows machine running chrome. And on an android phone (both mobile and app). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I am using Firefox and the Wikipedia App on Android. Krazytea(talk) 05:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay try now User:Krazytea. I have now adjusted it and it works for me on Firefox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, for [1], the reason i had padding on the right, is that some browsers (in particular firefox desktop on linux) take out space for the scrollbar, and things get cut-off without some padding (I have no idea how much padding is appropriate though, the amount i chose was probably unideal). Bawolff (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox works OK for me on Android - with firefox mobile, chrome mobile and chrome desktop (though here is is quite small, but zoomable). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As pointed out by Krazytea above, Template:2009 flu pandemic data shows the perfect way to summarize the data in the pandemic main article. Cases by continents and economic regions and worldwide cases (grand totals), and maybe a few top countries, with a link to further information: Cases and deaths by country. Regardless, too much statistical data (e.g. excessively long tables to impede the readability of the main article) is against policy (WP:NOTSTATS). Being scrollable doesn't solve the problem because it hinders printability and has accessibility issues. Zarex (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support suggestion by Krazytea and Zarex. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess I do not. I quite prefer the current format, but I am proposing improvements too (see below). --Checco (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not like the Flu layout either. People want to know what is happening in their country. I know that I want to know what is happening in my country. Lumping Canada, the US and Mexico together makes no sense.

With respect to accessibility / printibility. Can we have a button within the template that takes a person to the full version without scroll? Or has the scrollable version change to the full version? User:Bawolff Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

hmm. For printability, we could maybe use TemplateStyles so it doesnt scroll when printing. Bawolff (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a new version that should print better, and has a button to expand all - User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bawolff: The button to expand is nice but in Firefox there is a horizontal scrollbar and the vertical borders in the second header row are missing (between Countries, Cases, Deaths, Recoveries and Refs). Zarex (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zarex: I tried to add more padding so the vertical scrollbar doesn't show up, which worked in my testing but might not work everywhere (It seems like firefox requires the extra room, where chrome doesn't, and how much room a scrollbar takes up seems a bit unpredictable). I had trouble making the top border show up in both chrome and firefox. I found a way that works in chrome but not firefox, and a way that works in firefox but not chrome. Nonetheless, I think my new version is a lot better. Bawolff (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks great. Exactly what I was looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that might make sense, is word wrapping the country columns (But only if you are on a small screen). I tried to do that in my sandbox [2] (View on a small screen width). Honestly, it didn't really help as much as i thought it would. Bawolff (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Further improvements

I quite like the scrollable box, but the header should be fixed. What do you guys think?
Secondly, what about reducing the first column's width, in order to make the table more readable also for smartphone users.
Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you want to fix the header User:Checco?

Yes we should reduce the first column's width. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can keep the header stable, so that it is not scrolled down. --Checco (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If we do have horizontal scrolling, maybe the flags should also be fixed - that would allow keeping track of what country well also not taking up a lot of room. Anyways, i did a version in my sandbox where the top headers (not the flags) are fixed, although it seems like some mobile browsers don't support it: User:Bawolff/sandbox/covid. Bawolff (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for collapsing this table. Much too large otherwise. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken Again

For me, this is the last fully readable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945630678 edit notes describe the next as "fixed." 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

For me, things get considerable worse with this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data&oldid=945711573 edit notes describe this as "At least make it so that you don't have to scroll horizontally" but it chops it off halfway through "cases" unless users find a way to scroll horizontally. And scrolling part of the window without the rest can trigger migraines. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Revised template

Following a request from User:Doc James I have made a simpler to use template: it is at User:Rich Farmbrough/2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC).

Thanks User:Rich Farmbrough will review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We will need a way to add references aswell. We change the references as we update the data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"show all" expands. When expanded, could it be replaced by "show fewer" like "show"/"hide" ?

|-
! colspan="6" | <div class="covid-show-table">[[#covid19-container|[show all]]]</div>{{Navbar-collapsible|{{resize|85%|{{Nowrap|[[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]] by [[2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory|country and territory]]}}}}|Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}}

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User:T3g5JZ50GLq excellent idea. Have you tested it on desktop / mobile / chrome and firefox? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported cases

I've edited before to turn "Cases" into "Reported Cases", but this has been reverted. I think it is important to make clear that these numbers are wrong. All public health officials know that they're wrong. These numbers are the confirmed cases, but the actual number of infected people is higher, probably substantially higher. (On Friday, the UK had a figure of 798 cases, but an estimate of 5-10,000 actual cases.) I don't know what the best way of showing that is, but we should not be giving the impression that these numbers are the real number of cases. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

i would imagine that, due to the nature of statistics, it is generally understood that when reporting a statistic such as the number of cases, by necessity, one can only report on the number of reported cases. as a result, while you may be semantically correct in stating that the column labelled "cases" is not reporting the actual number of cases, i would think that, as a matter of pragmatics, it is generally understood that "cases" means "reported cases". after all, the same argument that you made can also be made for the column labelled "deaths", but your edit did not appear to also change the "deaths" label to "reported deaths". it might even be more appropriate for the recoveries column, as many governments are not reporting recoveries, and some of the recovery statistics here are only based on what local news sources are reporting.

although i agree that, if one were to attempt to be as semantically correct as possible, we should be relabelling these columns to make sure that people understand that these statistics are based only on what is reported, i believe most of the other editors are trying to make the table as simple as possible to convey the necessary information. i'd imagine that you'd agree with the last point, as i see that you've decided to remove all the color from the null values in the table, considering it "overcomplicating formatting".

personally, if some editors feel very strongly about adding the word "reported" to the column label, i wouldn't really mind, but i thought you might want to know why other editors didn't seem to like the unnecessary addition. dying (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a footnote, which seems to have stuck (ergo, been accepted), although it could probably be worded better. I'm not convinced editors are aware at how approximate these numbers are, or indeed at how rapidly they're becoming even more approximate. Death statistics are generally much more reliable, but, yes, still also liable to underreporting. If it was up to me, I'd drop the Recovered column, where the reporting is very patchy. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to keep it short... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Columns

Adding population columns to the table.

Would it be possible to add a column that would display the number of infections per 1000 residents or another denominator that would allow for comparing data in relation to the total population of the country? Haider254 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This can be disregarded, I noticed this was already discussed earlier. I will try to delete this post if possible. If not, I apologise for my hasty question. Haider254 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done this in a spreadsheet (source: this template and List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population).

I do think there should be a Wikipedia page with some or all these derived formulas (e.g. cases per million and fatality rate). jax (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Active" column

I am strongly against the "active" colum, which was added with no clear consensus. It is a at best misplaced on the right and it is quite redundant. I am asking User:Rethliopuks to remove it and seek consensus first. A RfC can be started too. --Checco (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. This column is unnecessary, and makes the table slightly less readable. Doster123 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually thought an "active" column would make the table more readable for the readers that want to know the current situation of the pandemic as opposed to a historical aggregate (this is useful for many purposes e.g. answering "how 'dangerous' re: COVID-19 is region X now?"). A few examples of the functions this column serves: it makes clear how many cases remain open in mainland China, which is by no means otherwise clear at a glance (are there more cases than Italy? Fewer than Iran? etc.); it puts Macau to the bottom of the list as it has currently no active cases; it puts Japan below Belgium and Singapore below Estonia because both has fewer active cases than the other.

This column may not be globally distinctly useful for the moment, but in at most a few weeks it will be. Currently for most countries, "active" ≈ "confirmed", but that is only because the pandemic is at its nascent stage for the majority of number of countries. Already the table is being confusing/unuseful for a few countries in E/SE Asia as it doesn't reflect the progression of the pandemic well.

While this column is arithmetically redundant, it is not time-wise redundant. Calculation takes time and resources which the reader may not be able to realistically afford. It's like why nearly all COVID-19 data templates list both "new on the day" and "total as of the day", even though one of these columns is totally arithmetically redundant. (I'm actually not aware of any template that does not have the two separate columns) Rethliopuks (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, there has never been and there is no consensus for the "active" column. --Checco (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed. it is so often requested by people who haven't searched through the talk page archives for previous discussions about this that i think we should try to keep an explanation on the bottom of this talk page. (realistically, no one looks at the top of the page, where, for example, it says who situation reports are one of our core sources.)

also, although rethliopuks has had extensive experience dealing with editing data from this pandemic as evinced from his list of contributions (which i highly commend rethliopuks for), the experience is largely on mostly static tables of data. while i agree that data of this nature is useful (and indeed should be added to less dynamic tables), i believe the idea of such columns for this specific table have been generally rejected by editors regularly updating this specific table. if i am counting correctly, rethliopuks appears to only have about 15 edits to this table, with only 6 of them in the past few days (and likely centered around adding the column), so i don't blame rethliopuks on believing that adding the column was a good idea. i should also note that i have no issues with adding this column once the pandemic is over.

as the column may be getting quickly out of date and is being an active nuisance for editors right now, i will boldly remove the column if someone else comments their approval of doing so below, as i am assuming consensus has been achieved. dying (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is misleading and incorrect to create Active column by simply calculating Cases minus Deaths minus Recovered. Some countries do not report recoveries, so there is no known Active number. For example Finland generally doesn't report recoveries for privacy reasons. 84.250.234.143 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

good point. i knew some governments didn't report recoveries, but i had not thought of the implication. dying (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

done. if someone believes consensus was not achieved, please feel free to undo the change. apologies if i broke a part of the table in the process. dying (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. It is wide enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Percentage

Could another column be added to show the percentage of deaths vs total cases? And if needed, recoveries vs total cases? Ae245 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be meaningful at this stage. pauli133 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

...and this has already been discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

But how come? It's very helpful to people looking to find information. Some people including myself come to this data just to see the deaths-total ratio, for awareness on how bad the pandemic has become. At the moment I would have to manually calculate the ratio. I think it will be very helpful if it is automated. Furthermore, I do not think it is pernicious in any way. Ae245 (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

i agree that this information could be useful. however, this will likely not happen as, from a practical standpoint, it is too difficult to maintain. more information can be found on this page here. in addition, please search for "column" in the archives to see previous related discussions. regardless, thanks for the suggestion! dying (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand but after fidgeting around recently I learned that it's possible to automate this process for which editors don't need to do anything extra other than update the normal numbers, as the percentage would be automatically calculated using a template. Ae245 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone has already added an "active" column despite a clear consensus against adding such a column, making the table quite difficult to maintain. Sure, both the "active" column I'm mentioning now and the "Percentage" column you propose are automated by formulas that rely on the numbers that require manual edits–total cases, deaths, and recoveries. But the important thing right now is to keep those numbers that require manual editing as up-to-date as possible while using the most reliable sources, and once COVID-19 is under control we can consider these additional columns. RayDeeUx (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ae245, even if it is automated, i have my doubts about the editors agreeing with an additional column at this point, as there have been complaints about it already being too wide. (my vote for an additional column would be to separate the official sources from the reputable reliable ones that may be easily replaced, as suggested by sun creator, but i fear even such a narrow column containing mostly static data might still make the table too wide for some editors, and i don't want to add the column without consensus.)

that being said, if what you claim is true and you have time to kill (perhaps because you're under lockdown), you're welcome to provide a mock-up for us in the sandbox so that we can understand your request more accurately. of course, i can make no guarantees that your code will be accepted, or even that it will be used for its original purpose. if i asked the other editors what calculations they wanted automated right now if it were possible, i'm guessing the most likely response would be the sums for the columns. (that's a hint, by the way.)

by the way, if you really are under lockdown, hope you're staying safe. dying (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. It is wide enough as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Add CFR Column - or not?

Added "Case Fatality Rate" (CFR) column to the "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data" - please see => "preliminary template" (and/or "template version") - "CFR" column calculated based on currently available posted data - worthwhile addition to the template or not? - Comments Welcome - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now we're still struggling to keep the main figures (cases - deaths - recoveries) as up-to-date as possible. Once COVID-19 is under control, perhaps we can implement that column.

By the way, there was another column, the "active" column, which was added despite clear consensus against doing so. Part of the reason was because the table is already difficult to maintain as is, considering the growing number of countries with COVID-19 cases. This CFR column you're proposing would likely have the same effect–making the table harder to maintain and/or edit on small resolution screens. RayDeeUx (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, good addition. I'm not of the mindset it has to be totally up-to-date. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We've previously discussed case fatality rate calculations on the Talk page of the main pandemic article. Many editors feel that is it not appropriate to report such a figure: it's WP:OR and not covered by WP:CALC. There are subtleties in calculating CFRs that should be left to the experts and not be done by Wikipedia editors. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No more columns. It is wide enough. CFR is meaningless for small numbers of cases and early in the outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet another column?

Again, this is happening. CFR. M nurhaikal (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

France figures still remain unchanged, anything of issue here ?? BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Percentage Deaths / Number of Cases Reported

Consider adding a Deaths / Number of Cases Reported (as a percentage) column to the table. It is a good indicator of the efficiency of measures taken in each country to combat deaths. Thanks, Mollie Kruger, South Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.242.129.185 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Moratorium on more columns

Adding more columns will make this table harder to maintain and wider. As such I think we need a moratorium on more columns / requests for more columns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you we shouldn't be adding more columns to the template. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

San Marino update

Please update San Marino cases count to: Confirmed: 111 (102+9) Deaths: 9 Recovered: 4

Source: Official http://www.iss.sm/on-line/home/artCataggiornamenti-coronavirus.49004093.1.20.1.html Garyczek (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. i am currently interpreting the count of recovered patients to be separate from the "casi positivi", so i have updated the number of positive cases to 115 (102+9+4). please let me know if i am interpreting the source incorrectly. thanks for referencing the cited source! dying (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Slight increase of Germany total confirmed case figure

Germany's total confirmed case figure has increased to 7241 a while ago, please correct. Src : https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/ BlackSun2104 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope–it still shows 7240 for me. Thanks for your attempt though! RayDeeUx (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The online tracker run by Public Health England has now added recoveries and is reporting a total of 52, not the 18/19/20 that's been reported in old third-party sources: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

I'm assuming these would need to be combined with the stats from the overseas territories and dependencies: for instance, Worldometer is saying that one of the cases in Gibraltar has recovered, but that's not included on the PHE tracker. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Qatar's empty cell

Why does Qatar have an empty cell?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The order of the references

Can someone please correct the order of the references?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Subject : France

France confirmed case figure should have increased by now. BlackSun2104 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Outdated source

Please, change the source from L'Express (15 march, outdated) to Santé Publique France (government data). The fix:

| style="padding:0px 2px;"| <!-- please do not replace this source with an aggregate source if the aggregate source does not provide more up-to-date details, as this primary source is a more reliable source --><!-- please simply comment out the following source if removing the citation, as this is a government source, and likely will be referenced again in the future --><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/articles/infection-au-nouveau-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-covid-19-france-et-monde|title=Infection au nouveau Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), COVID-19, France et Monde|date=2020-03-16|website=www.santepubliquefrance.fr|language=fr|access-date=2020-03-16}}</ref>

Zatiranyk (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

France: slow to update

France figure still remain the same more than 24 hrs ago, is there any good reason for that ?? Here's the official source: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/articles/infection-au-nouveau-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-covid-19-france-et-monde BlackSun2104 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure who updated it, but that is no longer the case as of the time of this reply.

BlackSun2104, please keep this behavior up and put sources alongside your periodic reminders for us to update numbers for countries. As you can see, we cannot edit figures without government sources or other reliable news sources. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Time stamp

Is it desirable to place a time stamp on this template? I'm referring to this section:

{{resize|As of {{TODAY}} ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]) · History of cases: [[Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases|China]], [[Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/International medical cases|international]]}}

The date is generated with the {{TODAY}} template, which returns the current date in UTC. This is wrong, because it displays the current date, not the date of the last update. It'd be more accurate to use the actual date (and time) of the last update. The same suggestion applies to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases and Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/International medical cases. Roches (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Right now as COVID-19 infects more people daily [as well as the number of edit requests we're getting here every day], there's no significant difference between the date of last update and the current date.

The important thing is to keep the current three numbers (cases, recoveries, deaths) as up to date as possible.

Hope that addresses your concerns. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Worldometer being wrong?

In Wikipedia, the number of France is equal to Worldometer's number of France. However, Worldometer's number doesn't include France's other territories. Can someone fix this? Or did Worldometer double count? If they double-counted, we should not use their sum. Please tell me what's wrong. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't use WorldOMeter for France's case count, we use France's sources. Therefore the territories are included. Until we get a more recent number from France's Ministry of Health or another reliable source, we are keeping the number as is.

Hope that helps. Luke Kern Choi 5 RayDeeUx (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What I was concerned was that Wikipedia's number was 6633 for France, and Worldometer's number for France was 6633 too, although it didn't include territories of France. So, I was questioning did Worldometer made a mistake(double-counting) in translating original sources, or Wikipedia's number(or France source of Wikipedia's number) doesn't include other territories. Can you check out France's sources if the numbers include the territories, RayDeeUx ? Thank you very much, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer is competely UNRELIABLE. It says the USA has had 85 deaths, but does not itemize them by state, or refer to sources that deal with this. All itemized sources say the USA has had 75 deaths, itemized by source. Can we agree to boot out Worldometer as an unreliable source? Arrecife (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This says 91 deaths and it does itemize them. https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Please disallow Worldometer as a legitimate source. It does not properly provide sources for its statistics e.g. Coronavirus deaths. Scientific sources (like CDC) and established news media shuld be used instead. Arrecife (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. While many of the regular editors of the template agree that WorldOMeter isn't reliable, we have already shifted away from WorldOMeter by using local sources such as reports from the Ministry of Health from various countries, WHO, or reliable nation-specific sources. Past edit requests have also been asked to include sources other than WorldOMeter as part of a measure to shift away from WorldOMeter.

Hope that addresses your concerns.

Other editors, thoughts? Apologies for mass ping: Doc James dying

Signature: RayDeeUx (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Worldometer is at this moment the only source given for China, Iran, USA and many other major countries. This chiselling will go on until Worldometer is discarded. Please reactivate my request. Arrecife (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Deactivated request. I just made a new section regarding this issue, please bring your thoughts there. Changing sources is a task too big to fit into an edit request. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a balance between uptodate and reliable. Worldometer provides sources for their claim and in my opinion is reliable enough. The only way we are going to get more reliable but less up to date sources used is if we fully protect this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the ping. personally, i don't think a lot of the aggregate sources are reliable, and there should be a strong reason why they may be preferred over official sources. worldometers, in particular, seems to often want to be the first to report something, and as a result, seems to also use sources that are possibly questionable, if it even mentions a source at all. i'm assuming that its popularity here is because a lot of editors drop by after seeing an update on worldometers, excited to post an update, without actually checking how reliable the source of the update is. in addition, if worldometers cited its sources, i see no reason why editors can't simply cite the source itself instead of worldometers, since if the source is reputable in the first place, it's also likely more reputable than worldometers.

i recognize that some of the countries with a lower count currently only have worldometers as a source. i've actually been thinking about replacing them with either the who situation report or their dashboard. i'm assuming official government sources for the countries with a lower count simply haven't set up the infrastructure to provide regularly-updated numbers, possibly because they didn't think this pandemic would have a serious effect on their country until recently. i don't blame them; it seems like this describes most countries. many of the countries near the top of the table now didn't provide good official sources for information either until recently. so, i propose using who as our default aggregate source until those governments can provide a good official source. since those countries in question don't really have that many cases at the moment, i'd imagine that those numbers don't have to be constantly updated right now, and who's rate of updates would be sufficient for the moment.

offhand, the only reason why i think we should keep worldometers is because it is the only source cited for some of the values for recoveries, especially for countries that do not officially report recoveries. however, whenever that's the case, it's also quite possible that the value of recoveries, even reported by local reputable reliable sources, are determined only by what their news staff happens to hear. in such cases, i think reporting such a number may actually be rather misleading, and would personally prefer the cell to be left blank (or perhaps filled with an em dash) to indicate that no data is officially reported by the government and/or no reliable data can be obtained otherwise.

one small additional point: i think it is possible for us to keep most of the updates from unreliable sources away from this page if we all check the history of the page every so often and undo updates that use unreliable sources. this is something that i personally would not want to try to enforce by myself, but if there is consensus on this, i think dealing with these edits will be manageable, and the editors that come here unfamiliar with how we are trying to avoid questionable updates may quickly understand that we are only looking for reliable sources here.

anyway, i'll start replacing the sources for the countries near the bottom of the list with the who dashboard. i'm assuming this doesn't require consensus since the top of this talk page already states that who is one of our core sources, but feel free to revert my changes if you disagree. dying (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to keep the number of sources to two at MOST two. The problem we dealt with was people continually changing the numbers to higher ones without changing the source.

So what we will end up with User:Dying is the WorldOMeter number but claiming it is supported by WHO. That is much worse than were we are now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO appears to be about a day behind User:Dying. So I oppose you changing it to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

okay, i've stopped. i've only done it for nepal so far, where the first case fell ill back in january, and has recovered since. i'm assuming that, in this case, the rate of who's updates doesn't really matter.

so, are you saying that wikipedia's policy is to prefer unreliable data paired correctly with an unreliable source than unreliable data temporarily paired incorrectly with a reliable source but reverted once discovered by another editor? i would have personally preferred the latter, which is why i suggested it, but i know i have far less experience with wikipedia's policies than you do, and admittedly had not even considered it to be an issue until you brought it up.

however, from what i can tell, the issue of random editors coming in and changing the numbers without citing the source used will likely happen regardless of what sources we choose to use, and even if consensus decides to use worldometers as the default source in order to attempt to avoid having the wrong source cited, it's likely that there will still be editors changing the numbers to ones even higher than those found at worldometers without citing their sources. dying (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dying Accurately representing a less ideal source is better than misrepresenting an ideal source.

When we used out of date sources people would change it multiple times an hour to a higher value not in that source.

WHO is sometimes wrong aswell such as with the Diamond Princess.

With WorldOMeter things have been less unstable.

As I have previously said I am happy to go with Johns Hopkins but we need support to fully protect this than . And we need to be happy with being out of date a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

[PROPOSAL] - Shifting away from WorldOMeter

As the past few days have shown, WorldOMeter is... misbehaving, so to speak.

The number of cases WorldOMeter wishes to report and the number of cases from government sources seem to collide.

Lately I've seen that many countries cite their respective Ministers/Ministries of Health or other reliable sources for case counts and other updates.

The countries/territories that solely rely on WorldOMeter are:

China, United States, Switzerland, Israel, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Qatar, Australia, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Mexico, Cyprus, Armenia, Palestine, Ecuador, Senegal, Malta, Lithuania, Maldives, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, New Zealand, Uruguay, Liechtenstein, Ghana, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Guyana, Cameroon, Cuba, Kenya, DR Congo, Guatemala, Namibia, Saint Lucia, Sudan, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Guinea, Liberia, Mongolia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Vatican City, Nepal

The countries/territories that rely partly on WorldOMeter are:

Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal, Brazil, Iraq, Latvia, Jordan, North Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Andorra, Macau, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Nigeria, Bahamas, Equatorial Guinea, Croatia, Argentina, Kuwait

I feel that it's better to use government sources, but I'm having a hard time finding the right pages for a majority of the countries listed. Obviously, China, US, Italy, and other more well-known countries shouldn't be too difficult.

It could be me using DuckDuckGo instead of Google, but can we find the proper government sources for the lesser-known countries?

Thoughts?

RayDeeUx (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this so many times. You need to get consensus to fully protect this page first. And than we will get hundreds upon hundreds of requests to update before the official sources do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Established local media sources such as the Seattle Post-Examiner should be acceptable...they can go towards making a tally.Arrecife (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins is a good source[3]

But too many people felt it was not up to date enough.

We discuss this over and over again. I am happy to go with Johns Hopkins but that will require full protection.

I think WorldOMeter well not ideal is good enough. Like seriously we do not really now how many cases we have. We are fight for false precision but to a lack of testing in many areas of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Example of the problem

Here[4]] User:Cxp1 changed the numbers for Saudi Arabia but did not change the source.... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I fixed it here[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WHO appears to have the numbers

For the Diamond Princess wrong at 712. They later agreed that they double counted some people and thus it decreased to 696. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

there are 162 countries affected Pancakecharlie (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WorldOMeters? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Adjusting the styling for screenreaders

In order to make this table navigable for screenreader users, it will need two amendments to the source code:

From:

<div id="covid19-container">
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="text-align:right; font-size:85%;  margin:0px 0px 0em 1em;"

To:

<div id="covid19-container" role="region" aria-label="2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory table" tabindex="0">
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="text-align:right; font-size:85%; margin:0 0 0 1em;"

The ARIA label is read out by screen readers only, if table, overview, summary makes most sense is better decided by an English Native speaker. But it has to be clear and better repeating information as the region will get read out on same level as main navigation by screen readers. I've also removed double-whitspace before `margin` and the unnecessary value units `px` and `em` on null values there. Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. hope i did that correctly, as i don't have a screenreader to confirm. please let me know if otherwise. i've left the extra "px" and "em" in there because a similar change had been made before but there was a reason to revert it. please let me know if the removal of those units is necessary to make the table navigable for screenreaders. dying (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Appear to work either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

State of Indiana had it's first fatality related to COVID-19 today on 16 March, 2019.

https://www.wthr.com/article/gov-holcomb-announces-first-indiana-death-due-covid-19 2603:900A:1A0E:6600:8538:89A3:CB4A:A76D (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Cases in Thailand are now 177 with 41 recoveries

https://pr.moph.go.th/?url=pr/detail/2/04/139978/ Bennypc (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

28 new confirmed cases in Poland (total of 205)[6], +1 death[7] Natanieluz (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

Cases in Indonesia is now 172 and recoveries is now 9. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/17/15561291/jumlah-bertambah-38-total-pasien-positif-virus-corona-kini-172-kasus?page=2 https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/03/17/16382771/dari-total-172-kasus-corona-9-pasien-dinyatakan-sembuh?page=1 Goodboy121 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)