Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nucleosynth (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 19 March 2020 (→‎michigan 110 cases: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Split-off articles

Template:WPUS50

Trump Speech video

President Trump's speech on March 11, 2020.

Video is here if anyone could use it.

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

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

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

Trump

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

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

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

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

Lead improvements

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

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

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

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with criticism of the Trump administration in a number of sections, with much of the detail and cites in them outdated.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

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

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

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

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

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

This, copied and modified from the banner shell:
Split-off daughter articles
[list of notifications]
almost works. I can't get the color or centering.
—WWoods (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about just the collapse top and collapse bottom templates, like so:

"Split" templates

Template 1

Template 2

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Split" templates

Template 1

Template 2

Is still off on the bg color, and maybe the width. But maybe close enough?
—WWoods (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wwoods, I'm fine with you implementing what you think is best. Someone else can improve/update as needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I did that. The color isn't quite the same shade as the others, but darn if I can find the right one.
—WWoods (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wwoods, Works for me! Thanks for your work here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Map in infobox (number or rate)?

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

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

Company that benefits

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

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

Regarding splitting of content

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

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

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

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

Super Goku V, I am watching this discussion. There are currently pages for states with 20+ cases, most of which (if not all) I forked. The ones for less than 20 were created by others. I've been moving details over the state articles, regardless of author. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also keep in mind, even in some states with low case numbers there may be millions affected by economic downturns, cancelled events, school closures, etc. There may be plenty of coverage about the pandemic in specific U.S. states even with lesser confirmed cases. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is kinda why I am saying this now, though I only just realized how much of it was from one person. According to my stats, you have forked 12 of the 16 articles and have removed over 80,000 bytes from this article in the last 24 hours. Can I please ask you to consider waiting a bit longer? It helps make sure that they can stand on their own and helps reduce maintenance categories of which there are 22 in the 14 that have hidden categories. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Goku V, Sure, but I'd like to think most of the state articles demonstrate their value, especially now that editors have learned to update them instead of just this U.S. page. The way this whole thing's unfolding, I'm sure more state pages will be created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, maybe I am too worried and this article is shifting to the non-state government response and reaction to the government response. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still in favor of having an article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States by State where we can collect smaller states updates for now. --19:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Also see Category:2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States by state. X1\ (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kushner directly involved

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


Not much of a strategy... just greed. There is a controversy about Trump trying to buy some German company: CureVac! WELL, even this fiasco about delayed proper tests or tests that are unreliable all has to do with greed. Someone is trying to outdo the Germans since the current reliable tests by WHO use German technology. But with "America First" millions of test kits just cannot be German. America too. You need to note that if 180,000 positive coronavirus cases are picked up... there are millions upon millions of test performed since not all of us are infected (at least not yet). PROFITS!

... any investigative journalist to entertain this?

Appreciate the gravity of this: without proper testing, USA is flying blind! Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

minimal presidential leadership: Trump as Bystander; add?

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

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

and

  • Terry Gross (March 12, 2020). "Reporter: White House Knew Of Coronavirus' 'Major Threat,' But Response Fell Short". npr.org. Fresh Air

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

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

I don't think closing schools and restaurants are the responsibilities of the federal government.SunDawn (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But having a coordinated response to the pandemic is. If one school is open with students potentially sharing the virus (while the next is being more responsible in cutting classes) defeats the collective effort. So yes, it makes sense to have leadership and direction.
Just that creating such a different section is not necessary. There are sections already mentioning this poor leadership. Slot the contribution there. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a section you recommend, Rangoane Mogosoane? X1\ (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm!... there were sections mentioning the president stating how "the tests are beautiful" and also how he just did not want to hear about this coronavirus as the media is making it look worse than it really is... but all those have been removed. I wonder by who and why!
There is Controversy section at the bottom... I think slot it there. Hoping they do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoane Mogosoane (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Responses by the Federal Reserve

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

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

color coding

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

thanks

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

Miscount on March 14 timeline

The total deaths seem to have a math error in the second sentence: "Six additional deaths were reported by state health departments: three in Washington, one in Florida, and one in Louisiana."

That should be 5, not 6, based on the individual state numbers. Changing it to 5 also agrees with the number 7 in the fourth sentence when the two from New York and New Jersey are added. Msigmond (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

The Timeline section is become cluttered with randomly listed state measures, which don't provide much general information except maybe suggesting the scope of the response. I think it would make sense to migrate most of this information – except perhaps first-in-the-country or measures affecting large populations (the biggest states) – to U.S. state and local government response to 2020 coronavirus pandemic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case timeline chart shows deaths and total cases, but should it also show recoveries, since that information is also known? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4100:20C0:7554:626A:7160:E74A (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better source for statistics

We need to find a better source for number of cases, recoveries and deaths because JHU has been unreliable about it at best and the recovery numbers are probably higher than what it is showing. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://ncov2019.live/data is an aggregator of publicly available data, but as an amateur project it may not be reliable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been lots of discussion on not using sources that are self-published (https://ncov2019.live/data) or where we are not able to match sources with numbers (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). This is not a ding on those sources. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ is one of the better ones that I have seen and is well-established for world statistics. But we can't link sources to numbers; just try for any one date and you'll see what I mean. Some sources there, not all, and some sources are news reports not government numbers. Seatto23 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The state tables (bottom of page for cases and death) are the most official set of numbers that we have besides the CDC. This is what the individual state health departments are releasing. However, no one is reporting recoveries. That data simply doesn't exist yet--based on what state health departments are reporting. Seatto23 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think CDC should add recoveries on their statistics just to attempt to reassure people to be honest. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For cases in the US, recovery figures are not reassuring because most (surviving) patients are still sick. Only cases from a month ago (or more) who are fully asymptomatic now are likely to be classified as "recovered". This is why China reports almost 85% recovery, but the US is at only seventeen (which rounds to 0%). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic error in case count chart?

Based on the delta, 504 cases were added today, 16 March 2020. The total has 3 extra cases included. Only on the last day. Is the new case count for today correct? Or is the cumulative total correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E2A6:FB:F9FE:CD99:7EE7:8019 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statewide counts table

Should this page have a table similar to the main coronavirus pandemic page but instead of showing countrywide totals its for the states? That might be a good idea. ArmageddonAviation (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this idea. I believe most (if not all) states have a tally online. I could help to implement this. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here is the table on the main page Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, isn't there already one in the last-ish section? Rcul4u998 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye -- it looks like it. I'm working on a template now, based off of the country-by-country one. I'll share more soon. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go -- Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/U.S. cases by state. I updated the page with this template. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

already mentioned on (state) page

Hey, Another Believer, you seem to be saying that anything that is worth mentioning on the state page is not worth mentioning on this page? --valereee (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I think our goal should be to add state details to state articles, for sure. This article should be a summary of info pertaining to the nation as a whole, with overviews of major developments about specific states. I do apologize if I'm being too restrictive, I'm just working hard to try to sort the many claims being added to so many articles rapidly. I am fine with reverts, and I mean no offense. Just trying to reduce redundancies and encourage the fleshing out of state articles when possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, no worries, just wanting to make sure we're on the same...er, page. :) I think some stuff on the state pages is worth including in the overall article, but probably only the more important things. The problem is that we can't know what's going to be crucial and what's going to be trivial. For instance, I've been adding to the Ohio page a lot of stuff about Ohio closing stuff down WAY earlier than most other states did; will Ohio end up looking like it was really smart or like it totally overreacted? Who knows?  :) --valereee (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Update

As of March 16, 2020, NASCAR has announced that they are postponing all events until May 3, 2020, in alignment of CDC Guidance. I know this is for another article/page, but can it be added to this page as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_on_sports [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2020/03/16/nascar-schedule-update-statement-race-coronavirus/
NASCAR is already mentioned in the "Other leagues and sports" section. I added your update to that same section. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US no longer seem to report cases to the WHO

The WHO data contain no case numbers for the US after March 14: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd. Do the US no longer report new cases to the WHO? Other countries are up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:970C:1854:FD1A:1E0D:B2AF:B30F (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the US data is not updated, there is no factual evidence that US is not reporting to WHO. SunDawn (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump’s advisers admit some of failures, add?

Trump’s own advisers acknowledged to NBC News that the failure to focus on widespread testing was a major misstep

X1\ (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Area Closures

Several news articles recently have been talking about all schools, restaurants, and bars (except for those with takeout or delivery) to be closed in the tri-state area. New Jersey is sending in the national guard and is calling for a voluntary curfew from 8 PM to 5 AM. Can someone add these details to the article if possible? MJVAccount (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the following states have issued orders closing bars & restaurants. This is not a complete list, but no one source lists every state. (Source follows)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Axios
  2. ^ Fox 31 News
  3. ^ a b c d MSN
  4. ^ a b c d e The Hill Cite error: The named reference "Hill" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ MNPR
  6. ^ The State
  7. ^ USNews & World Report
---llywrch (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government response — Preparedness

In May 2018, the Trump administration disbanded the National Security Council directorate for global health security and biodefense.[1]

References

  1. ^ Riechmann, Deb (March 14, 2020). "Trump disbanded NSC pandemic unit that experts had praised". AP.

This add was deleted with the source of following suggested addition in comments:

Former presidential advisor Tim Morrison claimed in March 2020 that, amid a shrinking of the NSC, the office had been consolidated with two other offices into the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate which he had headed.[1]

References

  1. ^ Tim Morrison (16 March 2020). "No, the White House didn't 'dissolve' its pandemic response office. I was there". Washington Post.

I re-added it for now, pending discussion here. Wakari07 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above text by Wakari07 ("Former presidential advisor Tim Morrison claimed in March 2020 that, amid a shrinking of the NSC, the office had been consolidated with two other offices into the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate which he had headed") accurately represents the source cited (Tim Morrison's op-ed); the current Wikipedia text
Tim Morrison, a presidential advisor to Trump in 2019, responded to deny press reports that the staff had been dissolved; he stated that, while National Security Staff had been reduced after it quadrupled during the previous administration, biodefense staff – and the important mission it represents – remained unaffected.
does not. It's clear that the biodefense staff was not "unaffected" - their numbers were reduced and their stand-alone directorate was eliminated, with its functions being combined into a different, multi-purpose directorate. The current text implies a direct contradiction between the AP report and Morrison's op-ed, when in fact they don't contradict each other. I hope someone substitutes Wakari07's text (above), or something equivalent, for the current inaccurate text. 68.9.181.144 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases in the US by state template total

Currently the template's cases do not add up to the total at the top (3487, the official CDC number). Should the total be the official CDC count and mismatch the rest of the template or should it be the total of every state's cases? This would bring the total to above 4200. BloopyBloop (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this discussion to the template talk page and discuss there Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

In the "Controversies" section, either add note that the alleged attempt by President Trump to purchase exclusive rights to a coronavirus vaccine has been denied by both the Trump administration and the German biotech company developing the vaccine, or delete the false allegation.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/03/16/german-company-curevac-says-no-offer-trump-coronavirus-vaccine/5062072002/ 198.47.204.197 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. There is no source in the original article. All parties involved deny the story.

'CureVac doesn’t know the origin of the rumors, which were first published over the weekend in Germany’s Welt am Sonntag newspaper, acting Chief Executive Officer Franz-Werner Haas said on a call with reporters.

“There was and there is no takeover offer from the White House or governmental authorities related to the technology, nor to CureVac at all,” Haas said. “That’s it.”' https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/news/curevac-denies-reports-that-us-government-tried-to-buy-it/ar-BB11jFSz 2601:243:1180:9660:4414:5D73:AE97:6D14 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be worth including, even if it was ultimately false. I added a sentence that mentions CureVac's latest response. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see alsos in timeline months

Hey, Another Believer, March would be very unwieldy if we listed every state that has a significant outbreak, and April would probably be ridiculous. Maybe we should list these in a See also subsection instead? --valereee (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the table that shows number infected per state?

Why remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificaldan (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a table has been removed... There was a smaller one that was updated to a better format and then the super huge per-day one that just defaults to being minimized. Rcul4u998 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table has been removed (Diff). It's unfortunate. Can someone put it back? Coldcreation (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was my edit -- I moved it to this template, which is currently holding that data. It is currently in the "Current number of non-repatriated cases by state" section. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to the daily totals template

This article is semi-protected, but the daily-totals template itself is not, and there's not a lot of activity on its talk page. As I type, this edit is most recent. Earlier today I asked the user, on their talk page, to explain a similar suspiciously large increase, but got no response. These could be good-faith edits from some obscure source I don't know about, but if it's vandalism it's a pretty nasty variety. --Amcbride (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in the United States (Density).svg should be modified to use a text editor editable format.

At the current time, it seems the only way of updating the colors is with Inkscape. Master of Time (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-expand include size exceeded

This article is currently at 2,097,149/2,097,152 bytes, or 99.999% of the post-expand include size, as determined by Wikipedia's technical limits. The templates at the bottom of the article are breaking. Please keep this in mind when adding to the article in the future. Mgasparin (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously guys, try to trim the number of citations/transcluded elements in the article. References 956–973 have stopped working. Mgasparin (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think we should work to move claims specific to U.S. states to their respective Wikipedia articles. The Timeline section doesn't need to be a collection of claims about states. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 5th row missing from deaths table

I noticed that the March 5th row missing from "Deaths from non-repatriated COVID-19 cases in the US by state" table. Vandalism? Baltakatei 23:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Has Its First Case

[3] - WV just confirmed its first case. FYI. If someone could update the graphic and article info. -- Veggies (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aware of this for some time now but am unable to update it because it is an Inkscape SVG rather than a text editor SVG. Hence my section above. Master of Time (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining cases—original research?

Washington state for example does not list number of recovered cases on its official website. [4] Number we are listing has stuck at 1 for weeks. For any information on recovered and remaining cases, where is this info coming from? buidhe 01:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

impact on employment, add?

18% of Americans reported that they had been laid off or that their work hours had been cut because of the coronavirus pandemic.

56% of Americans considered the coronavirus outbreak a “real threat,” while 38% said it was “blown out of proportion.”

X1\ (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between being "laid off" and having hours cut in the middle of a global plague. -- Veggies (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you contributing to the conversation, Veggies? X1\ (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides my charming personality? Just a common-sense note that grouping "laid off" with "hours cut" is an unwise, undefined, and overly broad category. I wouldn't bother adding the assertion with a quantifiable statistic to the article. -- Veggies (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they are grouped in the ref and in the edit, I don't see the problem. Broad yes, but economically significant. 18% is a large number even if it were just hours cut. X1\ (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could give someone the erroneous impression that 18% of the US workforce has been laid off (i.e. that we've begun the worst economic depression in 90 years). Unless the source breaks it down by category, my recommendation would be to avoid this. -- Veggies (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the concern, how about 18% of Americans reported that their work hours had been cut or that they had been laid off because of the coronavirus pandemic.? X1\ (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another: 18% of Americans have experienced layoffs and reduced hours due to the coronavirus pandemic. Of those affected, a quarter of households making less than $50,000 had experienced cut hours or a job loss.

Maybe to Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic?

X1\ (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the people keeping this article up to date

Thank you to the 926 editors who have worked on this vital article (so far). There's been nothing like this in any of our lifetimes. This article has been edited 4,240 times, with 1.2 million views. You are doing a wonderful service to humanity, and we owe you a huge debt of gratitude. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Wikipedia editors are amazing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split article suggestion: Economic impact of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States

Would it make sense to have a sub-article with the title above or something similar?Farcaster (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is increasingly likely as this article grows in size. X1\ (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. X1\ (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White House Coronavirus Task Force initiated.

Information of this group should be added to the article. Date started January 29, 2020. Daily press briefings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1103:C271:A1D3:78F8:D6E1:716 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See White House Coronavirus Task Force article. X1\ (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration statements

Any particular guidelines on this section? Right now all of it are just Trump's controversial statements even though he made statements almost daily during the crisis. I can add his less controversial but still pertinent comments, but it will increase the size of the wiki page and other sections may also have covered it.

The other option would be to shift this to "Controversy" section.SunDawn (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why add banal statements? X1\ (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because the section said "Trump statements". Whether a statement is interesting or banal, that is highly subjective. If his statement is pertinent to the pandemic, that should be in the section. SunDawn (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And significantly, the article should try to provide a summary of the topic it is about, which it does not do now. It appears that "banal" information isn't making it into this article at all. I have been able to correct only a small bit so far, where surprisingly basic information has been left out,[5] but the overall effect of significant missing and misrepresented content here seems to be an article less about the medical situation in the United States, and more about characterizations of politicians. I understand that editors typically contribute only in their area of interest, and perhaps no one has been interested in presenting information about the status of the public health emergency, but some balance here needs to be struck. Right now, this article is not in a helpful state to provide information to our readers, and is focused instead on characterizing politicians. More medical fact, less political characterization would help towards NPOVing this article, which is in its current state POV.
I support User:SunDawn's proposal and extend it to say that a good deal of the content here might be moved to a "Controversy" section, so that a focus on the needed content can be developed and maintained with a better article organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism: International with (one of) the lowest number of tests per 100,000 inhabitants in a country comparison

I watched a report on Servus-TV (Austian Television) about tests per 100,000 inhabitants in an international comparison.

I remembered a few numbers:

Ranking:

  1. South Korea with 400 + x tests per 100,000 inhabitants
  2. China with 200 + x tests per 100,000 inhabitants
...
...
?!? USA with 8 tests per 100,000 inhabitants.

Then the television-report mentioned that the United States is now ordering test kits from Roche that can be used to perform 4000 tests (all at once / per day?!).

Perhaps a little late and an aspect for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States#Criticism ???

This ensures a high number of unreported cases and no tracing of the infection chains, because small test numbers have a significant impact on the higher unreported cases.

The differences in the tests between the countries are definitely huge.

Greetings Triplec85 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This seems like a legitimate and common criticism, even when considering WP:NPV. The New York Times published an article about this on March 17. This very popular March 10 Medium article also makes this criticism of the US response. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Medium.com is not a reliable source for this purpose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DER SPIEGEL, a reliable source in Germany, reported: Was die Welt von Südkorea lernen kann = What the world can learn from South Korea.
A comparison by the University of Oxford shows that South Korea is far ahead of other countries. South Korea had already carried out 210,144 tests on March 10, compared to 60,761 in Italy, 26,261 in Great Britain and only 8554 in the USA.
The low number of tests in the United States surprised me when I read the article because there are many more people living there than in the smaller states where much more testing was done.
And DER SPIEGEL also reported:
An average of 12,000 people are tested on Covid-19 in South Korea every day.
The tests there in a single day is more than all of the tests in the United States combined at March 10. At this point, however, there were already many infected people in the USA. The few tests at March 10 are precarious because the infection chains cannot be traced.
Greets from Germany... ...and sorry for possible grammatical mistakes. I just noticed another potential criticism in various media that I wanted to share with youTriplec85 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to start criticizing, IMO, whether enough weapons are being used while we're in the middle of a war. For some ongoing event like this, there's probably nothing easier to do than start armchair criticizing something or someone. And when it's done, it should come from reliable sources, not implied via charts and graphs.

In regards to testing and test kits, the rules and ability for testing varies for different countries. It's fine that S. Korea or China can quickly ramp up production of test kits, and allow anyone to be tested at any time. But it becomes another matter when countries with more advanced medical teams do not recommend testing unless there are clear symptoms first, as in the UK or U.S., per the CDC guidelines. In fact, allowing 200,000 S. Koreans to drive up and test before they had symptoms can be counterproductive, due to false positives and negatives. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sourcing problems

Besides not even remotely covering the territory the article should cover, this article has multiple problems with reliable sources, MEDRS sources, and source-to-text integrity, unattributed opinions, a few of which I have been able to correct, but there is too much to take on. As an example, there are multiple instances of google docs and tweets being used to source numbers of cases, and yet we have this: [6] Even governors can tweet incorrect information; this kind of information should be cited to better sources than a gov't official tweet or a google doc that can be manipulated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montana

Montana now has 11 Cases https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/montana-covid--cases-now-at-tested/article_7b6a2a18-7a6e-5fd8-af6f-aadbd873128c.html BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

The total number of cases for March 17 in the Timeline spreadsheet should be 1261 based on the individual state numbers entered. 2601:240:4980:24E0:F8D9:A89F:A244:63C5 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I took all the numbers for March 17 in the Timeline spreadsheet, imported them into Microsoft Excel and had it add them up and I got 1,284 which is what the table and graph currently shows. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases chart: please add the numerical history of total deaths

As has been done for the cases charts for Italy and UK, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/Italy_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946194252

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_Kingdom_medical_cases_chart&oldid=946201520

CountMacula (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CountMacula: If you are comfortable with editing templates {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases chart}} isn't extended-confirmed or semi-protected. Since this kind of thing has been done on other charts I don't think it would be controversial. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard 16: I can do it if I know where to get the data. I'm not familiar with the sources or the history though, so it might be better for someone else to take this on. If it's just filling in the blanks and calculating some daily growth rates, I could do it if someone provides the data source(s).CountMacula (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CountMacula: @Alucard 16: I just took care of it -- hopefully this is what you're looking for. Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Virus

Wonder how long it's been assumed for us to never leave the house  ? Keith Theakston (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-functional coronavirus pandemic template

At the very bottom of the page where the collapsible coronavirus pandemic template should appear, I see only the text "Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Is anyone else seeing this? I can't figure out what's going wrong here. Mark Taylor (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday it broke up, get fixed, and now broke again. SunDawn (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map colors / numbers

The colors on the map were recently changed (for the second time), resulting in many states having the same, indistinguishable light yellow shading. It really doesn't make sense for West Virginia, with only 1 case, to be the same color as Alabama, with nearly 50, in my opinion. Master of Time (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

michigan 110 cases

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2020/03/19/coronavirus-in-michigan-heres-where-we-stand-as-of-wednesday-night/ add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.95.133.169 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please see Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States cases by state Bluegreenmagenta (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. ␄ –Nucleosynth (t c) 03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&oldid=946271362"